Google ads unethical or just clever design?

Jakob Nielsen's latest Alertbox is sure to get some defensive responses from the folks at Google...  He publishes results from a recent eye tracking study that clearly shows that users do not look at banner ads on web sites at all when they are looking for information or engrossed in the content on the page.  This isn't particularly new information, we've known this for a long time, but he does take it a step further.  First, he explains that there are three main design elements that are effective at attracting eyeballs to online ads (Plain text,  Faces and of course Cleavage and other "private" body parts).  Then he goes on to explain a fourth design element:

In addition to the three main design elements that occasionally attract fixations in online ads, we discovered a fourth approach that breaks one of publishing's main ethical principles by making the ad look like content:

• The more an ad looks like a native site component, the more users will look at it.
• Not only should the ad look like the site's other design elements, it should appear to be part of the specific page section in which it's displayed.

This overtly violates publishing's principle of separating "church and state" -- that is, the distinction between editorial content and paid advertisements should always be clear. Reputable newspapers don't allow advertisers to mimic their branded typefaces or other layout elements. But, to maximize fixations, that's exactly what you should do in a Web ad.

A specific ad may or may not be ethical, depending on how closely it masquerades as content. I caution against going too far, because it can backfire and mislead users. Unethical ads will get you more fixations, but ethical business practices will attract more loyal customers in the long run.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that he's taking a shot at Google here, because they're obviously really good at making ads look like native site components on their search results pages.  My question is if it's really unethical or just clever design?  How will we know if users are annoyed by these ads, or if the relevance of the ads makes it ok in their minds?  I would be interested to know what kind of answers follow-up qualitative research might uncover.  Eye tracking by itself won't show you how people are feeling about these ads.  My guess is that users wouldn't care as long as the ads are relevant...

The Science and Art of User Experience at Google

I recently came across this internal talk at Google about some of the UX elements of the site:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6459171443654125383

It's almost 30 minutes long and a pretty dry format, but I found it interesting nonetheless -- check it out if you have a chance. It's a good overview of Google's relentless focus on UX. What I found most encouraging was hearing that, like most companies, they don't always get it right the first time. When you see the final products you forget about the several failed iterations they went through, and the hours of design and usability testing that went into creating the final versions.

For example -- the simple "one box" home page wasn't a deliberate move by the company, it was mainly due to laziness -- the founders didn't know a whole lot of html and didn't want to learn. But the simplicity of the Google home page ended up being their most distinct feature and certainly one of the biggest reasons for the site's popularity.

They also speak about some of the things they just didn't plan for -- like how initial usability testing revealed users who never started interacting with the home page because they were "waiting for the site to load." It just didn't dawn on users that the simple home page in front of them is the whole site. The designers then added the copyright (c) Google message at the bottom of the page, mainly to show users that site has fully loaded and they can start typing...

Good to know that no matter how good you are at what you do, you can't always get it right the first time. And, of course, user involvement is essential in the iterative design of products...