The Effectiveness of Intrusive Advertising
I just received my new copy of PCG and upon opening it, it did my usual flick through and shake to get rid of the adverts tucked inside (first case of wasted advertising, at least on me). I then noticed, as often with magazines, that flicking through, it would be inclined to open at a particular page, due to thicker paper. This advertising for some Ubisoft games was deliberately included on this paper so that the reader would involuntarily turn to their advert more often, therefore supposedly making their advertising more effective. However, for me, pages such as this really annoy me, so I went to the effort of tearing them out, so as not to have that effect.
Now, all the extra money they paid to have it printed as such is wasted on me - they'd have actually got more exposure, from me, by printing the adverts as standard. I guess what I'm wondering is whether there are more people like me, for whom this advertising is wasted. It also raises the question of whether less intrusive, more sublte advertising - stuff that you won't go out of your way to avoid, is more effective, as you actually get exposed to it more.
For example, in games, having multiple videos advertising the various companies involved in the production play every time you start them up - the more intrusive they are, the more the gamer will be inclined to skip them, or in the case of unskippable ones, look for a method of removing them entirely (often easily done in lots of games). Would this advertising not be better employed by having the logos perhaps sat there all the time during the menu screen, or some other time? Or will the general laziness or the masses mean that this intrusive advertising is effective as the companies hope?