[shiroiuma]

>I feel similarly about old advertising. Anything from, say, the 1970s and before just doesn't hit me the same way, particularly in print. Audio/visual ads somewhat, but even they seem different and more innocent.

No, the reason they seem so different and innocent is because you aren't bombarded by them. You watch an old ad on YouTube once, and you think it's cute or corny and laugh at it. Now imagine you're watching a movie, and they show you the same 1980s ad over and over again while you're watching the movie, every 15 minutes.

If you're old enough that you had to watch ads on TV because TiVo didn't exist yet, you might remember how annoying they became, and how glad people were when they got remote control TVs with mute buttons. Or maybe it's been so long you've forgotten how bad it was.

[dredmorbius]

Possibly.

NB: it's generally poor form to presume what someone thinks or perceives. At best it may be highly inaccurate. At worst ... well, worse. Better to couch it in terms of your own experience, or third-party research where that exists.

Though yes, old-style ads are less relentless, and often have some degree of novelty. Repetition of ads where I do encounter them (largely public-broadcasting underwriting spots and on podcasts before I fast-forward through them) is in fact tedious, so you may have a point.

Another factor though is that the old-time ads are attempting to manipulate, yes, but they're trying to manipulate a target which is no longer present. Current-day ads both turn the dial to 11 and are often at least trying to specifically exploit personal information and weaknesses.

TV's been dead to me for decades, in large part for the reasons you describe. The few times I'm exposed to it just reinforces why.