Sporky111 said:
...Ad blockers are the reason they're so invasive, because they need to make money regardless of what the people are doing to stop them.
Wait, what?! Nooooo, no no no
no. That logic is fundamentally flawed - it doesn't matter how obnoxious or shiny you make ads, those with a blocker
still don't see them, and those without get steadily more pissed off until they maybe decide to do something about it.
Obnoxious ads aren't ones that people are likely to click on, clever, engaging ones are. It wasn't ad blockers that created bad ads, bad ads caused the creation of blockers. The 'you've won! Click here!' ads have been around
forever, not as some cynical move to grab a larger share of a dwindling population as ad-blockers squeeze the revenue out of the interwebs.
Basically, the ads would be just as bad even if no-one used blockers; blockers are irrelevant in a marketer's mind because if you're blocking them then you are no longer in their potential audience, you're out of the equation. They're just focused on those who can still view them, and as you can see from the responses in this thread, that a healthy majority even amongst a tech-aware crowd would could probably all easily do something about it if they wanted.