I know there's lots of empirical studies and literature on this
I believe the rationale is even if say 90% of the viewers who wouldn't buy the product anyway are now less likely to buy the product, That's considered a zero.
However if you're positively influencing the purchasing decisions on that remaining 10%, then it might be money well spent.
Thus the advertising may not affect specifically you but because this is a broadcast style exposure, that doesn't matter
I think the logic is flawed in thinking this way too. Most products have an overwhelming amount of choice. If you are not in the market for that category of product then the advertisement is not aimed at you. Even if you were annoyed by the the advertisement at that particular moment in time, if you are ever in the market for that category of product then the product will have brand recognition over its competitors and that is what is so huge and valuable.
IMO it is quite like the classic example of the heuristic that there is no such thing as bad press.
I believe the rationale is even if say 90% of the viewers who wouldn't buy the product anyway are now less likely to buy the product, That's considered a zero.
However if you're positively influencing the purchasing decisions on that remaining 10%, then it might be money well spent.
Thus the advertising may not affect specifically you but because this is a broadcast style exposure, that doesn't matter