Attention is the currency we crave, but how on earth do we measure it?

Attention has always been advertising's golden ticket-a conscious decision to focus on one thing at the expense of everything else.

In a world of endless scrolling and multi-screening, grabbing and holding that attention has become the ultimate challenge.

From the surveys of the Mad Men-era to today's eye-tracking tech, we've spent decades trying to quantify something as fleeting and subjective as human focus. Yet, the industry still doesn't have a standardised definition or method.

Is it enough for someone to see an ad?

Do they need to engage with it?

And how do you measure something as intangible as whether someone cares?

The result is a chaotic landscape of conflicting metrics and competing technologies. And in this Wild West of attention measurement, marketers are left wondering, are we even asking the right questions?

Most definitions boil attention down to a zero-sum game-if someone's looking at your ad, they're not looking at something else. But that's where the consensus ends.

Because, is attention a fleeting glance? A sustained focus? Or something more complex, like emotional resonance?

For decades, we defined attention through outdated proxies like TV ratings or click-through rates. But these metrics say more about reach than impact.

Today, with tools like biometric sensors and AI-driven eye tracking, we can pinpoint exactly where someone's gaze lands and for how long (freaky, huh?)

But realistically, they could just be zoning out and not paying attention at all.

The truth is that attention goes far beyond what people are looking at. It's more about what sticks. And until we nail down a universal definition, we're all just kind of guessing.

There's Adelaide, which scores ads based on "attention-adjusted" impressions. Then you have Lumen, which uses eye-tracking panels to predict attention outcomes. Then there's Amplified Intelligence, measuring active, passive, and non-attention states.

The problem? None of these systems are speaking the same language.

Without a standardised method, brands and agencies are left to navigate a minefield of conflicting data. An ad that scores high on one platform might bomb on another.

And let's not even get started on the lack of transparency around how these providers calculate their scores.

Imagine if the stock market didn't have a standard currency or exchange rate. That's essentially where we currently are with attention.

Without a universal benchmark, marketers can't accurately compare campaigns, channels, or platforms. And as ad budgets tighten, the need for clarity is more urgent than ever.

Standardisation obviously makes things easier for all of us, but it's also about accountability. If attention is the new currency, we need to ensure we're measuring it fairly and consistently.

Otherwise, we're just throwing darts in the dark.

We're in an age where attention spans are (allegedly) shrinking. So understanding what captures and holds focus is crucial for everything from advertising to education to politics.

But no matter how sophisticated our tools get, attention will always be inherently human and subjective.

Technology can measure where we look, but it can't measure what moves us. And as marketers, isn't that, like, the whole point?

The industry's rush to quantify and commodify it has left us with more questions than answers.

What we need now is not just better tools, but a better understanding of what attention really means.

Attention is a mindset, not just a metric. And the brands that truly understand it don't just focus on measuring it. They focus on earning it.