If I did take over that blog, I'd have to change the viewpoint. Whereas he's saying ads are too intrusive, I see that as a good thing!

Ads MUST get more intrusive. It is a natural (+ necessasry) evolution. As marketEEs struggle to find ways to IGNORE ads, marketERs must find ways to make sure marketEEs CANNOT ignore them!

For capitalism to survive, there's no way around it! For example, look how ads on PBS have evolved -- from 'whispering' almost-invisible suggestions, to (now) blatant, out+out blaring ADS. There's no other choice (assuming PBS wants the advertisers to PAY them!!).

Here's a report on one aspect of the intrusive ad frontier...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0nmztds7B4

Here's a great article on the topic...
http://www.darkgovernment.com/news/m...aises-concerns

Article mentions how surveyed marketEEs say they would not ***WANT*** this type of thing to happen. IMO, consumers' opinions about what ads they ***WANT*** is irrellevant!! If people want to keep their JOBS (which RELY on capitalism's survival!!!), they must NOT ignore the ads. It's all interconnected -- a giant house-of-cards economy.

Another example -- when people use the DVR to "save" their favorite TV show, they are actually KILLING that show (at the same time as "saving" it), because the DVR allows the viewer to IGNORE (skip past) the ads -- which, in turn KILLS the show, because the MUNNY to pay the actors goes away.

The marketEES see the intrusive ads as an UNNECESSARY annoyance, when actually it is the LIFEBLOOD that keeps what they consume (AND THIER OWN JOB, most likely) ALIVE in the first place (capitalism, in general).

There's no way around it.

Cheers.

-- TW