You know when the remote control for televisions was invented ad-agencies FREAKED THE FUCK OUT, they tried to ban the remote control or throw hundreds of millions of dollars at the owner of the patent so they could own it an no one use it. Because they were so afraid of people doing precisely that, muting or channel switching when ads came on with much higher likelihood than if they had to get up and adjust the dial and then sit down again.I say old chap said:Also on dealing with ads, I was around a friend's place years ago watching the tennis, and I saw the best way to deal with ads.
The family would be sitting around, on the ads would come, and one would mute it, and they would then start talking. Completely ignore the ads, not give them the time of day.
Now what, am I going to have to mute the telly, have a chat with probably myself, and wait, as it slows my attempts to play on my day off?
Thank goodness he didn't sell the patent to the ad agencies, otherwise they'd have been able to stop ANYONE else making a remote control for any televisions.
Learning the lesson from Google's discrete targeted ads that are so effective, I feel the old ad model of "obnoxious media saturation" an anachronism and ineffective in the 21st century, it needs to disappear. Google makes a LOT of money by only giving users the ads relevant to them and keeping them short and sweet. Sony is like a Dinosaur after the asteroid has hit, it is lumbering on trying to stupidly brute force solutions, while nimble mammals and fast birds steal all the food from under them.