This is an example of how advertising campaigns can be analyzed with Attention Insight. This case reviews the Pacto Invisibles (#TheInvisiblePact) campaign, led by Special Olympics Chile with major sports organizations and created by the advertising agency LOCA Santiago. The initiative seeks to give visibility to over 11,000 athletes with intellectual disabilities ahead of the 2027 Special Olympics World Games. The campaign addresses a stark imbalance: while mainstream sports in Chile receive 34 minutes of coverage, athletes with intellectual disabilities receive none.
The campaign materials are examined to understand their effectiveness. This Attention Insight video and poster analysis compares Video 1 against Video 2 and also looks at their posters, highlighting whether static visuals reinforce the videos or fall short.
Video 1.
Video 2.
Step‑by‑Step Algorithm For Analysing Any Video Ad With Attention Insight
0. Set the stage: Define one specific goal. Select 1-3 key visuals. Identify important AOIs.
1. Macro scan: Record Avg Focus, Focus Consistency, Avg Concentration Spots; flag any out-of-range values (Focus < 70; Unstable; >3 spots).
2. Key-shot inspection: AOIs revealed in ~4s; ≤2 hotspots on AOIs; text AOIs ≥ 15%; Focus ≥ 70; avoid >⅓-screen hotspot jumps.
3. Whole-timeline triage: Mark drops >15 pts or below 60; cross-check with spots; treat as secondary issues.
4. Micro diagnostics: Fix clutter (blur/tint), boost text contrast/weight, re-anchor hotspots, remove decorative elements.
5. Re-test and iterate: Test again after adjustments. Compare changes to see progress. Push key-shot Focus ≥ 70; stop at plateau.
6. Record and expand: Keep track of goals, versions, key-frame metrics, and performance differences to create a reusable pattern library.
#0 Set the Stage
Both videos aim to push viewers toward signing the petition. They each rely on three key shots to deliver the message.
- Video 1: A call to action appears at 14 seconds followed by encouragement at 18 seconds, and the context is set at 10 seconds with “0 minutes on sports news.”
- Video 2: A call to action also comes at 14 seconds, but motivation follows a little later at 19 seconds, while the context is set at 10 seconds with “0 features in sports media.”
Main observation: Video 2 delays the motivational line giving the call to action a little more room to make an impression.
Video 1, 18s.
Video 1, 14s.
Video 1, 10s.
#1 Macro Scan — Overview Metrics
The first step involves checking averages. This includes areas like Focus, Consistency, and Concentration spots. Both videos here show the same results, with an average focus of 80 percent, moderate levels of consistency, and about 1.3 concentration spots. Based on just these figures, both videos qualify as “healthy.”
The posters, on the other hand, do not perform as well. Poster 1 earns a clarity score of 71 but a 56 in focus, falling short of the 70 needed for recall. Poster 2 does slightly better scoring 61. These stats point to the idea that static visuals might not be as convincing as videos, though averages alone do not tell the full story.
- Videos scored an average focus of 80%, with 1.3 concentration points.
- Poster 1 showed a clarity of 71 and focus of 56 falling below the recall-safe limit of 70.
- Poster 2 had a clarity score of 71 and focus of 61, but it still did not reach the levels of videos.
Poster 1.
Poster 2.
#2 Key-Shot Inspection
The structure of both videos is similar. The main shot is the call-to-action (CTA) at 14 seconds. The motivational statement at 18 to 19 seconds acts as the second most important shot. The supporting context appears at 10 seconds, and all these parts perform.
At the 10-second mark, Video 2 edges ahead with a focus score of 84, while Video 1 scores 82. When it gets to the CTA at 14 seconds, attention splits into two heatmaps in both videos. 33.6% lands on the text itself, which meets the recall standards. In the motivational frame, both versions keep solid viewer attention, with about 66% locked onto the message. Both videos hit the key-shot benchmarks overall, but Video 2 shows better focus during its context frame.
- Context frame (10 seconds): Video 2 scored 84, while Video 1 scored 82.
