Anyone who has spent too much of an evening trying to choose between entertainment options or ping-ponging back and forth between their TV screen and their phone while attempting to watch a new show or movie knows how many different forms of media are fighting for their attention.
Media businesses, creators, marketers, and brands have tracked this high-stakes competition for consumer attention but often equate it to a contest for consumption, comparing box scores of hours watched or eyeballs reached.
This focus on the quantity of time spent—or the size of audience—overlooks a more important issue: the quality of time spent. Not all consumer attention is created equal. Consumption and monetization vary widely across 20 major mediums in the attention economy, and differing levels of attention are a key reason for that variability.
New McKinsey research suggests that the media business has been missing the full story on consumer attention. Backed by an in-depth survey of 7,000 consumers worldwide—including 3,000 in the United States, which form the basis for this report—we have developed an “attention equation” that reveals the full drivers of attention value.1 Attention doesn’t simply equal the amount of time spent; it equals the amount of valuable time spent, driven by focus and intent. (For more about the research, including additional findings, see the appendix in the downloadable PDF.)
This new way of thinking about media monetization includes an assessment of what makes attention valuable, which media formats are most efficient at monetizing attention, how distinct consumer segments approach media consumption, and strategies and questions for media players to consider as they compete in the attention economy. (Use the interactive calculator to estimate the value of attention with differing mediums and other factors.)
The distracted state of consumer attention
The challenge of attracting and retaining consumer attention is a matter of supply and demand. The sheer volume and diversity of content available to audiences is greater than ever before. But the time that people have or are willing to devote to consuming those various forms and formats of media and entertainment, including video, audio, gaming, print, social platforms, and live events, is finite.
Over the past decade, the total number of hours each day that consumers watch, listen to, read, or otherwise interact with content has barely grown, increasing roughly 1 to 2 percent a year. At the same time, technological innovations in production and distribution, the rise of user-generated content, and the proliferation of premium content have created a dizzying array of choices. There are 50 times more amateur uploaders than professionals on Spotify, 25,000 times more hours of content produced last year on YouTube than on all traditional television networks and video streaming services, and every new television season and movie release competes for time on the same platforms that offer nearly every series and film that came before it.
Would you like to learn more about our Technology, Media & Telecommunications Practice?
There isn’t only more content to consume but also more devices to consume it on—often simultaneously. An overwhelming majority of media consumers, across generations (including almost two-thirds of baby boomers), now routinely browse the internet or apps while watching TV. New content increasingly is created to drive and cater to shorter attention spans, with programming executives reportedly telling writers that they should assume viewers will be accessing two screens at once. Media multitasking is so prevalent, both in professional and personal time, that Americans now spend, on average, roughly 13 hours a day engaging with media.2
Unsurprisingly, this explosion in content, platforms, and devices has fragmented consumers’ collective focus, making it only more difficult for companies to effectively monetize the public’s shifting engagement habits. Inflation-adjusted media revenue has remained relatively flat in recent years, as the growth in consumption across social media platforms, video streaming services, and digital audio hasn’t generated levels of consumer spending or profit that are comparable with cable television, legacy print publications, movie theaters, and physical media. Digital media tends to generate a smaller share of revenue and profit compared with its share of consumption (Exhibit 1).
Out of 20 primary media arenas we analyzed that are vying for consumers’ attention, the value of an hour of consumption ranged from highs of $33 per hour for live sports, $24 per hour for amusement parks, and $17 per hour for live concerts to lows of $0.12 per hour for digital music, $0.11 per hour for radio, and $0.05 per hour for podcasts (Exhibit 2). Notably, though social media and social video are among the fastest-growing arenas in terms of monetization (revenue per hour is projected to grow 10 and 7 percent annually, respectively, from 2024 to 2028), they currently fall squarely in the middle of the nonlive-media pack, garnering $0.25 per hour. By contrast, legacy-media formats such as print newspapers, magazines, and books, while declining in value, still generate the highest levels of monetization after live events and gaming, well ahead of their digital peers.
Sporting events, amusement parks, video games, and traditional linear video are the most effective monetizers of attention, generating the greatest revenue per hour relative to their levels of consumption (Exhibit 3). Media operators have invested heavily in the first three mediums, with new launches (such as Universal's Epic Universe) poised to benefit from highly efficient monetization.
