One of my mentors in the business once described media as being the opportunity to engage. The key word to him was “opportunity”.
In his opinion, media was an opportunity and an opportunity only.
The actual engagement per opportunity was up to the creative itself.
The opportunity to engage is nothing more than the time bought by the media agency. The engagement per opportunity is the time spent by the viewer.
Today, the word being bandied about is Attentionomics - how much attention does an ad campaign garner? One way that attention can be measured is through time spent or view duration.
So a formula for Attentionomics could look something like this.
Time spent divided by time bought = attention earned.
(Attention earned can also be referred to as Return On Opportunity.)
Today, advertisers spend most of their time trying to improve how they buy time for their advertising rather than improving how much time is spent with their advertising.
Perhaps the question that advertisers should be asking their agencies is not just how many impressions did they get for their $10M buy. But rather, how much attention or involvement or engagement did that same $10M buy them?
After all, if I were an advertiser, would I rather know that my commercial was seen by 10 million? Or, that 56 hours were spent with my brand?
With the latter, I'm fairly certain that I’m going to get some sales.
I don't know if I can say the same for the former.