No one. That is the answer to this question. I ask this question and answer it when I’m on a website and my experience is interrupted by intrusive and annoying ads.
Case in point: Wanting to check out how the weather would be like this weekend for Saturday’s baseball game (Go Tigers!), I went to weather.com. When I tried to click on the “5-day forecast” link, an ad had loaded quickly and my cursor went to another link before I could click. Thus, I was taken to some other page (I forget what it was) and it took me that much longer to get to the content I was seeking out. Would I be a traitor to my industry if I downloaded Chrome’s add on Adblocker?
Rule of thumb for web ads: DO NOT GET IN THE WAY OF WHAT A USER IS TRYING TO DO!
The web has changed, and so has the need to use banner ads. It’s a mournful notion, I know, as I work at an ad agency. But web advertising is one area that is evolving rapidly and advertisers need to evolve even faster.
For example, have you seen buzzfeed lately? No banner ads, but they have an “efficiency manager” from GE that organizes the site based on content you’re interested in.
Seen the NYTimes.com interactive ad for Prudential? You enter your birthday and you are shown the front page of NT Times on your day of birth. The lead into Prudentials’ site:
Banner ads won’t go completely away, but will go away as we know them. Instead of being that block of pixels we now avoid when reading an article or the slow loading nemesis for your click, banner ads will need to transform into a conduit between the content we already seek (or would already be interested in) into the advertiser’s intention.
Also, I won’t be downloading adblock for Chrome. If I can’t see how ineffective some ads are for site, I’m making myself useless in recommending what advertisings/sites/publishers should and should not be doing.