Hi Gordon...

I'm not saying ads must be made to be intrusive to save cap-ism. I'm saying intrusive ads have always been + will continue to be the cornerstone, driving force, behind cap-ism. Cap-ism cannot exist without intrusive ads. Further, it thrives to the extent that ads are intrusive -- and that has always been the case.

When you say, "those 30-secs can be spent doing something else," are you saying the advertisERs are stupidly wasting their zillions of $$$'s? That the intrusive ads 'system' is a myth, in terms of effectiveness? If so, I'm sure stockholders would be fascinated by that.

Also, if you don't like ads that are intrusive, why not remove your sig from your posts in this forum? Why doesn't the owner of the forum remove the banner ads? Wouldn't the exact same number of sales be made, with or without the intrusive sigs + banners? Or are the sigs + banners "successful" to the extent that they are intrusive (uninvited + use info about the viewer that the viewer never (willingly) "gave" to the marktER(s) -- contextual).

Whether the marketEE "wants" or doesn't want to be "marketed to," is irrellevent. That cannot be allowed to be part of the transaction equation. How many ads do you "want" to see on your favorite tv show? None, of course. Yet, the ads are what is paying for the show -- and it's NOT the advertisier who's paying -- it's the viewer(s) who pay, via buying the stuff that is advertised. For that to happen, the audience must be *forced* to pay attention to the ads. So, merely "ignoring those 30-seconds" makes the show (or yahoo news video) VANISH.

-- TW