I make a distinction between 'unwelcome' + 'uninvited.'

Unwelcome means there's an implied backlash -- like 'reviled.'

'Uninvited' just means there may or not be a backlash, but either way, the ad was not *requested* (or sought out) by the marketEE.

That is, intrusive advertising is where the ad finds the marketEE, and not the other way around.

It's the difference between a display ad (smack-dab in the middle of a newspaper article), and a classified ad.
In the former, the ad 'finds' the reader (intrusively/uninvited). In the latter, the reader finds the ad (intentionally).

It never made sense to me when, say, Yahoo announces (re: yahoo SEARCH), "Target thousands of potential customers!" That's not the marketER 'targeting' the marketEE! -- It's backwards! After all, the 'target' in 'target marketing' SHOULD refer to the marketEE, not the marketER!

Intrusive marketing is where the marketER has a means by which he/she can get the message in front of the intended audience, with or without their specific permission to do so.

So, a sig link and a banner ad, both qualify.

In both cases the marketER has found a way to state their case, in front of my eyes, regardless of whether I am seeking such an offer or not.

It is intruding, *uninvited* (by me).

-- And I contend, if this ability is taken away from marketers (or as it erodes), cap-ism will disappear -- because that is where the initial spark comes from, that leads to the vast majority of transactions.

It is a question of who is finding whom, really. I say 80-90% of transactions are the result of marketers finding marketees (with or without permission).

-- TW