The great thing about the future was it was supposed to involve brands seducing people into spending time with them, rather than interrupting whatever they were doing to shove an ad down their throat.

And the internet was supposed to be a big part of that future.

But is it?

The static ad that interrupts your reading of a news story, like this one, is standard now. It's far more 'interruptive' than bad old magazine advertising.

Then there's the full-page ad that gets in between you and the website you want to visit. Thanks Northampton Town FC.

And don't get me started on pop-ups. How do they know to pop up in a position that covers the very words you were trying to read? No newspaper ad ever did that. It wouldn't be allowed!

(I wish I had the example of the most annoyingly interruptive online ad I ever saw. I was looking at a baseball website when an animated cartoon character representing some insurance company wandered on, hit a ball 'right at me' that 'shattered the glass' so I couldn't read a single word on the whole screen, until I'd found that ever-elusive 'close' button).

And it's not just me that finds all this increasingly irritating. A survey by Burst Media featured in AdRants today finds that "three quarters (77.5%) of respondents say advertisements in online video are intrusive and nearly two-thirds (62.2%) say advertisements in video content disrupts their web surfing experience."

The new model is fast becoming the old model. And that's not good.

UPDATE. To the person who accused me of "being such an above-the-line creative", of course there is loads of great stuff being done for brands on the web. And maybe the interruptive stuff is just a very small part of what's being done. But its effect is still, as the survey shows, increasingly disruptive.