The fight for attention is over: Why I’m saying farewell to ads
For strategy director and co-founder at brand agency US+US, Jim Ritchie, advertising has become a source of underwhelming outcomes thanks to attention-poor audiences. He reckons there’s another way.
When we started US+US five years ago, I imagined a relationship-led, full-service creative company – a bit of brand, a bit of design, a bit of advertising, a bit of whatever our clients needed.
For the past five years, that’s what we’ve done. And while we’ve forged lasting relationships and seen ongoing success with our clients, advertising has invariably become the fly in the ointment – a source of financial pain, strained relationships, and underwhelming outcomes.
Today’s advertising feels like a pointless endeavour – not just the act of trying to persuade people to engage with something they have absolutely no interest in, but also the making of advertising. All too often, projects are time-pressured and budget-poor. Briefs ill-defined.
That’s why I’m retiring from advertising.
Ok, perhaps a more accurate statement would be, I’m retiring advertising from our professional offering. We’ll no longer offer advertising as a service.
It’s something I’ve been thinking about for a long time.
And I say this as someone who fell in love with advertising on my first day in the industry back in 2001. I’ve greatly enjoyed working with scores of lovely, caring and creative people.
But that advertising and today’s advertising are like night and day.
Here’s the harsh reality. Attention has vanished. Many of the marketers who truly understood advertising have left. Budgets have been decimated. Media channels that allowed ads to breathe and flourish are gone. Even the advertising ‘greats’, the brilliant folks who made the industry what it was, have gone. In their place, we’ve got a fresh, diverse workforce – a very positive shift. But we’ve lost experience, insight and understanding.
The decline of advertising was always on the cards. Progress happens, things change, and sometimes, industries outlive their relevance. The ad industry, like taxis faced with Uber, is clinging to its former glory, arguing for its relevance when, in truth, it’s becoming obsolete. And let’s remember: no one rushed to defend taxi drivers.
Here’s something to chew on: established wisdom states that gaining attention is a measure of advertising value. Attention helps marketers know if their ads are breaking through the noise and engaging consumers.
My contention is that advertising needs attention to work in the first place, i.e., people need to pay attention. And therein lies the paradox. Today’s audiences are empowered, sceptical, and spoiled for choice. They scroll past, skip, block, and tune out ads with ease. Consequently, advertisers face the challenge of grabbing attention using methods that inherently require it – targeting an audience that is increasingly resistant to giving it.
Recent research shows that attention spans are dwindling. Over the past two decades, the average time a person can focus has dropped from around 2.5 minutes to about 45 seconds. Similarly, today’s attention span is around 8.25 seconds – less than that of a goldfish. Our digital lives and constant information influx are reshaping attention spans, making sustained focus rare.
The problem goes deeper than simply capturing attention. Metrics like viewability, clicks, and completion rates have become proxies for success, but they don’t tell the full story. An ad might catch someone’s eye momentarily, but does it resonate? Does it engage the viewer’s mind, or is it just another blip in the content stream, forgotten seconds later?
If advertising needs attention to work, what’s the alternative? The answer isn’t about “delivering something valuable” or “using emotion.” That’s been laboured a thousand times over. The answer is simpler, foundational.
Build and nurture a brand that is confident in its own skin, not fighting for momentary attention; it’s about consistent presence, recognition, and resonance. Every time someone encounters a brand, it gains a little more strength, embedding itself into memory and becoming a reference point. It doesn’t need to shout because it already has a voice, a story, and an identity.
So, where does that leave us? With a model that moves from chasing attention to cultivating identity. Building a brand is about creating something substantial and lasting, a foundation that consumers trust and choose over time. Instead of superficial engagement, brand focuses on enduring value. It doesn’t require the constant attention-seeking of advertising to remain relevant.
Brand building is business building. It’s being both conscientious and pragmatic, creative and insightful. It’s cultivating an expression of who a business is – not what it’s trying to sell (although that’s clearly important).
Brand welcomes attention, but doesn’t seek it, eschewing transient impressions for real, lasting connection. And in a world increasingly resistant to advertising, brand is what will remain standing, strong and unshaken.
The most rewarding parts of the last five years have been working with businesses and organisations to uncover who they are, why they are distinct, how they can emotionally connect, and what undiscovered aspect powers their relevance.
We’ve done it with financial unicorns like Judo Bank and emerging usurpers like Goodbye Gas. We’ve found joy working with international logistics company Natrio, and Australian funds manager, Castlerock. We’ve crafted authentic identities for Ballarat and Victoria. We’ve done it with a view on what’s right for our clients in the long term, not what’s gonna grab the most attention – or awards – now.
So yes, we’re retiring from advertising. But we’re doubling down on brand – because, in the long run, it’s brand that builds enduring connection, loyalty and drives sustained business growth.
Jim Ritchie is the strategy director and co-founder at brand agency US+US.
Hey Jim,
It’s me, Gillbert the Goldfish, and I’ve got a bone to pick with you!
