I just read a blog regarding annoying sticky ads on the newspaper.  I also have my personal conflict with the Chase ad that loads on these pages from time to time.  I don't mind advertising, after all, businesses need to tell you about what they offer, and you want to know so you can make better economic choices.  It's almost a public service, in a way, as long as it's not too obtrusive or annoying, mind you. 

I also commented earlier in the day, to my family, how much I've taken a dislike to the little actors and graphics that walk/appear at the bottom of your screen while you are in the middle of a TV show.  It used to be an occasional station splash at the start of a program, then it became a transparent logo in the bottom corner of the screen.  Now I see logos that often cover elements of a film that you may wish to see!  It really gets in the way of the program itself!

This is very apparent in the news, when the news will put their logo, ticker, or graphic so large on the bottom of the screen that it covers elements of the news video that matter to appreciating the news footage itself!

The ubiquitous nature of advertising has desensitized us to its presence, forcing companies to make increasingly "annoying" advertisements to capture our attention.  I imagine some of it backfires, as a few of us refuse to do business with companies that intrude on what we believe is rightfully ours, such as our time, our news, our entertainment.  Still enough people buy the products advertised to keep the companies afloat and encourage further advertising.

And while those ads pay the bills for services we enjoy, I cannot help to think that eventually the tower will collapse.  Over my lifetime, I have seen what I call, advertising inflation, which are increasingly annoying and obtrusive advertisements.  Eventually a new market will open for people who are in fact willing to pay extra to do without the advertisements.  Sooner or later, rivals will appear to TV networks, news stations, newspapers, magazines, and so on, whose attraction will include unobtrusive advertising.  And yes, I think some people--eventually enough to sustain the effort--will pay the premium to avoid the intrusion. 

If the "Do Not Call Registry" were $10 a year, for example, would you pay for it?  I think there are more and more who might say yes...heck, I would!

Sooner or later, advertising as we know it, will become a victim of its rampant success.  Just as inflation eventually kills an economy, I feel the same will happen with advertising as it is today. 

As a thought, perhaps the Californian might benefit from offering a premium edition, on a trial (experimental) basis to see how many would pay the increased cost without the ads.  I still feel the numbers would be small, but I bet there'd be a few takers!

MP