Cricinfo has over the years been my one-stop source for all the news from the Cricket world. On leisure days, I read almost all new articles and on busy days, I keep myself abreast of all the headlines. My consumption of cricket content has been accentuated by the influence of a gang of cricket fanatics at IIM Indore, and I can call myself
"hooked to Cricinfo" these days. And it's no secret that mine are just one among millions of pairs of eyeballs from India and around the world that are "hooked to Cricinfo", thereby making the site an advertiser's delight.
Sample this scenario - You, a die-hard Deccan Chargers fan, (a bigger cricket enthusiast than I am) boarded a flight from Bangalore at 8pm last evening, which eventually touched Mumbai at 11:30pm (courtesy the usual congestion for the CSIA runway). You access the CSIA free internet, key in www.cricinfo.com, expecting to catch the DC vs Kings XI match scores & result and all you see is this (for the next 10 seconds).
Irritating isn't it?
This is what I would call intrusive (on-your-face) advertising. Charlie Thurston, president of the advertising sales division at
Comcast defines intrusive advertising as that where there's a complete mismatch between the product and the viewer. However, I beg to differ by saying that as long as the ad doesn't impact an activity that the viewer performs, it is non-intrusive.

Every avid cricket watcher would remember the days when the Kitply logo
(right) used to appear at one corner of the screen during the replay of a sixer! A Kitply super sixes package used to follow at the end of the innings. This in my opinion was effective non-intrusive advertising. Though there did exist a complete mismatch between Kitply and me (a 12 year old cricket viewer, then), it never impeded my cricket viewing.
I discovered a petition against intrusive advertising on a site called 'Petition Online'. This petition categorizes unsolicited email, pop-unders, ad banners with audio, ad banners that obstruct content etc. as ways of intrusive advertising. Until recently, intrusion was predominantly on the internet, but it seems to have easily entered the realms of television also - IPL3 being the big culprit.

A lot of my friends totally despise the fact that commentators are trying hard to shove a couple of brand names into your ears every minute. Add to that ad inserts and the MRF blimp, watching IPL on TV is turning into an irritant for many. Some of my friends have gone to the extent of saying that they will never buy a few brands
(see left) again in their lives. The quintessential IPL advertiser wants to
"break away from the clutter", but he is mistaken if he thinks intrusive ads are helping him do that. A negative brand recall is the last thing that a young brand like 'Micromax' wants. There can be dozens of other ways to break the clutter.
MRF, which captured our hearts with its graceful presence on the bats of Sachin and Lara, has also become a victim, having paid Rs.15 Crore for its blimp in IPL3.
The blimp may be flying high, but MRF has certainly fallen from grace!
P.S: The
article "Intrusive ads: a necessary evil" by Jim Nichols presents a different perspective, making it an interesting read.