>>>>Well, that's honest insofar as it recognizes that it has to be sustainable, somehow bring in some $$ for the services it offers.
>>
>>Agreed. All surveys conclude that people prefer advertizing if it means content can be free, or almost free. Plus I quite like the kit-cat association even though I'm not part of their target market. I won't be buying a kit-kat any time soon. But there are millions (billions?) out there who believe in snacking on low quality calories who may buy one because it's on their Precious. No victim AFAICS.
>
>The victim is the competition, because this kind of high-stakes advertising is pushing small players off the field. What are the chances of one, say, Zachary to counter this?
>
>And the victim, of course, is the consumer. Whatever the confectioners paid for this is surely not coming out of their personal pockets, it's all in the price of the next one you buy. Even if you buy from competition, because they are forced into responding, which will cost them you.

I think the real damage being done by commercialization is to our sense of innocence: we can't believe anyone has an innocent passion for, e.g., Kit-kats. Might it not be true that the engineers at Google like kit-kats, and that was the entire basis for the decision? Even if true, in the present age we can't conceive of it being true.

Hank