While legacy media is retreating from the efficient monetization frontier,3 digital mediums are growing toward it. Although this monetization varies within mediums, the mediums across which an organization operates go a long way in determining how effectively that organization converts attention into revenue (and, ultimately, profit).
The missing piece of the attention equation
What accounts for such wide disparities in media monetization? Part of it stems from well-understood factors such as the underlying industry dynamics and content scarcity, the mix of consumer demographics, and the relative effectiveness of advertising across media. However, new McKinsey research shows that traditional commercial factors such as consumer value, platform sophistication, and industry structure—or what we call the “commercial quotient”—explain only about two-thirds of the variance in attention monetization. The other third is driven by the quality of consumers’ attention, or the “attention quotient,” a factor that hasn’t been front and center in most discussions about media monetization until now.
Based on our survey of 3,000 US consumers, we have developed an attention equation that combines these two quotients to measure the true value of time consumers spend with different media formats—and for the content and brands they engage with (Exhibit 4). In the process, it helps explain over three-fourths of the variability in monetization for different nonlive mediums.4
The attention quotient consists of two primary components: consumers’ level of focus, or how actively engaged they are with the content, and the job to be done, or why they are consuming the content.
Level of focus
Our research revealed several insights about where and how consumers’ focus differs across media:
- In-person experiences elicit the highest levels of focus, perhaps not surprising given the reaction the person sitting next to you in a movie theater might have if you started scrolling through video reels on your phone.
- Books (digital and physical) engage audiences to a comparable degree with live experiences (high focus: 81 percent versus 71 to 88 percent, respectively), far higher than other text-based content (62 percent for newspapers or magazines) and most other forms of entertainment.
- Console and PC gaming is the only digital medium that gets close to live levels of focus (high focus: 73 percent versus 71 to 88 percent, respectively), far higher than other forms of video-based content (the next highest is streaming video, at 57 percent).
- In the digital realm, communal experiences correlate with focus. Video games and streaming video are the most communal forms of digital media (about 40 percent of consumption time is spent with others), eliciting higher focus than more solitary activities such as social video or mobile gaming.
- Even within media formats, there can be a wide disparity in level of focus. For instance, higher focus in streaming video versus cable TV versus FAST TV5 versus social video. Also, different platforms elicit different levels of focus (some streamers, for example, inspire far more focused viewing than others).
- Younger consumers aren’t less attentive; they just pay attention to different mediums. Gen Z consumers and baby boomers report the same level of average focus, but it’s split across different mediums: Gen Z consumers are highly focused when playing video games, using the same level of focus boomers exert while reading a newspaper. The greatest disparity comes in attending live sports, with boomers being far more focused than Gen Zers (though Gen Z reports modestly more focus when watching live sports on television).
- Overall, the more focused consumers are, the more likely they are to spend. Across consumers, a 10 percent increase in average focus paid across mediums is associated with a 17 percent increase in spend across mediums. Consumers in the top quartile of focus spend twice as much as those in the bottom quartile.
The job to be done
The primary purpose, or job to be done, of media consumption typically falls into one of five categories. The following are the primary jobs to be done and the media types that fall into each category, listed from most to least valuable6:
- “To enjoy something that I love.” In-person experiences—including live concerts and music festivals, theme parks, sporting events, and movie theaters—dominate this category. Physical books and (to a far lesser extent) audiobooks are also consumed primarily for love, as are certain niche streaming services (such as those outside of the top seven streaming platforms, focused on a specific genre of content). Digital music is also consumed primarily for love, but it’s the rare medium that’s consumed almost as heavily for background ambience (34 percent consume for love versus 20 percent for background ambience; background ambience is second only to radio).
- “For education and information.” This is the primary job to be done for newspapers, magazines, and podcasts. Physical books, audiobooks, linear cable, and YouTube (but neither Instagram reels nor TikTok) overindex on this role.
- “For social connection.” This is the primary job of social media sites (Facebook more so than others). Social video (including Instagram reels and TikTok but not YouTube), live events, and video games overindex on this role.
- “For light entertainment and relaxation.” This is the primary job of cable television, video streaming, social video, and mobile and console gaming. Of that group, video streaming and console gaming are most likely to also be frequently consumed for love. The relative value of light entertainment is the same as that of social connection, meaning the attention equation predicts the same monetization value for each job.
