Semi-attached Attention
What can you do if you need to convince someone of something but you don’t have proper evidence? One simple way is to demonstrate something else to be true and then just pretend it’s the same thing.
In statistics, this trick is known as the ‘semi-attached figure’.
Simply pick a couple of things that sound kind of the same – though they aren’t (this is the important point) – and make a comparison between them to validate your conclusion.
An everyday example would be the number of reports that contrast hours spent TV viewing with hours spent on the internet, as though those activities were the same thing. There are a million and one things one could be doing on the internet versus pretty much one thing when watching TV.
One reputable market research firm recently tried to convince an audience I was in of the popularity of a particular on-demand TV channel.
‘Who is watching?’?they asked.?‘Well, 90% of viewers are aware of the service!”.
Sounds impressive; however, awareness of the existence of something is not the same as the usage of it. It has long been a common tactic of persuasion to cite information that initially seems to uphold an assertion but upon closer inspection is pretty much irrelevant to the actual claim.
This means stating one thing as proof for something else.
For example, if some report you read claims that ‘85% of CEOs think that AI will change the way their organisations do marketing by 2025”– what does that actually prove?
This implies that CEOs are some sort of authority on the application of AI technology.
Or marketing.
Imagine getting pitched by a security firm that claims there are a thousand times more cyber-attacks in 2023 than there were in 2005. This might even be kinda true. But the ability to detect cyber-attacks is also exponentially better than it was 18 years ago, so it’s entirely likely that more should be found.
There’s no shortage of reports showing the decline in advertising spend in printed news.
The implication is that advertisers should spend more on whatever the alternative is that’s being sold. Of course, the decline in advertising spend does not necessarily mean a decline in readership (although that is also probably true).
领英推荐
When dealing with any ‘evidence’ of this nature, ask yourself how the evidence specifically proves the claim and not something else purporting to be the claim.
Could there be alternative explanations that would make the claim false?
If the evidence isn’t necessarily relevant to the conclusion, then you are probably dealing with a semi-attached figure.
(Gibson's Law states that for every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD. So, anyone can find a subject-matter expert who supports their view because having a PhD doesn’t necessarily make someone right; it often just makes them more skilled at being wrong.)
Anyway, with that in mind, I've tried to condense my main scepticism towards some aspects of attention metrics into a chunk as short as possible, so here goes.
It’s another situation in which the claim cannot be proven, so the perpetrator pulls the old bait-and-switch, proves something else instead, and then pretends it is the same thing.
The tools of attention metrics; eye-tracking, gaze duration and STAS, quite possibly prove something.
But it’s nothing to do with attention. The tech measures something else, but they just pretend it’s the same thing.
Once you start off with that faulty premise, then you are free to go anywhere else you like and then just make up other ‘rules’ like 2.5 seconds of viewing results in memory 'encoding', which is just nonsense.
Memory is not like a video recording or storing files on a hard disc. Instead, when we remember something, our brain reconstructs the event fresh each time, stitching together fragments of information. It's more like ye olde BitTorrent in that respect.
Trust me; there is zero evidence out there linking eye gaze to predict attention or this so-called memory ‘encoding’.?I’ve talked to a number of neuroscience and psychology people, and they all agree it's over-simplified, conflation and verging on the BS. (No wonder some media agency types are grabbing it with both hands...)
In any case, memory?systems in humans and other animals have?evolved?to help retain survival and?fitness-related?information - geared toward helping an?organism?enhance its?reproductive?fitness and avoid threats. What is being looked at is a far greater predictor of attention than the looking, itself.
Attention happens in the mind and serves adaptive goals. Without addressing that, the attention metrics lobby is nowhere.
Associate Director at Lumen
11 个月Very long way of conflating measurement, attribution, and nomenclature.
Echoing Erez's comment about attention metrics as a proxy - I've been working on products in the space for almost a decade and can tell you without a doubt that properly used attention metrics can increase campaign performance by reducing waste from overpriced media that isn't paid attention to. Further, they can be used to properly price media that is paid attention to at varying degrees. Byron Sharp and Duane Varan have both raised the point that focus should be on an absence of attention, so maybe we are best off treating this as risk mitigation - rather than trying to measure or predict the duration of attention we should look to probability of attention. Plus, measuring duration of attention leads to optimization of duration which can create weird incentives around audience and creative.. eg old people and salacious creative. The 2.5 seconds stuff is embarrassing..
I agree that "Attention metrics" is not an accurate term, & while it has been a useful shorthand to get the industry to take notice, it's also led to fair skepticism & criticism by more discerning experts. I think the more accurate way to describe these media metrics (not to be conflated/confused with creative attention measures), often tied back to signals like time on screen, creative dimensions/share of screen, audibility, or on CTV ones like time of day, channel, ad pod, etc. would be to call them "proxies to likely potential attention", or even "placement quality." What do you think of those terms? Do these qualifiers add sufficient nuance to more properly describe what these metrics are indeed measuring? I don't think anybody could argue that those media metrics above are not indicators/predictors of quality/value, even if imperfect, so does it just come down to finding a more accurate name for them? If so, do "Media Quality" or "Impression Quality" do the trick? I've made an attempt to strawman some definitions, characteristics & principles around these terms here. Always open to and appreciate feedback from industry experts! https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/attention-impression-quality-iq-erezs-greatest-hits-erez-levin
Global Creative Services Director I Design Manager I Head of Packaging Design (Tesco and Winsor & Newton) I Agency Client Partner I Client Services Director
1 年THOM NOBLE
Managing Partner/Co-Founder at Holistic Analytics
1 年Glad I’m not the only one not on the Attention metric bandwagon