Nerd Alert: Why You Should Invest in Attention

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Marketing Architects - "Nerd Alert: Why You Should Invest in Attention"

Episode Details:

• Title: Nerd Alert: Why You Should Invest in Attention
• Release Date: January 2, 2025
• Host/Author: Marketing Architects

---

Introduction to Attention Metrics

[00:00] Rob Demars:
"Nerd alert. Learning is important, right?"

[00:06] Alaina Jasper:
"Hello and welcome to The Marketing Architects, a research-first podcast dedicated to answering your toughest marketing questions."

In this episode, hosts Alaina Jasper and Rob Demars delve into the concept of attention metrics in marketing, exploring how focused consumer engagement with advertisements can influence profitability. Alaina sets the stage by introducing a research paper from Lumen and Ubiquity titled "Maximizing Profit Through Attention."

Defining Attention in Marketing

[00:39] Alaina Jasper:
"The attention metric they're focusing on here is attentive seconds per 1,000 impressions. That's essentially how long a viewer stays tuned in per 1,000 views."

The study defines attention as the amount of focused time a viewer spends actively engaging with an ad, measured in attentive seconds per thousand impressions (ASpT). This metric seeks to quantify the quality of engagement beyond mere impressions or clicks.

Correlation Between Attention and Profitability

[04:22] Alaina Jasper:
"According to this study, the data showed almost a perfect correlation between attention and incremental profit. So for all of our statisticians out there, we're talking about a 98% correlation."

The core finding of the study reveals a 98% correlation between the attention an ad receives and the incremental profit it generates. Alaina emphasizes the rarity and significance of such a high correlation in marketing research.

Skepticism and Debate

[03:09] Rob Demars:
"I don't think that attention correlates to sales. I mean, if I lit a billboard on fire during rush hour traffic, it's going to get a lot of attention. But it doesn't mean that people are going to buy that product."

Rob voices skepticism, arguing that attention alone does not guarantee sales. He uses the analogy of a flashy billboard tactic that garners attention but fails to convert views into purchases, highlighting the importance of the persuasion element in advertising.

[07:52] Rob Demars:
"I think that. Of course, it makes sense that if ads are driving a ton of attention, that they're primed to do some good advertising, but I just don't think that it's the only factor."

Despite acknowledging that attention is necessary, Rob maintains that it is not sufficient on its own to drive profitability. He stresses the need for compelling content that persuades the audience beyond merely capturing their attention.

Media Channels and Attention Levels

[04:44] Alaina Jasper:
"Cinema ads unsurprisingly had the highest attentive seconds and generated the most incremental profit, around 102 pounds for every thousand impressions."

The discussion transitions to various media channels and their effectiveness in generating attention and profit:

• Cinema Ads:
  Highest attention with 102 pounds incremental profit per thousand impressions. The immersive environment of cinemas contributes to prolonged viewer engagement.

• Television Ads:
  Strong attention with 48 pounds per thousand impressions. While not as high as cinema, TV remains a significant medium for brand recall and engagement.

• Online Display Ads:
  Lowest attention and profit, generating only 3 pounds per thousand impressions. The fleeting nature of digital ads often results in low engagement levels.

[05:00] Rob Demars:
"And I would say I think podcasting, because people are passionate about the long form content and they are going to follow along with the host..."

Rob suggests podcasting as another channel that may drive high attention due to its long-form, engaging content, though Alaina notes that specific data on podcasts was not detailed in the study.

Cost Efficiency and Attention Balance

[06:00] Alaina Jasper:
"The study introduced a metric called the cost per thousand attentive seconds, which factors in both the ad's cost and the attention it receives."

Alaina introduces the concept of Cost per Thousand Attentive Seconds (CPAS), which balances the cost of advertising across different media channels against the attention they garner. The findings indicate:

• Cinema and TV:
  High costs aligned with high attention, ensuring expected returns for fairly priced channels.

• Online Video:
  Offers a better cost-attention balance, suggesting it may be undervalued relative to the attention it drives, presenting potential opportunities for marketers.

Strategic Takeaways for Marketers

[06:40] Alaina Jasper:
"Traditionally, we focused on reach and frequency as the benchmarks of media planning. But according to the study, not all reach is equal."

Key insights for marketing strategies include:

1. Quality Over Quantity:
   Prioritize channels that deliver higher attention rather than merely maximizing reach and frequency.

2. Cost-Attention Balance:
   Evaluate media channels based on their CPAS to optimize ROI, even if they aren't the cheapest options available.

3. Holistic Approach:
   Combine attention metrics with persuasive content to ensure that captured attention translates into sales and profitability.

