For instance, in the early-mid 1990s, the industry started getting hyper-concerned about who’s watching, and when, and how, and for how long. Given, the current technology — 10,000 set-top boxes — couldn’t provide for this. So they and others (anyone remember SMART?) were experimenting with things like advanced people tracking to sense motion in a room, track who was in the TV-room at the time and for how long.

Arbitron has been testing the Personal People Meter system in Philadelphia and Houston, in which a pager-like device will actually “listen” to the radio programming you’re exposed to (in the car, at work, in a bar) passively. In theory, it’s much more reliable than paper books, but it’s come with some criticism.

The reality is, the traditional media metrics systems aren’t perfect, but they’re the only game in town, so everyone must abide by them to make money. Nielsen, for all its critics, does a pretty good job to remain profitable.

At the moment, of course, I don’t. But I can also point out that while Nielsen, for example, can tell me how many people had their TV set on at a given time (or extrapolate that number from their selected audience), they can NOT tell me how many people actually watched.

And we all know that, as soon as that commercial comes on, people head for the bathroom and/or the kitchen, hoping to get back in time for the “real” program.

I think ADM will help come up with some meaningful standards. As you say, engagement is going to be the key – some more meaningful number or measurement than downloads.

Association for Downloadable Media: Adages, Ads and Analytics “The Advertiser wants to understand the level of Engagement that your audience has with your media because simply put, your audience will be more receptive to their marketing messages.” (…