November 20, 2025
vadymvdrobot/Depositphotos.com
Are Second Screens Good or Bad for Engaging Consumers?
According to the 2025 Retail and Holiday Study from Tubi, the streaming TV platform owned by Fox, 47% of viewers are driven to shop spontaneously while streaming — with 71% noting “I’m often shopping online while streaming TV and movies.”
Per a survey of 1,531 U.S. adults conducted by The Harris Poll (via Tubi), purchases while streaming are most often influenced by ads (44%) and the TV/movie genre viewers watched while shopping (41%).
After seeing an attention-grabbing ad while streaming, 87% indicated they take action (research, purchase, go to brand’s site or social channels, etc.), with 60% agreeing that “If I see an ad for a product I want, I buy it right away.”
Recent research from Advocado found 69% of U.S. consumers use a second screen, after seeing an ad, to find more information on a product or service that piques their interest — whether by exploring the brand’s website or app (34%), via a search engine (30%), or by visiting an ecommerce site (19%).
An eMarketer study last year, conducted with Shopsense AI, found 62.7% of U.S. consumers discover new brands or products through TV content, with well over a third (38.7%) searching online to consider buying something that they saw on TV.
Second Screens: Study Findings See Retail Opportunity, Despite Existing Skepticism
The findings throw some doubt on the notion that second screening, or individuals multi-tasking on their mobile phones, iPads, or laptops while watching TV, is a net negative for advertising, as viewers concentrate less on the commercials being shown.
A Bain & Co. study concluded that the increase in multitasking by media users requires advertisers to rethink long-established campaign models and move measurement of engagement from reach to attention.
“There is plenty of scope for media companies to lean into these trends, to rethink and to adapt to the changing landscape,” said Nicole Magoon, a partner in Bain & Company’s Media & Entertainment practice. “If you know someone is scrolling Instagram while streaming your show, you can — for example — have a live tie-in to drive engagement with characters and with shoppable content in the feed. The imperative is to reimagine current models that are threatened by the trends we’re seeing.”
MNTN Research, which explores the streaming television and media landscape, offered three paths to reach second screeners:
- Relevant Ads: MNTN pointed to research from Integral Ad Science (IAS) showing that 73% of consumers find ads more personalized to them to be more appealing, with 68% enjoying seeing ads that relate to the content they’re viewing. MNTN stated, “Targeted, relevant ads will make it even more likely that users will pull out those second-screens and do more research after seeing the ad on their TV screens.”
- QR Codes: Adding QR codes to shows makes it easier for viewers to use their second-screen devices as research and purchasing tools while watching an ad on TV.
- Cross-Device Campaigns: Incorporating cross-device campaigns into strategies can ensure ads “are being served to these users enough times and in enough places that the message will eventually drive conversions on these second-screens.” Research from BrightLine, a platform for interactive streaming ads, finds aided recall on CTV ads returned 72% for standard video and 79% for interactive ads, but message recall is low — as ads are often forgotten once the next episode starts, or the viewer turns off the TV.
BrainTrust
Bradley Cooper
Associate VP, Technology, SASR Workforce Solutions
Mohamed Amer, PhD
CEO & Strategic Board Advisor, Strategy Doctor
Gene Detroyer
Professor, International Business, Guizhou University of Finance & Economics and University of Sanya, China.
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
What’s the best way for brands to connect with TV viewers who are increasingly multi-tasking on second screens?
Do you see more opportunities or challenges in reaching potential shoppers, given the ubiquity of second-screen use while watching TV?
Poll
Loading …
Most people multitask with their phones while doing other things. Regardless of whether this is healthy or not, it does give brands an opportunity to reach people via advertising, product placements, or other mechanisms within streaming content. The only caveat is that the marketing needs to be attuned to the audience – which is kind of obvious. Where this happens and where there is authenticity it can work well. The best recent example is Coach’s sponsorship of the Amazon show The Summer I Turned Pretty. It drove a lot of engagement with the brand by Gen Z.
