That's another good point. The people who are actively blocking ads are probably not the ones going to click them, even if they are not blocked. So not worth the money to invest in unblocking the ads going to people who aren't going to click them.

People greatly overestimate their ability to completely ignore ads, and to make purchasing decisions free from influence.

Sure, I believe that I am pretty much completely unaffected ads, but then so does almost everybody else.

True. I am not meaning to say I am perfect (or that anyone can be), the hunch is just the expected click through rate of someone such as myself is likely much lower than someone who doesn't even know what an ad blocker is.

You're more likely to look at an ad if you have an ad blocker. That makes you a prime target.

How do you suppose that is?

Is it because you believe people use ad-blockers because they're impulsive and can't hold their gaze?

I think it's based upon the idea that people with ad blockers see less ads and so are still sensitive to ad impressions. In contrast, advertisements in really crowded situations (most people that walk about in urban areas, for example) require more effort to stand out as advertising saturation point hits.

I mostly combat any ad influence on me by making a point to _not_ buy anything that is advertised. Works out pretty well for helping me keep my sanity and conscience a little.

That's it exactly. On top of that, you're shocked an ad got through!

Be careful with "I believe that I am pretty much completely unaffected ads, but then so does almost everybody else."

This is in the same vein of inductive reasoning as "just snap out of your [insert mental illness/addiction/etc.]."

"People," in this context, isn't defined either. If however we were to say that by "people" you mean millennials, then you would be wrong.

But if you meant "the population at large" you would be correct.

Although, the second statement is tangential to the article at hand.

...? I think you're misreading my comment. I was suggesting that most people may think they are unaffected by ads, but probably are overestimating their immunity.

My second statement was highlighting how ones own opinion of oneself is not objective.

> My second statement was highlighting how ones own opinion of oneself is not objective.

And I retorted that ones own view of oneself can not be extrapolated onto the population at large if it is not objective.

But I should have been clear, when I mean "second statement" I mean so inside my own post. Ex:

1st Statement: "People," in this context, isn't defined either. If however we were to say that by "people" you mean millennials, then you would be wrong."

2nd Statement: "But if you meant "the population at large" you would be correct."

Which was in defense of the tech-literate and the young, but after researching some more my statements were based on old information.

The only people that come to mind who are easily susceptible to ads are the old and tech-illiterate, i.e those who don't have much experience with ads. Though this is just conjecture.

The emphasis makes it pretty clear that the statement you're quoting was an ironic one.

What's your interpretation of it, because I still don't see it.

"Sure I believe" was quite clearly not meant to be taken literally, as evidenced by the very next half of the sentence.

It's like saying "sure, I think think that I'm smarter than everybody else, but then so does everybody else."

My point was that people should not take their own assessment of themselves as strong objective evidence about themselves.