Actually there is some conventional wisdom in marketing that the people you want to hit are those who try to avoid you. It goes like this. Some of the avoiders will be doing it because they really hate the spam and you will just make them mad if you get through. Who cares. They will never love the advertiser anyway.

But some are because they are suckers for the 'hook', the advertised shiny thing that draws their attention. They have low self control to resist the sales pitch. So they try to resist the lure by hiding behind their spam blocker. Those have a higher than normal chance of responding if you get past their defenses.

This is a variation of the door to door salesmen who would find the "no solicitation" signs especially attractive for the same reason.

The simple fact of the matter is - nobody likes commercials. some people will avoid them when possible, but most people just ignore them. So the ad agencies make them more and more obnoxiously attention-grabbing, or less and less like ads (fake news, etc.).

I'm constantly amazed at spamming companies that go to great lengths (and expense, and sometimes legal risk) to 'beat' spam filters. I understand the adage that even one out of some huge number in responses pays for the campaign, but that assumes all targets are equally likely to respond. If I've gone out of my way to actively avoid your advertising, I'm that much less likely to fall for it if you force it down my throat - those spammers are spending more and more money for lower and lower return rates...

The networks are in the entertainment business, not the ad in between the entertainment business. I suspect you will see more product placement inside the show (e.g. the hero drinks coke) or the networks will recognize that what people would really like is to spend their money on what they want to watch (aka pay per view, potentially delivered over the internet).

At a national association of broadcasters convention recently, a couple of broadcast group representatives said that in 10 to 20 years radio as we know it would be gone. That the clear channels and the like would be content providers (probably over the internet), not broadcasters. When asked what would distinguish a clear channel from a 17 year old kid with a good ear for music putting out a play list from his home computer, they sort of turned green and didn't have an answer. The same may happen via TV, except the production capabilities are much higher.

1 second theater