Most people multitask with their phones while doing other things. Regardless of whether this is healthy or not
Could Darwinism be at work here? I have to think that those nit-wits who nearly walk into me while thumbing their screems are just as likely to walk in front of a truck doing so
It should be at work. Not being spatially aware in public places is rude and inconsiderate. This also applies to the people who will come to a complete standstill right in front of the entrance to a store!
Uh oh! I sense the new (bad-weather-dog-ate-my-homework) excuse for sub-par sales figures: ‘smart’phone users were blocking the entrance(s) to our store(s) 🙁
Please don’t give people ideas! The list of excuses is long enough already!
Long term you may not even need to be second-screening for the ad to hit your device – think while watching your favorite movie or show you receive a notification (sms or app notification) with the ad/offer that drives your to engage on your second-screen. As hyper-personalization becomes the norm there will be more opportunities for brand placement in the media whether a show, a movie, a short.
Brands can leverage interactive advertising that syncs with TV content to capture viewers’ attention on their second screens. Additionally, utilizing social media platforms to host live discussions or polls related to the TV content can enhance engagement. Finally, offering exclusive content or promotions through mobile apps during specific TV programs can incentivize viewers to stay engaged with both screens.
The data shows 71% shopping while streaming, with 87% taking action after ads. But here’s what matters: the same consumer who impulse-buys also comparison-shops. Second screens enable both behaviors simultaneously. Second screens amplify whatever retail fundamentals you already have. Strong brands get stronger, and authentic content integration works (Coach’s Gen Z success proves it, H/T Neil Saunders). Weak execution gets exposed faster; if your pricing isn’t competitive when they search, or your site doesn’t load fast enough to capture impulse moments, you lose. The second screen opportunity is more demanding.
This data on second-screen shopping is compelling, but it raises a crucial, unasked question: How many TV commercials, outside of major, high-attention live events, are truly considered successful on a day-to-day basis? The article implies that all streaming ads are driving action, yet I suspect the most dramatic and measurable successes come from events like the Super Bowl or season finales, where attention is maximized. In the era of streaming and the ‘known purchase,’ I already know what I need and I buy it during my leisure time on Netflix. I rarely stop streaming to research an ad unless it’s genuinely groundbreaking or during a unique, live cultural moment. Are advertisers simply focusing on the potential of second screens without acknowledging that ad fatigue and low-attention viewing make the vast majority of spots unmemorable and un-shopped?
Ad success metrics vary by campaign, and by channel. (In addition to always-on digital content for branding via social awareness). Ad campaigns have been sync’d between video/TV devices and cell devices for over a decade. Original thought: pull the tv ad into palm-of-hand, make it just as actionable as a phone # in ad on screen,
Today it’s reverse… a cell device is likely to be in hand no matter what streaming/cable/over the air/playback is happening.
“Second screen” (cell) is now first rank. Ad Buyers think in terms of content types & purpose, vs focusing on consumer’s device choice-of-the-moment. Messaging to person (vs to device).
The former definition of “tv” to ad Buyers doesn’t exist. It’s audio/video content that accepts actionable ads, sponsorship, product placement or other tie ins.
Things in life are low or high attention. Hopefully work & family always stay the latter. But low/high is situationally fluid to each person each day. With texting, that changes minutes to minute. (When walking across a street, I’d hope the texting becomes low attention)
Super Bowl ads can lead to online shopping, esp if SB is watched “online”/connected. Most often, SB spots drive immediate digital search and social conversation. The point of $Million ad time, is to create positive noise. [Ad agencies may still have SB Sunday social teams working to jump into conversations appropriate to their client brands)
Tags, handles, URL & QRs bridge screen gap for real-time action.
Reading the data, I surmise I am a very odd fish. I don’t understand why anyone would shop while watching a movie or TV show. I will pay a premium for “no ads”. I will never watch anything when it says “with ads”. The idea of shopping and streaming doesn’t register with me. I find ads interrupting my entertainment personally intrusive. But, I guess it is a thing.
