In our latest report, MAD//Fest has teamed up with Lumen Research to search for answers to five of the fiercest debates raging in the world of attention.

After years of growing interest, attention has become one of adland’s hottest topics. But if there’s one thing even hotter than attention, it’s arguments about attention.

From Professor Byron Sharp to Peter Field, and Dr. Karen Nelson-Field to Mark Ritson, everyone’s got an opinion. 

So, in the spirit of pouring petrol on an already blazing fire, our latest report with attention experts Lumen Research, The Attention Wars: 5 raging arguments shaping the future of advertising, looks to make sense on some of the most hotly debated issues.

Here’s a taster into one of those hot topics.

ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST: Attention is no better than viewability

Viewability has been one of the key indications of digital advertising quality over the last two decades. It’s a metric that measures how many ad impressions can actually be seen by a person on their screen – but crucially, it’s not a measure of how many people do look at the ad.  

Attention research suggests there is a big difference in effectiveness between an ad being viewable and an ad actually being viewed. Others dispute the validity of that claim, arguing that viewability is as good an indicator of effectiveness, if not better.  

So, is it true that good old fashioned viewability is all advertisers need? 

For: 

In the summer of 2024, Kroger Precision Marketing analysed the impact of DoubleVerify’s Authentic Attention product and could not find an uplift in clicks or sales driven by the ads that DoubleVerify claimed were ‘high attention’.

However, the analysis did find a positive correlation between viewability and sales.  

On publishing this research, Cara Pratt, Senior VIce-President at Kroger, branded attention a ‘modern vanity metric’.  

Against:  

Ask advertisers if they would like their ads to be actually looked at, and most would answer ‘yes’. And there’s good evidence to support the validity of that.

A massive analysis of hundreds of campaigns from three blue-chip advertisers in the UK, conducted by PwC, compared the click-through rate of ads that were merely viewable to those that were likely to be actually viewed. 

The result? A clear win for attention over viewability.

The Lumen verdict: 

Lumen, unsurprisingly, backs its own data. In fact, co-founder and CEO Mike Follett says: “Not all attention data is equal, so buyer beware. Lumen’s attention models are based on real human eye tracing data, collected from over 700,000 people across 37 countries. Maybe this is why our models work - and others are less successful.” Ouch.

To delve into the other big attention arguments, download The Attention Wars: 5 raging arguments shaping the future of advertising, and find out whether:

! The ad industry needs an attention standard

! Media is more important than creative in capturing attention

! Visual media is more important than audio-alone

! Attentive time doesn’t matter

To hear the big arguments on either side of these debates, alongside Lumen’s pull-no-punches verdict, download the FREE report today.