It seems disingenuous to compare something abstract like advertising to the process of adding value in manufacturing. They are concepts in two different classes.
I don't think it's disingenuous. The advertiser is willing to pay a lot more for the ad after the extra tech is added on. That's a pretty clear case that the extra tech makes the same ad impression more valuable.
I don't agree that it's value add since the advertiser pays the publisher directly, and the advertiser then slaps on all of the extra bells and whistles, so the impression isn't modified to be more valuable before it gets to the advertiser.
However, the comparison is not disingenuous. Even though I disagree with the parent poster, there is a clear perspective where the two are comparable.
I don't agree that it's value add since the advertiser pays the publisher directly, and the advertiser then slaps on all of the extra bells and whistles, so the impression isn't modified to be more valuable before it gets to the advertiser.
However, the comparison is not disingenuous. Even though I disagree with the parent poster, there is a clear perspective where the two are comparable.