Big question
Can you show that someone paid attention, and that the advertising changed what they did?
The position
Use attention to diagnose creative and placement quality, not to buy. It is evidence about the exposure and not evidence about the outcome until you connect it to an experiment you ran yourself.
Why it is live
Delivery is counted and effect is not, so attention is being sold as the bridge between them. IAB and MRC guidance from November 2025 says attention complements rather than replaces exposure and outcome measures, and the ARF's phase 3 work in June 2026 found methods diverge on live campaigns and do not map simply to brand lift.
The case for attention as a currency
EvidencedIt measures something exposure counting misses, and there is now a published guideline that defines the terms.
The case against
ContestedVendor methods diverge on the same campaign, no platform publishes how many viewers survive each view threshold, and a dedicated search across twelve vendors publishing frequency research found no exposure distribution to check any of it against.
Where the weight sits
Against attention as a currency and for attention as a diagnostic. That is the settled reading today and it is the one the guidance itself takes.
What would change this
An accredited attention metric with a published method, or one advertiser publishing attention against an experimental outcome for the same set of campaigns.
Where this is taught
TV and Video
Sources
- IAB and MRC attention measurement guidelines, 11 Nov 2025secondary
- Advertising Research Foundation attention phase 3, 9 Jun 2026secondary