[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

This is where consumers and advertisers have opposing viewpoints. The consumer is OK with an ad as long as it doesn't "get in the way". Advertisers WANT the ads to "get in the way", otherwise they go unnoticed.

There's "get in the way," and there's "get in the way." Simply being there seems to be enough for some to claim the ads are "in the way." Usually, though, people learn to note the ads and move on with no more real distraction to their reading than they get when their pet shows up and curls into their lap.

Everyone wants their meat, but doesn't want to have to eat their vegetables. Ads are vegetables: They serve a purpose, and even if you aren't fond of them, you should understand why it's important to eat them.

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I've even seen some try to claim that changing the TV channel or walking about of the room when the commercials come on is "stealing" the content that the advertising is paying for.

That's just plain wrong, as it is not the consumer's transaction that created those ads... it was a transaction between the advertiser and the TV studio. Now, if a TV studio refused to run an ad that had paid for a show, or a DVD refused to include an ad that paid for a movie... that would be stealing. A consumer's failing to watch an ad is simply a failure of the advertiser to get and hold their attention.