which is a client-centric failure. convincing a small business (such as a kayak rental outfit) why that they ought to invest in targeted search [which would have a favorable effect] gets a lot harder when they're only pitched for the scammier side of things.
1) those are not advertisers, those are direct mailing etc., outfits. I think they're annoying too. I don't use them. If a client suggests using them, I suggest they find a new agency. I suggest you write a note to the CEO and discontinue your association with the brand. they pay attention to that.
2) might I suggest 'site:.edu'
3) it's not a fear, a critical mass of users won't pay for content.
1. we do the best we can to target. you get blanketed by irrelevant ads for a myriad of reasons not limited to:
-lazy clients who don't understand their userbase
-ads for things you might be interested in being choked out by higher paying spots.
2. that's actually not an advertiser's job--although some of those elements may be part of a campaign. we live in an era where clients demand an ROI, they want a conversion stat, and that's what they base an ad buy on--we agree this is detrimental in the industry. we'd much rather present you with a product over a span of time. we'd much rather show a product to likely consumers.
I'd give you a treatise on the industry, but ogilvy did that:
4. we've been making that sort of connection our entire history. content producers check too, they call it 'knowing your audience.' we're actually in the midst of a massive democratization. instead of five or six market research companies (or one TV research company, or one radio company) we're opening up. you can actually opt-out--that's never happened before.
5. so pay for the service.
not enough users are interested in baring the true cost of a service--hence the dependence on ad revenue.