I hope they take this issue seriously.
They won't. As long as they get any kind of positive response (clicks) whatsoever they won't. I can never figure out what they base their strategy on - being obnoxious or actual statistics - but if there's something new, obtrusive, kenetic, and irritating - I think they convince themselves it was (the most negative element of) the campaign idea that "worked".
This is why we endure pop-ups, pop-unders, delayed pop-ups, and... nasty, nasty Flash banners. SOMEBODY responds and that only legitimizes their existence. It has nothing to do with what we (consumers) think we want or what we say we want, or even what we shake our fists in anger about. Clicks = Money = Successful Ad Strategy. If it obscures the screen, I guess they think, "So what?"
Ask any consumer how to "improve our ad experience" and most will say, "Kill the ads". After all, who likes television commercials? But, there's no-money in no-ads, so that's unrealistic. So, now Flash is the hot ad gimmick because enough people click them for the ad agencies to continually push the envelope for response. They float, they dance, they change shape, etc. The ad people trade business cards, go to conferences, network, and share ideas... all resulting in a more miserable experience for the "consumer" (us).
I'm waiting for a mouse that periodically hits me with electroshock to buy a new car or some such ilk as I'm reading CNN news online. They'll take it as far as they can go, no matter that we protest.