- “For background ambience.” This is the primary role of radio, with digital music, podcasts, and cable television all overindexing as well.
Adding the attention quotient to traditional commercial drivers improves our ability to predict monetization per hour, and it provides valuable insights about why some mediums monetize better than others, alongside how monetization levels may change with time (Exhibit 5). For instance, an equation estimate of monetization that’s higher than its actual value (for streaming video, for example) may imply that the medium is undermonetized and that revenue can or will accelerate with respect to consumption.
Attention-driven customer segments: The three most valuable types of consumers
While the more standard practice of segmenting media consumers by demographics, income, spend, and consumption provides valuable insights into consumer behavior, the attention equation adds another important lens: the quality of consumers’ attention based on underlying attitudes and beliefs.7 This methodology characterizes consumers not by their time spent but by their commercial value and the value of their attention.
Based on a large, representative sample of the US population, our analysis identified seven customer segments. Of that sample, about 40 percent have high attention and commercial value and are defined by three distinct segments:
- “Content lovers,” the entertainment omnivores (13 percent of all consumers). Curious and passionate, they spend 2.4 times more money on content and consume 1.7 times more content than the average consumer. They’re the superfans, casting their consumption nets wide to see the movie franchise, watch the spin-off show, ride the themed roller coaster, and buy the items advertised each step of the way.
- “Interactivity enthusiasts,” the immersion seekers (16 percent). Competitive and lively, they love video games, sports, online betting, and comedy. They prefer endorsements to advertisements, overindex on preference for user-generated content, and spend a good amount of their time in online message boards such as Reddit. Although eager consumers, they find the modern media landscape confusing, difficult to navigate, and overly expensive.
- “Community trendsetters,” the culture creators (10 percent). Extroverted tastemakers, they seek out large communal events such as concerts, movies, and theme parks. They’re active on social media and drive online culture and fandom, often with outsize spending on their hobbies and interests. They enjoy advertisements more than any other segment, and when they’re not setting the cultural conversation, they’re shopping.
While content lovers are in a class of their own, interactivity enthusiasts and community trendsetters have similar commercial characteristics despite a significant gap in their attention value (Exhibit 6).
The remaining 60 percent of consumers are clustered in groups with lower attention value and lower intrinsic value and are defined by four distinct segments. Despite sharing a lower intrinsic value, these segments do have some disparity in their attention value, and there are significant differences and pockets of value—if you know where (and how) to look:
- “Digital traditionalists,” the tech-savvy legacy viewers (10 percent of all consumers), are older than members of other segments and open minded. They enjoy new forms of distribution but prefer professionally produced content over user-generated content. They love staying on trend and are deeply connected to their favorite brands.
- “Legacy holdouts,” the traditional media loyalists (29 percent), are older than members of other segments and wary of digital media. They represent the plurality of consumers who prefer traditional media such as cable TV, books, and newspapers. They find streaming services overwhelming, costly, and intrusive, and consider news essential.
- “Mobile scrollers,” the free-content browsers (11 percent), are digitally savvy and cost conscious. They use their phones for a variety of activities and enjoy the endless scroll not because they’re searching but because that’s how they prefer to consume digital content. For premium content, they opt for streaming services with larger libraries.
- “Thrifty thinkers,” the value-conscious knowledge seekers (11 percent), are inquisitive and risk averse. They love mentally stimulating mediums, such as online games and puzzles (as long as they’re not being tracked). Although they’re cautious spenders, they will splurge on cultural events (for example, Oscar-contending films and theatrical plays).
All these segments demonstrate different levels of attention and value, with uniquely valuable mediums emerging for each (Exhibit 7). Interestingly, there isn’t always a connection between sentiment toward advertisements and frequency of advertising-directed purchases: 45 percent of interactivity enthusiasts hate advertisements and will avoid them at all costs versus 5 percent of community trendsetters, but about 30 percent of both groups state that they purchase items from advertisements monthly or more frequently. Across segments, there is a wide spread of advertisement purchases: “legacy holdouts,” the largest consumer segment, are the least likely to purchase an item from an advertisement monthly, compared with content lovers, who are 12 times more likely to make an ad-driven purchase every month.