It is indeed a thing for some of us. Me watching the Blue Jays’ postseason run: “I need that powder blue jersey NOW!” <Adds to cart.>
Me watching The Queen’s Gambit: “Oooh! Love that retro ’60s look.” <Adds fashion & beauty items to cart.>
May need to switch to reading more books to keep costs down in 2026.
Limited-time offers, QR codes, promo codes, digital communities and social media ads are helpful to connect brands with engaged consumers in real time.
For instance, X/Twitter has descended into toxicity; however, it’s still *the* place to be during live sports events. Fans want to be part of the action — and together to share the moment — whether they’re in the stadium, at home or at a watch party. Brands can use social listening to gain insights and target passionate fan communities to capitalize on their euphoria and desire for belonging.
I look forward to welcoming a new group of members in the “Ad Avoider” community. 20% of Netflix subscribers are will to pay extra to avoid ads. According to Nielsen, 64% of consumers intentionally take action to avoid ad-supported platforms. And the folks who are opting out of ads and paying for premium subscriptions are high-value, high-income, tech-savvy consumers. It’s not a deal breaker, but it’s something a lot of marketing folks lose sight of as they rush to technology to expand reach and drive views.
The platforms themselves, had to create the higher $$ subscriptions: 1) for revenue & 2) hold onto ad-averse customers. The bait is the “without ads” for the rich people who can afford it. BUT, those wealthy are also targeted in many other ways… esp when the platform sells their data (habits) to be targeted outside the platform.
Consumers always want content for free. Forgetting day 1 of Econ 101: no such thing as a free lunch. (Somebody somewhere pays in time or money to create that content. That somebody wants money for it)
Rich?
More Discussions
Should US Consumers Be as Upbeat Over Their Finances as Data Suggests?
A new study suggests U.S. consumers are rosy over their finances, but should they be?Has Storytelling Become a Rediscovered Retail Art?
Are retailers finally leaning (again) into narrative to excite?Will the Gulf Between Walmart and Target Deepen in 2026?
Will Walmart widen its lead over Target in 2026?
Most people multitask with their phones while doing other things. Regardless of whether this is healthy or not, it does give brands an opportunity to reach people via advertising, product placements, or other mechanisms within streaming content. The only caveat is that the marketing needs to be attuned to the audience – which is kind of obvious. Where this happens and where there is authenticity it can work well. The best recent example is Coach’s sponsorship of the Amazon show The Summer I Turned Pretty. It drove a lot of engagement with the brand by Gen Z.
Could Darwinism be at work here? I have to think that those nit-wits who nearly walk into me while thumbing their screems are just as likely to walk in front of a truck doing so
It should be at work. Not being spatially aware in public places is rude and inconsiderate. This also applies to the people who will come to a complete standstill right in front of the entrance to a store!
Uh oh! I sense the new (bad-weather-dog-ate-my-homework) excuse for sub-par sales figures: ‘smart’phone users were blocking the entrance(s) to our store(s) 🙁
Please don’t give people ideas! The list of excuses is long enough already!
Long term you may not even need to be second-screening for the ad to hit your device – think while watching your favorite movie or show you receive a notification (sms or app notification) with the ad/offer that drives your to engage on your second-screen. As hyper-personalization becomes the norm there will be more opportunities for brand placement in the media whether a show, a movie, a short.
Brands can leverage interactive advertising that syncs with TV content to capture viewers’ attention on their second screens. Additionally, utilizing social media platforms to host live discussions or polls related to the TV content can enhance engagement. Finally, offering exclusive content or promotions through mobile apps during specific TV programs can incentivize viewers to stay engaged with both screens.
The data shows 71% shopping while streaming, with 87% taking action after ads. But here’s what matters: the same consumer who impulse-buys also comparison-shops. Second screens enable both behaviors simultaneously. Second screens amplify whatever retail fundamentals you already have. Strong brands get stronger, and authentic content integration works (Coach’s Gen Z success proves it, H/T Neil Saunders). Weak execution gets exposed faster; if your pricing isn’t competitive when they search, or your site doesn’t load fast enough to capture impulse moments, you lose. The second screen opportunity is more demanding.
