I wonder if there's some sort of theory that underlies the whole field of marketing. If there were, I guess it would be "there is a direct correlation between a consumer seeing the image of a product and a consumer going out and purchasing that product." There can be no other theory. Why else are commercials targeted to specific groups? Why else do we have spam email and spyware that sends us advertisements? The idea is that if a consumer sees an ad for those penis enhancement pills, he'll go out and buy them.

And that works on TV. We have been watching TV for years, and we've become used to commercials. More than anything else, they suggest alternatives for demands we already have. I had quite a conversation with a friend of mine about this. He claimed that commercials creat new demand; I said that commercials suggest alternatives for pre-existing demand. Consider this: does watching a commercial about beer make you thirsty? If you say "yes," then consider this: what about if you've just consumed a gallon of water, or five cans of beer? Still thirsty? A beer commercial's effect on your thirst only works if you're already thirsty. The commercial doesn't say, "You're thirsty now, and you want a beer"; rather, it says, "Might I suggest beer as a method of quenching your thirst?" The same goes for food: if you've consumed a ten-course dinner, the last thing you want is to see a commercial with food. But the target audience for that commercial is for people who are already hungry: "Perhaps you would like to eat our food," is what that commercial says. When I see a car commercial, I don't think, "Holy crap! I need to buy a car!" The car commercial suggests alternatives to my pre-existing demand for a car. This is not to say that some commercials don't try to create demand. Some of them use clever marketing ploys to make you feel thirsty, or hungry, or like you need a new car. But by and large, commercials try to get at the money I was already going to spend on a particular product. Take laundry detergent. If I have a washing machine, I need laundry detergent, anyway. Seeing that Tide commercial isn't going to create demand for laundry detergent. But it is going to make me think about Tide when I go to buy that laundry detergent. And advertising can certainly create a culture where demand for a product is perpetual: for example, how Americans feel the need to eat all the time. Advertising has created that situation and is now exploiting it, telling us, "If you're not eating something right now, there's something wrong with you. Eat our product and be acceptable again."

But this theory of advertising does not hold for the Internet. Ad banners are the primary way that Internet sites make money. Based on the amount of traffic they receive, they are able to charge more money. The company purchasing the ad thinks, "If more people see my advertisement, more people will buy my product." It's the same marketing theory that justifies $1 million for a thirty-second Super Bowl ad. But there's a problem, here: I can scroll right past the ad without ever seeing it. I can install software that eliminates banner ads from the page (and I have installed such software). Now, I'm essentially viewing the page without paying the price for it, that price being the viewing of the ad. The marketing theory has failed one time. What's going on, here?

Another example. Advertisers decided that banner ads weren't invasive enough. Like I said, you can scroll right past them without ever seeing them. So, they invented the ever-popular "pop-up" window. The pop-up ad is very invasive and usually unwanted. Spyware programs like Kazaa specialize in pop-up ads; the theory is that if you see the ad, you'll buy the product. There's an even better chance that you'll buy the product in this case because the ad-producing software tracks the websites you visit and tailors the ads to suit those habits (if you visit websites about mountain climbing, you'll get pop-ups about climbing equipment or places to go mountain climbing). But I bet no one ever clicks on these ads. The person viewing the ad doesn't say, "Oh! Yes! What a great solution to my demand for climbing equipment!" but rather, "Get this damn pop-up off my screen!" The invasiveness of the advertising method overrides any utility that ad may have. And besides, we're not conditioned to be accustomed to commercials on the Internet like we are with TV. On TV, commercials are the "fee" we pay to watch a program; the Internet, however, is free.

But apparently it's not. "Free" programs come bundled with "spyware" or "adware"; that is, software that displays advertisements or sends information about you to marketing companies. A few years ago, spyware was just a nuisance, but now it's gotten worse. You are being forced to watch advertisements. You are tricked into downloading spyware. The spyware runs all the time. (Case-in-point: Blubster's ad support runs even when Blubster is turned off; the same goes for Kazaa's ad support.) If spyware is legitimate software, then why try to hide it? Spyware masquerades as legitimate Windows processes and puts itself into the registry with names like "RunWindowsUpdate" and "Support Center." If spyware is legitimate, then why does it have to be disguised? Because if it weren't disguised, people would be able to remove it easily, and the very last thing that companies like New.net or Cydoor want is for you to be able to easily remove their spyware. Now, if you want to uninstall this crap, the spyware makes you connect to the Internet and download an uninstaller rather than run an uninstaller off the hard drive. Why? Because it takes more time and is more complicated. The novice user might get lazy, or might be worried that it's too complicated ("I migt mess something up!"). Spyware goes to great lengths to ensure that it's not uninstalled, sometimes requiring you to enter the text of an image it generates to make sure that you're a human and not a spyware removal program that uninstalling it.

The advertisers are fighting back: why? Their theory of marketing has failed on the Internet. People who use the Internet have found ways to bypass the advertising. And then there's spam email. I'll bet that no one reads spam email. Companies have been founded whose sole purpose is providing ways of removing spam email. The theory of marketing has failed for spam email, as well. Spam email is as invasive as ad pop-ups, and the invasiveness of the method overrides whatever offer the email may have (the same goes for telemarketing -- great idea, huh? Look how it backfired). Spam email also tries to disguise itself as legitimate email, hoping you'll become confused and click on that link. The advertisers have resorted to underhanded means to get you to even look at what they have to offer, much less buy it. But no one buys this stuff. More money is spent on producing the advertising than is gained from the sale of the products. One day soon, advertisers will have to realize that their bombadier method wastes money and doesn't work. They're only advertising advertising, not any real products. This is not a good business plan.

Either Internet advertising will become more invasive and will be structured such that it cannot be disabled, or Internet companies will need to find a new method of revenue. The theory of marketing breaks down on the Internet and advertisers are desperately trying to make it work. It doesn't. If the marketers don't think of something else soon, they will be, as I said before, advertising advertising. I envision a future where there is only marketing but no actual products, a grim and somehow appropriate postmodern dystopia.