- Call to Action at 14 seconds: Achieved about 33.6 percent attention in text hitting the minimum recall target.
- Motivational frame at 18 to 19 seconds: percentage of attention is 66.
Video 1, 10s, Focus Score: 82
Video 2, 10s, Focus Score: 84
#3 Whole-Timeline Triage
Looking at the whole timeline, the gap between the two videos stands out. While Video 1 has a strong start, it faces several attention dips later on. At around 8.7 to 8.8 seconds, engagement drops below 60 and struggles with steadiness right after the Call to Action. These ups and downs come at the worst moment when the campaign hopes to inspire action from viewers.
Video 2 never drops below 60. It starts with a slight wobble around 1.1–1.2 seconds but evens out. After the CTA, it keeps attention more consistent lowering the chances of losing viewers at a crucial point.
- Video 1: drops below 60 at 8.7–8.8 seconds, falters after the CTA
- Video 2: wavers at 1.1–1.2 seconds but stays above 60
- Post-CTA: Video 2 holds attention more
Video 1, 8.8s, Focus Score: 56
#4 Micro Diagnostics
Micro diagnostics help to understand why dips happen.
In Video 1, the big issue is clutter. By the 8.8-second mark distracting hotspots grab attention and take focus away from the main areas. After the CTA gets introduced too many extra visuals break focus again. To fix this, you could simplify the background, cut down on distracting text or graphics, and keep the focus on the CTA.
In Video 2, the problem starts right at the beginning. The visuals feel messy in the first second, which causes some confusion. Cleaning up that initial part would make the rest of the video, which is otherwise steady, much smoother to watch.
To improve the Posters, the focus should be on making the CTAs and text more visible. Poster 1 needs the CTA to stand out more by going beyond 15% visibility with bigger text and sharper contrast. Poster 2 does a better job, but it still requires more emphasis on the text and clearer images to make it memorable.
- Video 1: clutter noticeable at 8.8s → competing attention hotspots
- Video 2: early clutter around 1s → slight initial wobble
- Poster 1 CTA: 13.2%, Poster 2 CTA: 15% (minimum acceptable target)
Poster 1, CTA: 13.2%
Poster 2, CTA: 15%
#5 Re-Test & Iterate
Both videos already hit the minimum 70% focus benchmark on key frames. However, the goal is to boost CTA visibility to grab more than one-third of viewer attention and minimize competing attention hotspots. For the posters, the priority would be improving CTA prominence with sharper text contrast before running another round of tests.
- Key-frame focus: 70% benchmark met
- CTA visibility: aim to exceed 33% viewer attention
- Poster adjustments: enhance CTA contrast with re-rendering
#6 Document & Scale
Looking at the comparison, a clear pattern stands out:
Video 1: Starts strong but loses focus after the CTA. The main issue shows at 8.8 seconds.
Video 2: Feels shaky at the beginning but holds steadier after the CTA. The context shot is a bit sharper.
Poster 1: The CTA and text don’t meet recall benchmarks. Its overall effectiveness is low at 56 focus.
Poster 2: Shows slight improvement with the CTA hitting 15%, though it’s still not optimized.
- First video: shows instability after CTA, dips below 60 at 8.8 seconds.
- Second video: maintains a steadier path, offers better context framing.
- Poster 1 focus level: 56, while Poster 2 focus level: 61.
Conclusion
Video 2 comes out on top in this comparison. It keeps its focus better after the CTA and explains the context more than Video 1. While Video 1 starts off strong, it loses steam at a critical moment. The posters follow a similar trend. Poster 1 struggles with weak CTA visibility just like Video 1, while Poster 2 shares Video 2’s strengths. It feels more balanced but still doesn’t quite match the videos in performance.
This analysis points out the importance of looking at both individual creatives and their variations. Small changes in timing where text is placed, or how steady the focus is can change how a campaign works. Attention Insight lets creative teams see these details more: it helps them improve videos and posters.
