> You need some amount of advertising. If you invented the cure for AIDS tomorrow, how are you going to tell everyone about it? Word-of-mouth works, but only so far. Perhaps over time, people will naturally Google "cancer cures" but will your business still be solvent by then?

This example is actually a perfect example of why you don't need advertising for things people really need. Do you really think that one of the largest advancements in medical history would not be on the front page of every major news site? Do you really think that patients with cancer and their oncologists won't research the latest cures for cancer?

> If you want to talk about leveling the playing field, you have to be more strategic with your legislation. Don't ban advertising. Ban spending on advertising above some limit. No one benefits from Coca-Cola showing yet another commercial on TV other than the commercial producers - society certainly doesn't benefit though. Make companies spend their ad dollars wisely.

Society doesn't benefit from Coca-Cola--on the contrary, Coca-Cola is actively harmful, and there isn't an amount of spending on advertising Coca-Cola that would be reasonable. This is an example of why advertising is harmful: it's propping up a business model that actively causes people diabetes, obesity, tooth decay, etc. Without advertising, do you think people would be googling, "sugary drinks"? Probably not: and the resulting bankruptcy of a corporation poisoning us would be a good thing.

This made me think of indy games! With zero advertising and through word of mouth alone (And I guess steam reviews!) you can make an amazingly successful game. Minecraft being the biggest example.