‘Super attention’ versus ‘super users’: Driving media spend
As with any media audience, each of the attention-driven consumer segments includes a select group of “super users,” whose outsize levels of consumption tend to make them disproportionately valuable to media companies. “Super consumption,” however, doesn’t always translate to “super spending,” and attention can help to explain the gap.
Consumption doesn’t equal spend
The most prolific consumers of media (by time spent) look different from the most prolific spenders on media (by dollars spent). Our research suggests that the top 10 percent of spenders (by dollars spent) make up almost 50 percent of consumer spend in media. The concentration of spend among heavy consumers of media (by time spent) is less stark: the top 10 percent of consumers of media only make up about 20 percent of spend. These super users aren’t necessarily “super spenders.”
We define a super user as being in the top decile of time spent on media, and only one-third of those users are super spenders (that is, those in the top decile of dollars spent on media).8 These figures are even more stark within individual mediums: of the top 10 percent of premium-video consumers (by hours consumed), only one-fifth are in the top 10 percent of premium-video spenders. Many high-volume consumers or self-professed streaming fanatics may have content running passively, reducing their potential value via direct spending, ad exposure, or the likelihood of spreading the word.9
Attention helps bridge the gap—focus correlates to spend
Across consumers, a 10 percent increase in average focus across mediums is associated with a 17 percent increase in spend across mediums. Consumers in the top quartile of focus spend twice as much as those in the bottom quartile. Put another way, the more attentive media consumers are, the more likely they are to spend.
Super spenders exist across the attention segments, but they are, not surprisingly, concentrated at the top. Forty percent of top-decile spenders are content lovers, and top spenders also overindex in interactivity enthusiasts and community trendsetters. While only about one-third of super users are super spenders, half of the content lovers who are super users are also super spenders (Exhibit 8).
How attention drives performance in streaming platforms
As powerful as attention can be for explaining the disparities in monetization between different media formats and different types of media consumers, it can also account for the gaps between different players within a given media format.
For example, subscriber lifetime value (LTV) for the top entertainment streaming services and bundles in the United States is highly correlated with consumer focus and the service’s job to be done; improving both has a direct impact on subscriber willingness to pay and churn rates. The streaming services (or bundles of multiple services) with the highest focus and the most valuable jobs to be done have the highest LTV, with LTV decreasing for lower-performing services (Exhibit 9).
Two streamers or streaming bundles rise to the top in this analysis: one eliciting deep focus, and the other driving more valuable jobs to be done (largely “to enjoy something that I love”). Both measures of attention drive value, resulting in the greatest LTV of subscribers.
Although correlation doesn’t imply causation (and, in some cases, the causal relationship may be inverted), several factors are correlated with higher attention quotients in streaming:
- Content volume. A larger volume of content (both in-year releases and library availability) is correlated with higher attention. The efficacy of a large library is likely driven by a streaming platform’s recommendation engine.
- Content demand. Relative demand for programming, as measured by the Parrot Analytics Demand Score,10 doesn’t correlate with attention: streaming platforms that have a higher percent of titles in the 75th, 90th, or 99th percentiles of demand don’t generate higher-quality attention. Rather, nominal demand correlates with attention: streaming platforms with more total titles in the 75th, 90th, and 99th percentiles generate higher-quality attention.
- Recommendation engine. Audience focus is highly correlated with the perceived effectiveness of a recommendation engine. A 1.1-percentage-point increase in recommendation effectiveness is associated with a 0.9-percentage-point increase in focus.
- Intellectual property. Platforms with more programming derived from major intellectual property are more likely to be consumed “to enjoy something that I love.”
- Genre mix. Sports and news are the only genres whose primary job to be done isn’t light entertainment: for sports, it’s “to enjoy something that I love,” and for news, it’s “to receive education and information.” Up to twice as many viewers are most focused when consuming sports and news than any other genre.
- Customer segment distribution. As expected, streamers who overindex in content lovers, interactivity enthusiasts, and community trendsetters have higher attention quotients and a higher LTV than those who underindex do.
- “Premium” nature. Subscription and ad-supported subscription services receive higher attention and more valuable jobs to be done than FAST TV, and services with a higher percentage of advertising subscribers compared with their peers receive a lower level of focus.
