Two things can be true at the same time: people hate ads, and that they are effective. But more likely the reality is more nuanced. I think that there are a minority of people that hate ads and they are very vocal about it. A majority of people are likely indifferent, and passively consume the ads and then buy the products.

This is a great question and the answer varies some depending on what you're selling, but here is what has always worked the best for me:

1. Offer free, tangible value in some form (articles, videos, tools, resources, etc) 2. Do number one to such a degree, that you and maybe others feel like you should be charging for what you're doing/providing 3. When you find something that hits (and its gaining a decent amount of attention) find a way to charge for a fuller, larger, more expansive version of it (better features, an in-depth class, 1-on-1 coaching, a white glove service) 4. Repeat and scale

This is very much a birds-eye-view, takes a lot of time, and varies greatly between B2C and B2B/physical products vs services. But the general idea remains the same.

The reason so much advertising feels slimy is because in many cases, it is. It's a company buying your attention and offering very little (or often nothing) in exchange for that attention.

If you do this enough it will "work" to some degree, but it's largely a volume game.

But if you're willing to invest the time, and deliver value both through free means and eventually paid; it's nearly always a much better long term strategy.

I block all ads. Life's too short to waste on them.

There is a ton of ad fraud. Zuck denies it.

Spending might just be "because the other guy does it". I noticed on sports talk radio (where I hold the clicker constantly, or have my thumb on the mute button in the auto) that one "solve all your tax problems" firm showed up after another bought half the ad time ... the guy is nonstop, and ERC is a matter older and deader than Caesar's will. It's as if the guy spends a fortune just to listen to himself, but I don't have numbers. And the same for "sell your home today" (lowballers) and "fix your droopy wang" clinics.

About the only ad I willingly read or posted was in the days of singles flyers. I did advertise myself and won a wife. But competition was limited by space. (Who remembers paper ads?) Later, we visited a bookstore/cafe and found a newspaper with an ad for a sysadmin, which landed me a long term (for the tech industry) job. And that's it.

I really don't mind ads for new products. I'm an infovore, and that's why I frequent Hacker News. Its just that ads are deliberately out of context, discouraging fair comparison, and I often go to (hopefully) unbiased comparison sites. And I suffered through a lot of Consumer Reports mags at the library where I totally disagreed with their criteria for ranking products.

As far as tailoring ads (surveillance capitalism) goes, it seems to be either.

A. This is so damn irrelevant, but that's a feature, not a bug, or

B. This is too damn relevant. I feel like there's a camera on me 24 by 7. or

C. This is a bad joke. I search for a used camera lens and DDG tells me about a nearby (geolocated) brew pub. I don't always use a VPN.

Clicks and "quantity over quality" are in fact what destroyed the internet, IMO.

Ads were the cause.

And for someone else's well-worded opinion:

Advertising is a poison that demeans even love – and we're hooked on it, by George Monbiot (2011) [0]

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/24/advert...

P.S. Way before that, I read about "ad men".(from Vance Packard), I vaguely recall. Saw ads on TV for Geritol, and watched the (rigged) $64,000 question. If memory serves.