I'm starting to see some signs of recovery in the online ad sector. The first indicator is widespread use of "home page takeovers."

Last week Jim asked, “what is intrusive advertising?” In his column, he tried to answer that question by suggesting that ALL advertising is essentially intrusive, and continues to feel that way to an audience until they get used to it. Needless to say, from the feedback he's received and the posts found on the SpinBoard, there are an awful lot of opinions out there as to what constitutes intrusive advertising.

If you work in the ad industry long enough, it’ll happen to you. A client will ask you to do something you know is wrong. It might be an explicit request; it might be implicit. But whether you have to read between the lines or not, your agency may share in the liability if you accede to the request.

Those that have been following my column for the past few years know that I’m fond of following the goings-on over at the Interactive Advertising Bureau, and interjecting a comment or two when they release guidelines or anything else that might affect our industry. You might say that I’ve been particularly vocal when the IAB releases something that doesn’t appear to make sense to me. Recently, at a gathering of industry professionals, someone called me on it.

While everyone is collectively gasping in shock at the alleged self-dealing done at Enron, we should take a look at some of the conflicts of interest alive and well in the ad industry.

The best thing to come out of this year’s Super Bowl of Advertising -- mass advertisers with mass brand recognition used mass media in conjunction with the Web to create a comprehensive communications package and finally realize the meaning of “surround sound marketing.” But some say that's too intrusive. Here's Jim's take on it.

A click on an online ad represents interest on the part of a consumer, but that’s about it. One can’t always expect that an ad clicker is ready to purchase at the time that they click.

The "if only advertisers spent a fraction of what they spend for a :30 TV spot online" argument simply isn't convincing enough. This argument is missing the real point. The real point is DEMONSTRATE VALUE.

There will always be trade shows. People will always find an excuse to fly to San Francisco to dine on expense accounts and stroll along a warehouse floor. Pitchmen will yearn to make silly tradeshow premiums, sponsor contests and hire vacuous-yet-beautiful booth personnel. It’s just that these stopped being useful some years ago.

Tom’s always hearing a lot of talk about how our industry needs standards in order to be able to attract investments from traditional marketers and advertisers. But he has yet to hear anyone mention or propose standards for engaging the consumer online. Shouldn’t we first decide on the accepted rules of engagement?