Sure, they use the same amount of cpu and bandwidth, they have the same effect when seen from peripheral vision (or even audio), and also have the same effect on the usability of the page, sure
Please keep denying the bleeding obvious (oh and they clearly have different effects on buying decisions)
I will fight anyone who tries to tell me that a auto-playing video with sound enabled is not just as annoying as a small static image on the side of a page. Even when I'm somewhere with a limited internet connection. [sarcasm]
You're arguing semantics. Yes they are more annoying but they are all effective in making you change your thinking/buying habits and decisions. I don't want any of it, "good" or bad.
I actually don't believe that's entirely true either, or at least not as "bad" as you seem to think. Sure, any sort of advertiser would like you to use that product/service, but it's isn't necessarily trying to impact the way you think. There are plenty of ad campaigns that are simply trying to be made known. Without that, how would you expect any product to reach some sort of critical mass? Word of mouth alone?
Firefox, for example, used several different marketing avenues including a newspaper ad to try to make people aware of them. As far as I recall, that was all they were trying to do, let people know another browser option was out there. It seems a stretch to consider that as trying to manipulate your thinking.