Key considerations for media stakeholders
Our research on consumer attention can help a wide range of participants from across the media landscape more effectively approach their biggest decisions and toughest pain points.
Advertisers
To date, the advertising industry has made significant investments in developing metrics that track consumers’ attention when engaging with an advertisement (for example, measuring eye movement, blink rate, biometrics, and direct actions with content, such as making a mouse movement). The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) and Media Rating Council (MRC) have established a set of standards in response to growing demand for attention measurement, but results have been mixed.11 The Advertising Research Foundation, for example, has found modest to minimal correlation between eye-tracking software and product sales.12
The attention equation shows that while focus is important, holistic attention goes beyond eye movement and blink rate and, at a minimum, includes the job to be done.
More closely aligned to the attention equation for advertising is resonance, as defined by advertising technology innovator Research Measurement Technologies.13 Early empirical results show that resonance can help boost ad performance: If an advertisement resonates with a consumer (for example, a consumer thinks, “This ad is meant for me”), and the context in which it’s placed makes sense (for example, a funny ad appears alongside a funny show), the ad has a better chance of driving sales compared with an ad that doesn’t resonate. Attention—as measured by focus and the job to be done at the medium and program levels—adds a new dimension to resonance and, in turn, presents a new challenge to marketers: Does your advertisement match the focus and intent of consumption, especially given the need to reach both lower-attention and higher-attention segments?
With that overarching question in mind, here are some key issues for advertisers to explore:
- Driving resonance by matching the level of focus and the job to be done of the consumption. What’s the potential path forward to identify customers in different attention and engagement modes in different contexts? How can advertisers tailor ads based on the job to be done (love, education, connection, et cetera) of each medium?
- Segmenting audiences by the most valuable blend of attention and commercial potential. How can advertisers segment consumers to include attention levels, ad receptivity, and consumption beliefs (for example, avidity of content lovers, immersion of interactivity enthusiasts) and personalize content accordingly?
- Taking advantage of underpriced attention opportunities. Are there pockets of media or specific platforms (for instance, mobile gaming and video streaming) where the value of attention is greater than the cost of advertising, and can this be supported by concrete attention equation metrics? Can the industry bring advertising to high-attention mediums, such as digital books and video games, without affecting the consumer experience?
Creators and distributors
Creators and distributors (for example, IP owners; film, TV, and live-event producers; musicians and authors; publishers and video platforms) face the same fundamental question: How do we produce and present content that effectively competes for consumers’ attention across a wide variety of media categories?
As the landscape becomes increasingly crowded and sophisticated, content creators and distributors have turned to tracking, research, and experimentation to find an answer. Metadata tagging provides companies with a deeper understanding of what’s created, complex algorithms better match consumers to content, and platform analytics deliver real-time insight into who consumers are and what they want.
The attention equation presents an additional factor to augment existing tools and help creators and distributors make more informed decisions. What follows are some key questions to consider when integrating attention into production, distribution, and investment decisions:
- Using attention to augment content strategy. Where does it make sense to be exceptional at a certain type of attention and job to be done or to build a portfolio that works to fill every consumer need? How can attention be factored into content creation, acquisition and recommendation models and capital allocation—and how can distributors measure performance by the quality of attention it attracts?
- Attracting the right blend of consumers and advertisers and programming for them appropriately. How can creators and distributors tailor content to existing attention segments while also attracting new ones? How can they bring in the right advertisers, where relevant? What additional distribution opportunities are undervalued when taking attention into account?
Building a future on attention
The competition for consumer attention has long been measured by the size of the audience and the amount of time spent. This view misses the full story. The attention equation helps clarify what the winners in that competition have intuited: Quality and relevance, not just quantity, of attention goes a long way in determining success. In a media environment defined by abundance, fragmentation, and distraction, valuable attention—driven by focus and intent—is the objective function.
The attention equation can help leaders measure their consumers’ attention more accurately so that they can more effectively match content to context, better understand their consumers, and invest in and monetize the most valuable attention for them. Media players have long approached consumers’ attention with too narrow a view; those that focus on its true value will be best positioned to win the attention of consumers for years to come.
Download the full report to view more about the research, including additional findings, in the appendix.
Related Articles
.jpg?cq=50&mw=767&car=16:9&cpy=Center)
Unlocking the next frontier of personalized marketing
