---
type: "synthesis"
sources: ["commercial"]
tags: ["intent", "adoption", "signals", "synthesis"]
id: "xd-attention-intent-adoption-gap"
sourceVaultSlug: "hbr-seg-commercial"
originDay: 5
articleStem: "hbr-seg-commercial"
sourceUrl: "(unified vault: 9 sources)"
sourceTitle: "HBR — Demand Ⅰ-C · Commercial mechanics — pricing, fit, sales"
---
A precise cross-corpus insight: visible engagement is a *misleading* proxy for commitment, and each article names a different flavor of the false positive.

- **A021:** [[concept-attention-vs-traction|attention isn't traction]] — enthusiastic demos and pilots are 'accumulated curiosity' ([[claim-curiosity-intent]]); a buyer who leaves 'smarter' often ghosts ([[contrarian-engagement-is-not-intent]]). Real intent needs [[concept-tension-driven-urgency|tension]].
- **A066:** [[contrarian-hype-does-not-equal-readiness|hype ≠ readiness]]; media buzz can even [[claim-hype-crowds-out-exploration|crowd out]] considered exploration. Readiness is [[concept-found-time|found time]], not visibility.
- **A008:** trial sign-ups under auto-renew *look* like demand but conceal [[concept-acquisition-suppression|acquisition suppression]] and produce inactive [[concept-zombie-subscribers|zombies]].
- **A009:** even [[concept-effort-as-payment|effort]] — the strongest engagement signal — is [[counter-effort-not-wtp|not the same as WTP]] (switching costs can explain it).

Synthesis: the corpus repeatedly separates *cheap signals* (buzz, demos, sign-ups, clicks) from *costly signals* (tension + trigger event, paid repeatable adoption, formalized WTP). The remedy across articles is to demand a hard commitment test — a defined budget/problem (A021), a payment test ([[claim-false-pmf]]), an active-usage threshold (A008), long-horizon cohorts ([[xd-timing-as-a-strategic-variable]]). Do not mistake volume of response for depth of intent — the same warning A030 raises about scaled research.