Even if you can be reached by advertising (which, judging from the pride you take in averting it, I doubt), targeting you specifically would have a horrible ROI. You are not going to spend enough to make up for the loss of all the other people who respond to normal advertising.
This is the fallacy that is, IMO, killing online video. I am a tech guy with above-average lifetime income potential and influence on the high-tech purchasing decisions of my friends and family. I have money and want to spend it, but it seems nobody is selling what I'm looking to buy. I am not alone.
You're not alone, but are there as many of you as there are other people? Even if you and a hundred people like you spend 75% of your income on everything that's advertised according to your specifications, that's much less money than 5,000 people who make half as much as you do spending 5% of their income.
I don't expect anyone to give up the average consumer. I'm talking about earning money in venues in which there's a higher than typical concentration of geeks (e.g. online streaming of science fiction, P2P downloads). Sure, 5000 * .05 * x > 101 * .75 * 2 * x, but focusing on the first only gets (in this example) 62% of the available revenues. Why not capture some of that other 38% for significantly less effort than the 62%?
However, I do believe that manipulative advertising is a net detriment to society, regardless of how effective it is at reaching the average consumer.
