Sign up here |
|
|---|
On attention, arbitrage, and why the measurement-industrial complex keeps lying to itself.
Someone on your competitive set already knows this.
There's a systematic mispricing in digital media right now. Snap built its entire product around the thing that actually moves brand outcomes—attentive, interactive seconds with the next buying class—but the market still prices it like generic social inventory.
The spread between what Snap's attention is worth and what most buyers pay for it is real. Dentsu and Lumen have quantified it. The brands running experiments have seen it. The planners who've rebuilt their models around it are already reallocating.
The question is whether you're one of them, or whether you're the competitor they're outbidding on outcomes while you're still optimizing for impressions.
This isn't about "Snap has Gen Z." Everyone knows that. It's that Snap has concentrated, voluntary attention from Gen Z—the kind that actually shifts brand choice—and you can still buy it at prices set by the old impression economy. That gap doesn't stay open forever.
If your planning still treats Snap as undifferentiated social inventory, you're subsidizing the people who don't.
Why Snap's product architecture is the purest implementation of attention economics—and why that's invisible to standard measurement
What the Lumen and Dentsu research actually found about the attention gap between Snap's formats and everything else
How to name and exploit the arbitrage before the market corrects
Subscribe to our premium content at ADOTAT+ to read the rest.
Become a paying subscriber to get access to this post and other subscriber-only content.
Upgrade