Ever thought that is precisely WHY they started to get in your face? Because the returns on static ads were too low?
When are the returns on any ad ever not "too low?" No matter what those returns are, more is always better. If the existing ad has worked so well that a manufacturing company is producing its product at maximum capacity and even then just barely meeting the demand, "better" ads would allow the company to raise its prices and still sell every one of whatever it is they make as soon as it leaves the assembly line. There's always more, better, higher, bigger.
As always, the question becomes one of how much advertising they can get away with before the revenues stop increasing and begin to drop as they annoy the advertising victims enough to chase them away. They don't care if they chase a small number away (or chase them into the waiting embrace of an adblocker) as long as the remaining ones allow themselves to be monetized enough to more than make up for the loss. They kept upping the ante with the ads to monetize the shrinking pool of non-blockers until they reached a critical mass of ad obnoxiousness that drove too many of the non-blockers away, and as someone mentioned before, once a person sees how nice the web is with an adblocker, there's no going back.
The problem they're facing now is that they've chased so many of us into the waiting arms of various adblockers that they're not making up for the loss, and they've long since convinced themselves that loud, obnoxious, heavy-weight ads with trackers are better than the static ads (whose returns were "too low," recall), so the thought of returning to that doesn't even occur to them. The entire modern web ad industry revolves around third-party, brokered ads placed by companies whose customers are the advertisers, not the end users of whatever the advertiser is selling, and none of them know (or appear to be interested in knowing) any other way of doing things, so the content providers resort to begging and adblocker blockers and paywalls.