Paying for ads based on their “worth”?

It is a constant source of debate.  How much is advertising worth?  It is nearly impossible to pinpoint the effectiveness of an ad, particularly if it does not include any sort of trackable actionable item for users to take advantage of.  Yet, there is a discussion out there about paying for television advertising based on its “worth”.  Check out the article here:

 http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=66050

The key concept that this idea seems to be missing is that the amount of time spent watching an ad does not make it effective or ineffective.  It is the action that the ad prompts that determines its effectiveness. 

So, would advertisers pay for ads that are watched in their entirety but do not drive consumers to their products?  Commercials that precede the return of a program are watched more than those in the middle of a break because viewers are anticipating the return of “Ugly Betty” (or whatever).  The problem is that the commercial could be a useless piece of garbage.  But, people are watching it!!!

It is an interesting debate, but not one that is likely to gain much traction, in my opinion.

What’s yours?