Real-World Applications and Examples

[10:25] Rob Demars:
"More often than not, you hear, yeah, that actually didn't work. But sure, we got a lot of headlines from it."

Rob cites the example of Snoop Dogg's Solo Stove campaign, which went viral and garnered massive attention but failed to impact sales as intended. This underscores the necessity of aligning attention with effective marketing strategies that drive tangible results.

Final Thoughts: Balancing Attention and Persuasion

[09:19] Rob Demars:
"I think we're probably in violent agreement on this one. I'm just saying our job isn't done just by getting attention. We also have to persuade."

Both hosts agree that while attention is crucial, it must be coupled with persuasive marketing to achieve meaningful profitability. They emphasize the importance of understanding the audience, delivering relevant messages, and ensuring that high-attention ads also effectively drive consumer actions.

[12:07] Alaina Jasper:
"There's just no substitute for good marketing. Just understanding your audience, what they want, what they need."

Conclusion

In "Nerd Alert: Why You Should Invest in Attention," The Marketing Architects explore the intricate relationship between attention metrics and profitability. While the study by Lumen and Ubiquity presents compelling evidence of a strong correlation between attention and incremental profit, hosts Alaina Jasper and Rob Demars highlight the importance of integrating these metrics with persuasive marketing strategies. The episode advocates for a balanced approach that considers both the quality of attention and the effectiveness of the advertising content to optimize marketing ROI.

Notable Quote:

[04:22] Alaina Jasper:
"The data showed almost a perfect correlation between attention and incremental profit. So for all of our statisticians out there, we're talking about a 98% correlation."

---

Connect with The Marketing Architects:

• LinkedIn: Marketing Architects
• Reviews: If you enjoyed the podcast, please leave us a review!

Produced by: Taylor De Los Reyes

Now go forth and build great marketing!

Transcript

[Rob Demars]

Nerd alert. Learning is important, right?

[Alaina Jasper]

Yes, exactly. But a bunch of nerds.

[Rob Demars]

Nerd alert, Right?

[Alaina Jasper]

Marketing Architects. Hello and welcome to the Marketing Architects, a research first podcast dedicated to answering your toughest marketing questions. I'm Alaina Jasper. I run the marketing team here at Marketing Architects. And I'm joined by my co host, Rob demars, the chief product architect of misfits and machines. Hello, hello, hello. We are back with your weekly nerd alert. Every week, I'll take a deep dive into academic marketing research and translate its complex ideas into simple, understandable language for Rob and of course, for all of you. Are you ready to nerd out, Rob?

[Rob Demars]

Yes, ma'am. Let's do this.

[Alaina Jasper]

All right, let's get into it. As always, we'll link the research we cover in the episode notes. This week, I read a research paper from Lumen and Ubiquity titled maximizing profit through attention. And in the study, attention is defined as the amount of focused time a viewer spends actively engaging with an ad, which is measured in attentive seconds per thousand impressions. But before we get into the details, Rob, we've talked a lot about attention before on the show, but that was a while ago and there's been a lot of progress and research on this, which is like a new and growing field that's been published since then. So what do you think about attention metrics and how much attention should marketers put on them?

[Rob Demars]

I heard that. I saw what you did there, Elena. God, this is such a tough topic. I think that attention metrics tend to be linked with quality. So if someone's actually watching the video and are they watching it all the way through? And that's important when your, your particular campaign is linked to things like brand recall. But I think it's also, you know, continue to be debated on how much do attention metrics actually relate to sales in the bottom line.

[Alaina Jasper]

We are going to cover that today. So that's what this study's trying to do because I think that attention, it's been kind of a hot topic, but people are sort of wondering, like, what do I do with this? Like, how do I measure it? What do I do with it? And this caught my eye because anytime there's research around, like benefits TV advertising, I'm interested in it. Okay, I'll admit that I work at a TV agency and attention metrics love TV. I've shared this chart before on my LinkedIn. But broadcast TV, it drives more attention than pretty much like all other marketing channels like digital, social combined, which it's Just I gotta share that chart again because it's just unbelievable. So that's how I got interested in it. But even if you're not on tv, I think you're going to find this interesting. So Ubiquiti and Lumen, they teamed up to look at how the amount of attention an ad received correlates to actual profit. Not just clicks or conversions, but profit. And to start, they wanted to understand whether there's a direct connection between how long people pay attention to an ad and the profitability that ad generates. So the attention metric they're focusing on here is what I talked about before. Attentive seconds per 1,000 impressions. That's essentially how long a viewer stays tuned in per 1,000 views. And it turns out that there is a clear and strong link between that and profitability. So Rob, take a guess. How close do you think the correlation is between how much an attention an ad earns and the incremental profit it drives?