This data on second-screen shopping is compelling, but it raises a crucial, unasked question: How many TV commercials, outside of major, high-attention live events, are truly considered successful on a day-to-day basis? The article implies that all streaming ads are driving action, yet I suspect the most dramatic and measurable successes come from events like the Super Bowl or season finales, where attention is maximized. In the era of streaming and the ‘known purchase,’ I already know what I need and I buy it during my leisure time on Netflix. I rarely stop streaming to research an ad unless it’s genuinely groundbreaking or during a unique, live cultural moment. Are advertisers simply focusing on the potential of second screens without acknowledging that ad fatigue and low-attention viewing make the vast majority of spots unmemorable and un-shopped?
Ad success metrics vary by campaign, and by channel. (In addition to always-on digital content for branding via social awareness). Ad campaigns have been sync’d between video/TV devices and cell devices for over a decade. Original thought: pull the tv ad into palm-of-hand, make it just as actionable as a phone # in ad on screen,
Today it’s reverse… a cell device is likely to be in hand no matter what streaming/cable/over the air/playback is happening.
“Second screen” (cell) is now first rank. Ad Buyers think in terms of content types & purpose, vs focusing on consumer’s device choice-of-the-moment. Messaging to person (vs to device).
The former definition of “tv” to ad Buyers doesn’t exist. It’s audio/video content that accepts actionable ads, sponsorship, product placement or other tie ins.
Things in life are low or high attention. Hopefully work & family always stay the latter. But low/high is situationally fluid to each person each day. With texting, that changes minutes to minute. (When walking across a street, I’d hope the texting becomes low attention)
Super Bowl ads can lead to online shopping, esp if SB is watched “online”/connected. Most often, SB spots drive immediate digital search and social conversation. The point of $Million ad time, is to create positive noise. [Ad agencies may still have SB Sunday social teams working to jump into conversations appropriate to their client brands)
Tags, handles, URL & QRs bridge screen gap for real-time action.
Reading the data, I surmise I am a very odd fish. I don’t understand why anyone would shop while watching a movie or TV show. I will pay a premium for “no ads”. I will never watch anything when it says “with ads”. The idea of shopping and streaming doesn’t register with me. I find ads interrupting my entertainment personally intrusive. But, I guess it is a thing.
It is indeed a thing for some of us. Me watching the Blue Jays’ postseason run: “I need that powder blue jersey NOW!” <Adds to cart.>
Me watching The Queen’s Gambit: “Oooh! Love that retro ’60s look.” <Adds fashion & beauty items to cart.>
May need to switch to reading more books to keep costs down in 2026.
Limited-time offers, QR codes, promo codes, digital communities and social media ads are helpful to connect brands with engaged consumers in real time.
For instance, X/Twitter has descended into toxicity; however, it’s still *the* place to be during live sports events. Fans want to be part of the action — and together to share the moment — whether they’re in the stadium, at home or at a watch party. Brands can use social listening to gain insights and target passionate fan communities to capitalize on their euphoria and desire for belonging.
I look forward to welcoming a new group of members in the “Ad Avoider” community. 20% of Netflix subscribers are will to pay extra to avoid ads. According to Nielsen, 64% of consumers intentionally take action to avoid ad-supported platforms. And the folks who are opting out of ads and paying for premium subscriptions are high-value, high-income, tech-savvy consumers. It’s not a deal breaker, but it’s something a lot of marketing folks lose sight of as they rush to technology to expand reach and drive views.
The platforms themselves, had to create the higher $$ subscriptions: 1) for revenue & 2) hold onto ad-averse customers. The bait is the “without ads” for the rich people who can afford it. BUT, those wealthy are also targeted in many other ways… esp when the platform sells their data (habits) to be targeted outside the platform.
Consumers always want content for free. Forgetting day 1 of Econ 101: no such thing as a free lunch. (Somebody somewhere pays in time or money to create that content. That somebody wants money for it)
Rich?