I haven't thought about it. Advertisement is what I am so used to that it is impossible for me to judge that the act of advertising already has affected me either directly or indirectly.
Advertisement is just one representation for the firm to help the customer determine the good's quality. Yet, some ads do not include any illustration on price or quality. It is weird.
So diverse the form of advertisement takes that it is impossible to determine whether advertisement is good or bad for economy. It can create brand royalty of course, and some professions prohibit their advertisement for loosing their market share. As well as brand loyalty, advertising can create unnecessary hubris. It is bad for these reasons.
But, if advertisement is to inform people how good the good is, then it would be beneficial way to promote their goods. Advertisement costs huge amount of money, and if the firm employs a celebrity for advertisement, the customer will indirectly infer that this brand could be trustworthy. Once the brand starts to have positive image the firm would do its best to keep up with its quality since the image loss means damage on the firm's total revenue.
I will not say advertisement is good or bad here. It doesn't matter whether I regard it good or not. It is just a phenomenon that prevails the society. If the government imposes fine on advertising, the firm will find out another way to promote its good. I think this phenomenon is inevitable, for the majority of the whole market follows monopolistic competition or oligopoly.
The role of government, economists say, can promote the social welfare. Because this fact, economists bicker in order to settle how much the government should interfere with the market.
I think advertisement is one of the topics that create much division of opinion among the economists.
