[username223]

We actually had a pretty decent truce with ads in the pre-commercial-web days of the 80s and early 90s. Newspapers had some black and white ads next to the articles, which didn't flash or move around. They also sometimes had a pure-ads color insert, which you could take out and throw away with hardly a glance. Magazines sold their subscriber lists to junk-mailers, but sorting junk mail was similarly painless, and delivering it helped fund the postal service. TV had commercials, but we had VCRs with a fast-forward button that couldn't be disabled.

In other words, the ads were easy to ignore if you weren't interested, everyone understood that, and they were priced accordingly. There was money in advertising, but not enough that the CEOs of ad companies were competing to see who could be the first to shoot some poor human sucker at Mars on a branded rocket. Then advertising turned toward all-out war, first with annoyances like animated GIFs and pop-ups, then with surveillance-based ads that started with DoubleClick (a.k.a. Google, a.k.a. Alphabet). Advertisers became some of the richest men on the planet, somehow convincing people that tracking every single mouse movement on every webpage made advertising unimaginably valuable.

What really scares me is what the surveillance companies turn to when slinging micro-targeted ads doesn't make enough money. Google+23andme health insurance, anyone?

[dvtrn]

Advertisers became some of the richest men on the planet, somehow convincing people that tracking every single mouse movement on every webpage made advertising unimaginably valuable.

Ad-men have been some of the richest men on the planet long before the word 'mouse' referred to something other than a small furry critter.

[username223]

Really? Honest question. The 19th century Robber Barons were bankers and industrialists -- Morgans, Carnegies, Stanfords, and Rockefellers. Before that it was slave-owners and more bankers and industrialists -- Rothschilds and what-have-you. Back in the Middle Ages it was extortionist thugs, a.k.a. the nobility -- Louis the nth, Henry the kth, etc. I guess the clergy were always fairly well-to-do, but most people wouldn't consider them ad-men.

EDIT: I see where you may be coming from. Newspaper barons like William Randolph Hearst? Sort of, but his papers offered both "creative" and "editorial."

[shostack]

Please look up agency salaries before making that sort of statement. There's decent executive comp at the top, but there's a reason for the industry stereotype of being underpaid and overworked. It is also why so many from the agency side flee to the brand side.

Ad agency pay sucks in general.

[dvtrn]

There's decent executive comp at the top

Sorry, I thought "ad-man" was a pretty unambiguous statement that referred directly to the executives of ad agencies?