[Rob Demars]

See, I don't think that attention correlates to sales. I mean, if I lit a billboard on fire during rush hour traffic, it's going to get a lot of attention. But it doesn't mean that people are going to buy that product. You know, I think we. There's still the persuasion element. Damn it. When it comes to advertising. Darn it.

[Alaina Jasper]

Well, okay, well the persuasion, like you could argue that maybe persuasion in ad formats that let you pay more attention, you have the possibility for more persuasion.

[Rob Demars]

It's certainly the front door. If you don't have someone's attention, then you're not going to be able to persuade them. But that doesn't mean it's going to work just because you get someone's attention. I guess it's more where I was going with it.

[Alaina Jasper]

Well, I tried to help you out because you're wrong.

[Rob Demars]

I don't think I'm wrong on this one.

[Alaina Jasper]

You don't think you disagree with them?

[Rob Demars]

I'm passionate. I'm passionate about this one. Well, so hear me. Give me the research. Give me the research.

[Alaina Jasper]

This is why we do this. I'll walk you through it. But I should say that this is the type of study that people like Byron Sharp don't like because it's funded by vendors.

[Rob Demars]

With Byron on this one, of course.

[Alaina Jasper]

That's cuz he agrees with you. That's cause he'd agree with you. Let's talk about it. Because let, let's talk about it and then you can talk.

[Rob Demars]

All right, let's talk about it.

[Alaina Jasper]

So according to this study, the data showed almost a perfect correlation between attention and incremental profit. So for all of our statisticians out there, we're talking about a 98% correlation. That's rare in research. And it means it's very likely that these two factors are in sync. And it's very likely that Rob is very wrong about very likely.

[Rob Demars]

It was funded by a source. Yep, Keep Rob.

[Alaina Jasper]

This benefits tv. So come on, stop questioning. But what does this mean for your different media channels? Let's talk about that, Rob. Let's see if you can get this one. What channels do you think drive the highest attention from consumers?

[Rob Demars]

We already said television, so that I.

[Alaina Jasper]

Gave you that one.

[Rob Demars]

And I would say I think podcasting, because people are passionate about the long form content and they are going to follow along with the host and then probably anything with an addictive scroll.

[Alaina Jasper]

I actually, I don't know the answer for podcasts. I'm sure that's in there. I don't remember what it said, but I can compare a few of them here. So some channels obviously deliver much higher levels of attention. You're thinking through that there. Think about going to the movies. You're in a dark theater with surround sound and a big screen. You're more or less locked into the experience. Which is why cinema ads, unsurprisingly, had the highest attentive seconds and generated the most incremental profit, around 102 pounds for every thousand impressions. So TV ads, they delivered strong attention, but not quite on cinema's level. So they clocked in at about 48 pounds per 1,000 impressions. And what about digital? Well, no surprise, online display ads scored pretty poorly on attention. They rarely hold our focus for long, and according to the study, they drive the least profit, just around 3 pounds per 1,000 impressions. So the relationship seems pretty straightforward. The more engaged people are with the medium, the more profit it can potentially generate. But here's where things get a little more complex. So naturally, the cost to run ads across different media channels vary. So cinema is expensive, as is tv, unless you work with marketing architects. While online display is cheap. This difference not an ad, Elena, this is not an advertisement. Hey, people get all this great content for free. We could put in a tiny little plug. Marketing architects. So the difference in cost is somewhat kind of pricing and attention, they think so high attention media tends to cost more to advertise. However, they also yield better results. So the study introduced a metric called the cost per thousand attentive seconds, which factors in both the ad's cost and the attention it receives. Surprisingly, not all media is priced according to the amount of attention it delivers. So cinema and tv, they have high attention costs, and that aligns with the returns you might expect. But other channels, like online video, sometimes provide a good balance between attention and cost, meaning they're undervalued relative to the attention they drive. So there could be some deals here for marketers. And here's the takeaway. Traditionally, we focused on reach and frequency as the benchmarks of media planning. You want to get your message to as many people as possible as often as possible at the lowest cost. But according to the study, not all reach is equal. Media planners and brands that rely only on reach without considering the quality of attention might be missing a big opportunity to increase profits. So brands that want to optimize their ROI could benefit from choosing channels that bring the best cost, attention balance, even if those channels don't seem the cheapest on the surface. And now for a Rob GPT. This study is like a spotlight at a concert, showing that the longer you get people's attention focused on you, the bigger the encore or profit you'll get. All right, Rob, did that change your mind at all or are you still skeptical?

