Why so little harangue over LAT ad?

There's no mystery why reaction to the paper's fake front-page the other day has been so minimal. It has little to do with ever-lowering expectations that people have about the Times, More likely, in my view, it's the acceptance of Internet advertising that, in many ways, has been far more intrusive than anything the Times can dream up. It's curious that so little attention has been paid to the increasing prevalence of pop-up, video and takeover advertising. A study by Data & Management Counsel delves into the matter. From Adweek:

The research finds that consumers understand and mostly accept the tradeoff of having access to online content in return for being exposed to advertising. As the report states the matter in its analysis of the data, "Consumers believe that most of the content they experience online is supported by advertising. With the exception of ads that are invasive, consumers have largely come to accept advertising as part of online life." Nor is that acceptance merely grudging if consumers find an ad pertinent to their own needs: "When these ads are relevant (highly targeted and engaging), they become valued to consumers."

I remember years ago objecting to island ads that wrapped around the stock tables (that's when there were stock tables). I also bristled about front-page advertising. In retrospect, my rants seem quaint. Given the changing times - not to mention the desperate need for cash - there's nothing all that outrageous about the NBC wraparound ad. Cheesy perhaps, but what isn't these days?