I guess this shouldn't surprise me here, where people seem to think that a great idea is all you need to be successful. (It isn't.)
Having the superior product doesn't count for anything if people don't know about it. I'm quite confident that my products are better than my competitors', but one competitor in particular was first to market and gained so much name recognition that many people don't even realize there IS an alternative. I don't *like* having to pay for ads, but it works, if you're smart about it anyway.
I *stopped* advertising on one popular site because Google's targeting was way off - my ads were getting lost in a sea of garbage ads that had no place on that site, and were causing the users to ignore everything as irrelevant. My sales went up immediately when I moved that budget elsewhere.
So yes, I would happily pay more to have my ads presented only to very specific categories of users, especially if it meant an overall thinning out of the quantity of ads thrown at them. I don't want to waste money spraying ads everywhere - I want them in front of people already looking for something I offer, or who have a need that they didn't know there was a specific product to fill.
As a consumer, if I have to see ads I'd much rather they be for embedded C compilers, test equipment, and scuba gear than cosmetics, luxury cars, and heartburn medication. Every once in a while I *do* come across something I could really use that I didn't know existed. This happens almost exclusively with ads in magazines like Circuit Cellar, though - where the ads are, of course, targeted.
As for American consumers not wanting targeted ads, maybe they should ask in a different way. Put someone in front of the TV for 30 minutes with the usual mix of ads for feminine products, pet food, dandruff shampoo, and so on. Then try another 30 minutes with ads targeted to their specific interests. Then ask them which they'd rather see every day.