[Rob Demars]

I think the Rob GPT that I would redo is. I disagree. That would be the Rob. No, I just. I look it. I think that it. Of course, it makes sense that if ads are driving a ton of attention, that they're primed to do some good advertising, but I just don't think that it's the only factor. I think it's like the peanut butter and the jelly that when they come together, you've got magic, but by themselves, you know, it's like the super bowl, right? We've so much attention is drawn to those ads, but they are not necessarily the most persuasive pieces of advertising that have been done. And I think that's an old story to tell, but one that's pretty well worn.

[Alaina Jasper]

I'd argue with the super bowl, the attention is probably really high, but the cost is also really high, which is what they were kind of talking about at the end. Like, sure, it has to. The price you pay for attention matters. And when is it worth it? I think that's why, like, our model on TV does so well, because we're really focused on bringing down the cost of TV for our clients, which helps because TV naturally is quite expensive and brands are probably asking, is it worth it? Yeah, I get more attention, but is the return worth it? But if you can bring the cost down or find bargains like they're saying, like, online video right now is a little bit of a bargain, at least in the uk. But I don't know, it makes logical sense to me that display ads don't have a lot of potential to drive profit for you because you aren't even always seeing them. And, like, you have to see it.

[Rob Demars]

You don't have to see it. I mean, that's just job one. Right. It's like you have to see the ad and you have to stay with it long enough, it has to be intriguing enough to keep you watching it and then ultimately come in there and be able to sell someone. So that's all. I think we're probably in violent agreement on this one. I'm just saying our job isn't done just by getting attention. We also have to persuade.

[Alaina Jasper]

I should also mention that they don't have a lot of data points here, so your skepticism is probably warranted. Like, they got to 98%. There needs to be more research done here. But it's kind of fun to talk about something that's. It is a little bit emerging.

[Rob Demars]

Absolutely.

[Alaina Jasper]

But, yeah, definitely, I think we've gotten better at when we review things on the show, like, having some level of skepticism. So I appreciate that. And also, you're right. It's not like putting a bad commercial on a channel with high attention is not a strategy. Like, attention is not the only thing that matters.

[Rob Demars]

Right, Right.

[Alaina Jasper]

With your advertising.

[Rob Demars]

I like my billboard analogy. I thought you'd like that. You know, you light billboard on fire in the middle of rush hour. I thought that was pretty good.

[Alaina Jasper]

Yeah.

[Rob Demars]

You're like, no, I actually didn't think it was accurate.

[Alaina Jasper]

No, no, no, I think so.

[Rob Demars]

But I guess just the point of, sure, you can definitely get someone's attention through a lot of different tactics is I think a lot of times you see cheap shots being taken by brands going, we use this particular outrageous tactic. It got so much attention or so much press. But then at the end of the day, did it actually lead to transformation in sales for that company? And I feel like more often than not, you hear, yeah, that actually didn't work. But sure, we got a lot of headlines from it.

[Alaina Jasper]

That's a great point. It makes me think of the, like, Snoop Dogg solo stove story.

[Rob Demars]

Yes.

[Alaina Jasper]

That went completely viral. It's actually. It's hilarious, their whole campaign idea. But they admitted later that it didn't impact the company in the way they wanted it to and someone ended up.

[Rob Demars]

Getting fired and it was borrowed interest. That didn't truly relate to A persuasive argument.

[Alaina Jasper]

That's. Yes, that's a really good point, Rob. There's just. There's no substitute for good marketing. Just, like, understanding your audience, what they want, what they need. Yeah, you could create content that's entertaining for people, but unless they connect your brand to, like, a problem that they have a job to be done, you're gonna have some trouble. And I think we've seen that, too, when we pretest spots for our advertisers. Like, sometimes what we can we put in a couple commercials and see, like, which is gonna perform the best. And sometimes it's a bummer what performs the best. You're like, oh, well, this ad is so fun. Like, they got dogs, they got cats. Like, it's so creative. There's glitter everywhere. Like, oh, why can't this one work? But really, like, the practical message about why this benefits you is actually going to drive a better response and better sales. So sometimes it'd be fun if the fun stuff won all the time.

[Rob Demars]

But that's why we, you know, go for the. And try to, you know, try to achieve for the. And love it.

[Alaina Jasper]

All right, that's it for this episode of the Marketing Architects. We'd like to thank Taylor De Los Reyes for producing the show. You can connect with us on LinkedIn and if you like the podcast, please leave us a review. Now go forth and build great marketing Marketing Architects.