You’re spreading some serious fishy misinformation about me and my aquatic pals. The whole “goldfish have a short attention span” thing? Total myth!
We’ve got memories that would make an elephant jealous. A quick Google search will show you plenty of scientific articles debunking this nonsense.
The original claim came from some shoddy pseudoscience in a Microsoft Canada research piece. So, let’s set the record straight and give us goldfish the credit we deserve!
Fishfully yours, Gillbert
@Stephen W, thanks for your perspective. As a former copywriter in London during the noughties, I’m well-acquainted with the brilliance of Levi’s and Nike’s campaigns. Those ads didn’t just sell products; they built cultural moments. However, my point is rooted in today’s reality: the low-attention world we’re operating in simply wouldn’t sustain such iconic work.
The ecosystem that supported those campaigns — captive audiences, generous budgets, and media spaces that allowed ideas to breathe — has largely vanished.
To double down, both Levi’s and Nike are struggling to maintain decades of built equity, which is why both have leaned heavily into retailisation in recent years. Something I’m sure any number of academics would correlate to falling attention.
Build brands, just don’t use advertising as a foundation – these days.
@Josh M, you’re right that some of these challenges – declining attention spans, fragmented media, ad blockers – aren’t new. But comparing marketing strategies from 10 years ago to today is like comparing chalk and cheese. The environment has shifted dramatically, and so has audience behaviour.
Back then, the focus was on grabbing attention through tactics, often with diminishing returns. Today, trying too hard to demand attention from an audience that’s impervious to interruption is an exercise in futility. The reality is, brands, products, and services need to stop treating marketing as a separate ‘pay-to-play’ activity and start realising that the business itself – what it delivers and how it delivers it – is the most effective form of connecting with consumers. And yes, paying for placement – or a touch-point – still plays a role.
Business is your brand.
Product/service is your ‘advertising’.
Experience drives preference.
This is the same stuff that was talked about 10 years ago. Declining attention spans, more fragmented media landscapes, people using adblockers or swiping past to avoid interruptions. Inbound marketing was all the rage. Everyone was trying to “Invite attention” as you’ve put it.
It didn’t work. Not on its own anyway.
Promotion will always be key as one of the four Ps of marketing. Not the most powerful one, but key none-the-less. And paying to put your brand/product in front of people will always be a necessary part of that, for the very reason that people don’t have the time, energy or motivation to pay much attention to brands.
Interesting somewhat self serving perspective Jim.
What you fail to properly acknowledge is that some of the worlds most successful brands transitioned from being just ‘another’ product in category to iconic brand status almost exclusively through great advertising.
Think Nike and work by Weiden & Kennedy
Think Levi 501’s by Bartle Bogle Hegarty
To quote your article
Building a brand is about creating something substantial and lasting, a foundation that consumers trust and choose over time.
The orginal Nike ad ‘There is no finishing line’ ran in 1977…. that’s stood the test of time fairly well…
I like this.
Huh?
It’s a romantic sentiment (advertising was better or easier back in the day), but I think you’re viewing history with rose-tinted glasses.
Yes, it was easier to sell beautiful advertising stories when the 30s TVC was the mainstay of media communication – but that doesn’t mean great advertising ideas don’t have a place. Look at Dove – Real Beauty, Snickers – You’re Not You When You’re Hungry, Uber Eats – Almost Almost Anything, even the work Aldi is consistently delivering in Aus.
You’re viewing brand vs advertising as an “either / or” approach, when it’s an “and / or” style of thinking. Yes, start with brand and what it means within the market and your consumer, then evolve, enhance, and sell through advertising.
Don’t worry, the industry is big enough to prioritise both!
I don’t quite understand the logic. If attention spans are now down to 45 seconds, then surely the ‘momentary attention’ of advertising is what you should be going for, not eschewing. And establishing a ‘constant presence’ through repetition and reach. Seems to me you’re making the case for advertising.
@MarkyMark. The reduced 45-second attention span required to undertake a task, isn’t a media placement opportunity; it’s a symptom of how fragmented and fleeting people’s focus has become. I think we can all relate to how quickly our attention shifts these days. The point isn’t to chase those fleeting moments but to build something stronger—a connection that grows and resonates over time.
@Zach J. I’ll concede that, to a degree, my argument is somewhat either/or. The examples you’ve shared are good, BUT (big but), Dove’s Real Beauty, Snickers, and Aldi’s work thrive because they’re deeply anchored in strong branding. Achieving that level of impact and equity today is harder – especially for smaller businesses or brands. Striving to capture even a moment of attention is an uphill battle. Isn’t that the paradox: good ads need strong brand equity to work?
@GilbertGoldfish, if that’s even your real name! To all goldfish, I humbly offer my mea culpa. That said, ever sat on a train, put your phone in your pocket, and looked up? That non-fishy sea of humanity mindlessly scrolling – now that’s what a lack of attention looks like.
Attention spans aren’t down, all the credible research actually supports the opposite. The amount of rubbish, particularly in Australia, that people mentally opt out of has just increased.