There is a myth that exists that advertising needs to be intrusive in order to be effective. While this is not an entirely true statement, in most conditions it is correct. There are two types of products advertised in our market: products in which we actively seek because we need or have already made the decision to purchase, or products that we want and are not actively seeking. It is for the latter that intrusive advertising becomes a crucial part of the sales process.
There has been many companies and ad formats criticized for serving intrusive advertising. First it was pop-ups, then the floating ads and other rich media, and the trend now is leaning towards putting the pop-under companies back under the microscope. In reality, these can all be considered forms of intrusive advertising, which a good handful of advertisers and the industry depend on.
Some products simply cannot be sold effectively without intrusive advertising. Well - to rephrase: they can be sold, but not cost-effectively. So if all forms of intrusive advertising were eliminated, then that advertiser, all of the partner companies, affiliates, networks, etc would economically suffer. Pricing would go up, conversions would go down on other offers, etc. The whole industry would be impacted in a way that no one wants to admit. However, everyone who has given this any thought knows it would happen if intrusive advertising were abolished completely.
Bottom line is: intrusive ads are here to stay. They’re not for every company or every product, but they work for some. You won’t find high-end labels directly selling their merchandise through targeted pop-under ads and floating banners that freeze screens because it could ruin their hard-earned brand image. Nevertheless, intrusive ads can work and continue to perform for various products to this day. And as long as they convert well and provide a profitable ROI someone will continue to buy them behind the scenes whether the industry approves of it or not.
Digg 
