I think one of the arguments for the more specific form of targeted advertising is for the measurement of impact, not that it is in some way more impactful.

Assumedly that measurement can lead to more impactful ads, but we are awfully new to programmatic advertising for that to be proveable.

I do know that advertisers believe targeting is valuable.

IMO that single-targeting-impact measurement is grossly misplaced. Though this also isn't generally my area of expertise (I have however worked in campaign assessment for various marketing efforts).

Better IMO is to look at broader measures of response. Multiple campaigns with various metrics -- coupons, response codes, promotions, differing Web URLs, etc. See what has a better measured response as an aggregate on desired outcomes.

The problem with ever-more-intrusive-and-objectionable advertising is that it turns people off.

I've largely abandoned commercial media, will consciously avoid stores whose advertising (or products) are annoying, and keep winnowing down the list of mobile service providers who are even vaguely acceptable to me (if I can possible swing it, I don't carry a phone), due in part to consideration shown their own customers.

I'm hoping that eventually those negatives will be large enough to sway practices. Google are actually in a position to have an impact, I've encouraged them on this before.

The thing is, marketers are still ”experimenting" for the most part. Just as traditional advertising was sold to clients for years even when its efficiency could not be measured. Right now, it can be measured better through tracking, direct mail, “CRM” and the likes, but it doesn't mean it translates into sales—far from it. Digital agencies are surfing on the hype and cashing in as fast as they can before clients cut their advertising budgets again, just as it happened with other channels, like TV ads for instance.