Mobile attention is collapsing.

In 2018, mobile ads held attention for 3.4 seconds on average.
Today, it’s just 2.2 seconds.

That’s a 35% drop in only 7 years. And a massive challenge for marketers.

The State of Advertising 2025 shows what’s happening and how to adapt.

Get science-backed insights from a year of neuroscience research and top industry trends from 300+ marketing leaders. For free.

👉 Get the free report

When the obvious isn't the right choice.

Lando Norris streams on Twitch, plays Halo competitively, and runs Quadrant, a gaming brand. For a gaming startup looking for an F1 partnership, he's the textbook answer.

Parallel Studios had Quadrant's proposal on their desk. More expensive than other options, but the fit seemed perfect. The alignment practically wrote itself.

They went with Fernando Alonso instead, and it wasn't because they couldn't afford Lando or because Fernando was a backup option. They chose Fernando deliberately, using a framework that required answering specific questions with actual data.

When Parallel's previous head of growth evaluated Fernando against Lando, he needed to answer questions that went beyond surface-level fit.

Does the athlete actually care about the product? He wasn't asking whether Fernando would show up - he needed to know if Fernando would ask questions about the game, request retakes on content, and engage beyond what the contract required.

What's the surprise factor worth commercially? Fernando, playing a sci-fi trading card game, creates curiosity. People ask, "Why is Fernando playing this?" which generates conversation in ways a standard gaming partnership doesn't. Lando playing a game feels expected. Fernando doing it raises eyebrows.

What's the market expansion opportunity? Fernando's audience skews older with different geographic concentrations. Lando's audience overlaps heavily with Parallel's existing community. One opens new territory, while the other reaches people who are already familiar with the game.

Can they structure a low-risk test? If the initial results are disappointing, can they pause without blowing the entire partnership budget?

Is there a network advantage? Direct access to Fernando's team meant faster execution compared to navigating McLaren's commercial structure and Quadrant's requirements.

Parallel asked Fernando's team for information that goes far beyond a standard media kit.

They wanted a complete audience analysis beyond demographics. Age and location were just the starting point. They requested keyword data showing what topics Fernando's followers engaged with, how many showed genuine interest in gaming categories, and their behavioural patterns across platforms.

They asked for historical performance data from past partnerships. Actual click-through rates, install numbers from previous sponsored content, and conversion benchmarks from comparable campaigns.

They requested proof of content authenticity through footage from past brand shoots. They wanted to verify Fernando’s level of preparation and the extent of his involvement in creating content.

When you ask for this level of detail upfront, you're not hoping the partnership works. You're building a case based on evidence.

The decision ultimately came down to five factors that became clear once the data was analysed.

Fernando showed up like a professional actor. As Swish explained it: "He acted like an actor. He knew his lines, asked for retakes, and even asked questions about the game mechanics. That professionalism gave us content we could truly use - high-quality, authentic moments, not just another rushed endorsement deal."

His audience represented genuinely new territory. Older demographics, different geographic markets, minimal overlap with the gaming community, and Parallel has already reached this. Lando's audience was probably already familiar with Parallel through gaming circles.

The unexpectedness created earned media value. Swish saw the opportunity in the confusion: "Fernando is probably the last person you would think would play our game. Where do you find someone who's like, Why is Fernando playing this trading card game?" That curiosity drove Reddit threads and speculation that paid advertising can't be manufactured.

The budget made sense operationally. Fernando was accessible, and his team was easy to work with directly. Quadrant's proposal is more expensive, and the additional complexity of working through McLaren's commercial structure would slow down execution.

They could structure it as a test with minimal downside. Small upfront payment, clear performance benchmarks for downloads and signups, built-in pause mechanism if numbers disappoint. The larger, longer-term deal was already structured contractually - they just needed the test results to decide whether to proceed.

Parallel gave Fernando unique attribution links for every social post. Each piece of paid creative using his likeness had its own tracking. As Swish explained their approach: 'We told him, "We don't need just downloads - send us emails, too." Even if they don't play right away, at least we can retarget.'"

They built retention thresholds directly into the payment structure. Swish detailed the specific benchmarks: "We said, '20 per cent of your referrals should play four or five games within a month. If you hit that, you unlock the next payment.'"

The system gave them real-time visibility into performance. When a piece of content underperformed, they knew within hours and adjusted the next creative accordingly. When something worked, they could double down immediately.

Fernando's social posts drove 20,000-30,000 downloads that they could attribute directly. As Swish reflected on the results: "It was great, but we realised we should have launched mobile first. On PC, it capped out quickly. The initial spike looked good in screenshots, but sustaining that momentum was a fight."

The partnership delivered professional content, genuine athlete engagement, community discussion, and access to new audiences. Three execution factors limited the ceiling on results.

They launched on PC when mobile would have tripled their reach. Had they timed Fernando's activation with mobile availability, Swish estimates they could have hit 100,000-150,000 downloads instead of 20,000-30,000. The platform limitation capped distribution before they maximised the partnership value.

Curiosity drives initial downloads, but stickiness requires clearer alignment. Downloads spiked for 48 hours, then plateaued. Getting people curious about why Fernando plays a trading card game brings them in once. Keeping them engaged when the athlete-product fit isn't immediately obvious requires retention mechanics that the product needs to deliver.

Their attribution system had gaps at launch. They initially missed tracking some retargeted users, temporarily losing visibility on conversions they specifically needed to measure.

Swish was direct about the learning curve: "We got great content, an engaged superstar partner, and initial buzz. But we missed a few key infrastructure points - like making sure our attribution covered every funnel stage. Those gaps taught us that hype only works when the system underneath can handle it."

If you're sitting on two athlete proposals right now, here's how to think through the decision.

Start with audience stickiness, not audience size:
→ What do their followers actually buy?
→ How engaged are they with the athlete's content, newsletters, and community
→ What's the lifetime value pattern when this athlete promotes products?

Map buying behaviour specifically.
→ Are followers purchasing products the athlete recommends?
→ Do they buy from team partnerships?
→ What's the spending pattern and category preference?

Review content evolution across partnerships.
→ How has this athlete improved the quality of their content over time?
→ Who have they maintained long-term relationships with?
→ What have they tested that worked or failed in previous deals?

Assess genuine alignment honestly.
→ Does this feel authentic to both audiences, or are you forcing a connection?
→ Can you activate this partnership in a way that makes intuitive sense?

Structure a test before full commitment.
→ What's the smallest spend that validates whether this works?
→ What benchmarks prove the partnership delivers?
→ Where can you pause if early metrics disappoint?

Parallel had advantages that most properties don't: direct network access to Fernando's team, an operations team capable of building attribution systems, and patient stakeholders willing to test for months before demanding immediate returns.

Their first attempt wasn't flawless. The booking system had tracking gaps, and the timing wasn't optimal.

What saved it was operational discipline around measurement and iteration. By the time mobile launches globally, they'll know exactly which activation levers drive results and which don't.

If you can't commit to building attribution infrastructure and accepting a learning curve, choosing the surprising athlete over the obvious one won't fix underlying execution gaps.