From a sysadmin perspective, Firefox having its own cert store instead of relying on system store was an extra hurdle for corp IT people.
Then there is the fact that Chrome goes out of its way to integrate with Google's other properties which they market to corporations to replace Office.
So I'm saying, I believe FF would have done better if they tried harder to integrate with corporate environments without compromising on their capability and independence. Name recognition is a big thing.
Google for years installed Chrome using installers of other applications, like malware. I am talking of 10 years ago, that was common practice for google, on windows. So a lot of users found themselves using Chrome without even knowing they were using chrome.
I'm in this camp. I had used Firefox for 20 years, literally since it was just a zip file called Pheonix/Firebird.
I switched to a Chromium-based browser kicking and screaming, but it came down mostly to speed for me, and some website incompatibility (which I can't blame wholly on Firefox).
I'd obviously tried Chrome since day 1, and was impressed and checked back in from time to time, until I decided it was time to finally switch over. I still support Mozilla and Firefox and don't want to see less competition in browser engine space. As long as Google continues to fund it (mostly out of anti-competitive concerns I'd imagine) I don't see them going anywhere.
All of that didn't just happen because of advertising. It happened become Chrome offered very compelling benefits over its competitors.
For many users, Chrome was faster, lighter, more secure, and offered a better all-around user experience than its competitors did. Even now, that's still largely the case.
Advertising alone can't make that happen.