It seems unreasonable to restrict the term propaganda to government since any organization can produce propaganda, i.e. "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view."

If it's not from the government, we call it marketing. :-)

This is incorrect. Marketing is not necessarily used to promote political change. There are plenty of examples of propaganda in for-proft and non-profit (yet non-state) media which is clearly propaganda and not marketing simultaneously.

Best example of Market-ganda ever, marketers protecting their own. 6 names for the same idea - manipulating others for self-gain.

Tell that to the political facebook ad companies.

When Trump sells MAGA hats, it is both marketing and a tool for political change.

Musk selling electric cars can also fall under both categories. People with electric cars are more likely to support policies that make it easier to own electric cars and less likely to care about fossil fuels.

Unless it's from a media outlet in which case we call it "agenda"

Nah, it's still called propaganda. The agenda is what is promoted, not the product nor technique of the promotion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_through_media

Also wrong to call only negative things propaganda

Good catch.

If you havent already, watch the two following Documentaries:

"Century of Self"

https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-century-of-the-self/

---

"Human Resources"

https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/human-resources/

---