Do advertisements add enough value to my existence to compensate me for the time lost? Not rhetorical, I think it's a good question.
It depends on whether or not you have opted in, but even then there are limits.
If you opt-in, then clearly you are willing to see some sort of ad. You've indicated that you value being exposed to an ad, even if you don't know what it will be. That's probably the only value measure we can make here.
But it is an entirely different manner when one obscures the landscape with over-sized billboards, puts flashing signs next to a road (or people waving signs), goes door to door (or calls somebody) to sell a product or religion or political candidate, sends somebody junk mail, and so forth (assuming one hasn't given the recipient of the marketing the chance to opt-in).
Drivers along a road do not have the chance to opt-in, and it is often very difficult even for people in their homes to prevent this kind of activity. Not everybody has the option to fence out the world, and no fence is perfect.
There are a number of potential rights in play here, but the most fundamental is that civilized societies shouldn't allow people to steal portions of another's life. The human lifespan is finite, and time lost is precious and irreplaceable and hence extremely valuable: not allowing others to steal a portion of our lives is simply a rational recognition of this universal truth. This is why we categorize things such as kidnapping, murder, or robbery as crimes. In the last case, the robbery steals a portions of a person's life because it steals money or goods which took time to accumulate (and will take time to replace, if they can be replaced). This is why only opt-in approaches to marketing make sense: anything else effectively involves stealing a portion of a person's life.
Further, as a society, we don't necessarily allow people to opt-in themselves (or their dependents) to some things. Hence, even an opt-in system will have limits.
For example, raising the volume on a commercial during a video (to attract the attention of the audience, as a marketing technique) could result in pain or hearing damage to the audience, especially if they are elderly and have to up the volume due to hearing loss just to make out words from the non-commercial content. This could and should be regulated (perhaps even requiring voice and non-voice audio on different "channels" that are defined such that AV equipment can apply different levels of volume to them), even if one has opted-in.
Only the sociopaths don't see this. By definition, a sociopath is a person to whom other people aren't real. By attempting to steal a portion of other people's lives, the people who try to force ads on others are demonstrating their contempt for others, and thus their belief that others are not real.
All the people who engage in the list of activities above, and many other variants, are sociopaths.
Having some commercials while watching TV may be the only reason I have something to watch on TV, I can appreciate that. But in the past decade or more, commercials have consumed such a large portion of the time of TV, that it was no longer worth the time investment to be constantly interrupted, taking 30 minutes of my time to watch a 15 minute show.
Even here, there is a critical issue that is often not acknowledged, namely that society is choosing to give some entity associated with the TV show an exclusive monopoly (possibly excepting fair use or other rights). Since this is an entirely artificial right -- a privilege really -- it is entirely reasonable to limit what can be done with that monopoly.
With today's technology we (society) could easily require these shows be released in two formats, with one ad-free, allowing that version to be at a higher price to make up for the loss of advertising revenue (perhaps according to some formula determined by law), as a condition for granting copyright. We might even let producers release the two versions at different time (perhaps separated by a year). Failure to do this brings the whole concept of copyright into conflict with fundamental rights, and of course copyright is in the inferior position when that happens.