Originally Posted by lin821
The point of putting up any ad is to lure or attract "potential" customers, isn't it? If it ends up only to attract "resentment" from the customers, what's good about it? Can those great mind doing the FT goooogle ad come up a better way not to interfere the reading of any post/thread?
Or, DO they care?
lin821...good question and allow me throw my two cents worth into this.
I directed the advertising campaign for several large food brands over the years and the mind-set among ad agencies and some advertisers is that there is no such thing as an ad that is too intrusive. In fact, "non-intrusive ad" is an oxymoron.
The purpose of an ad is to
be intrusive, i.e. to attract your attention away from whatever other task you are doing. Like watching TV, reading a newspaper, posting on FT, driving down the freeway, etc..
Advertisers want...in fact, DEMAND...that their ads be read and acted upon in a particular setting and if they don't get the desired response, they look for another ad vehicle.
Now a company like FlyerTalk, The NY Times, NBC-TV, etc., can decide that an ad is too obnoxious or over-the-top and refuse to carry it. But they'll many times be cutting into their revenue by taking a moral stand. It's ultimately up to each company to decide as to what type of advertising it wants to subject it's readers, listeners, or viewers.
I agree with your contention that an ad that creates resentment seems counter-productive but the folks on Madison Avenue have studied this premise to death and they don't agree with the rest of us "normal" people....
.