> Ads on tv do not show new things. They push brand. brand is mother, brand is father.

This is a platitude.

> you can't deny (well you can but you shouldn't) that the vast majority of ads are all brand.

Maybe it is--it's just meaningless to my point. Even if 99% of ads are all entrenched megacorps reminding people they exist, that other 1% could be Netflix disrupting Comcast, or Uber/Lyft disrupting taxis, or whatever else. Those disruptors who were previously unknown benefit much more from their advertising than Coke reminding people to not stop buying Coke.

> Without the Big Advertising people would drift off-brand. maybe boredom, maybe trying what their friend uses, maybe (surely not) be affected by price and quality.

Imagine how much more effective that off-brand would be if it could tell consumers about its lower price or higher quality, rather than having to just hope they found out somehow... versus a known competitor and brand.

>Imagine how much more effective that off-brand would be if it could tell consumers about its lower price or higher quality, rather than having to just hope they found out somehow... versus a known competitor and brand.

imagine you have an army of 100 and you are against an army of 1000.

now imagine how much more effective you would be if everyone had machine guns instead of swords.

I'm not so sure that's the analogy you're after. You'd have a much, much better chance of winning with the guns, unless you're fighting on a perfectly flat field (in which case you're toast either way). I don't think I've ever seen a realistic example of somebody managing to take out two people at once in a sword fight, let alone 10.