So in what category were those commercials for smoking? Clearly these campaigns were based on disinformation, manipulation, and they were highly successful.
If you were aware, you would never smoke. Same for interest. Why would you be interested in a black lung. Furthermore, desire. Not sure what a cowboy riding on a horse has to do with smoking.
So, none of those commercials teach you what smoking is actually about. It is about getting you addicted so you become an ATM for big tabacco.
It seems that your argument is, that some marketing is somewhat malicious - and I agree.
But to say that all marketing is ill-intended and manipulative seems way to extreme.
"Providing good documentation" could be considered a marketing move, if that was what would set a product apart, and make it interesting to buyers.
Making bad ad-copy and intrusive advertising in general is not something I find very interesting personally. That doesn't mean, that it doesn't work, or isn't morally wrong (you mention smoking).
Selling and promoting your product is necessary for most companies. And it can be done in a tasteful, informative and non-intrusive manner.
> Anyone who tries to manipulate anyone in any matter is a fool.
and provided a counter example. Of course, commercials don't have to be malicious, and can be informative and a net positive. But commercials rarely are honest sources of information.
