Also, this is also the case with ad-disabling subscriptions, the people who have the disposable income to buy non-ad versions are the most interesting to a lot of advertisers.
Most people think ads don't make them buy things, but they still do. It's just not as direct as seeing the ad so you click on the ad and buy the thing. (Sometimes it's that direct and advertisers love it, but not usually)
You're thirsty. Do you want a Coke or an Africola? Coke obviously - what the heck is Africola? Why do you want a Coke? Because you saw the Coke logo everywhere since birth.
To be fair, I've taken part in blind tests here and coke is by far the best option, though that is definitely partially due to it having been the default correct option for all my life
That might be true, for very specific market dominating companies, but these wouldn't really need any new advertisement. I'm not going to forget anytime soon, that CocaCola exists.
For all the other companies its exactly the other way around. I will see products of a company, I know bothers me when I want to do something else, and a bunch of products I have no (negative) opinion yet. Guess which products I will evaluate?
For an ad to leave a good impression it must be actually good, otherwise it achieves exactly the opposite. People used to buy advertisements, the ad industry destroyed this, by forcing people to look at ads. People don't like being forced.
