Your argument is essentially "marketing is bad". Which is a shadow argument for "capitalism is bad".While your formulation is deliberately obtuse, the underlying sentiment can be quite damning for a certain kind of free market fan-boy, the kind who insists that buyers in a market are rational in some individual or even collective sense, that they somehow optimize their own happiness or utility function.
That notion is patently absurd, and is actually flatly and irrefutably countered by the mere existence of marketing. If the decision-making process is rational, then there is no need, nor even ability, to forge emotional connections with brands through marketing. This is a plain fact that you do not seem to get. To wit:
Ads are often aspirational and emotional, and do not necessarily contain false information. Sure, paying tuition at a school won't get you into a prestigious school and owning a MB Air won't make you happy. But an ad communicating the virtues of a great product is a good thing if it informs consumers of the product.
You've cited two examples where ads are certainly misleading, and then seemed to imply that those ads "do not necessarily contain false information," as if they were therefore not deceptive. By attempting to short-circuit the decision-making process, by putting the emotional cart before the rational horse, the ads you describe are fundamentally deceptive. That ads like that exist, that they are paid for by people with skin in the game, and that they work, are all testament to the fundamental irrationality of market players on both an individual and aggregate level. Namely, they can be swayed by a manufactured emotional response before even having gone through the rational decision-making process.
So, the argument for which your reduction ad absurdum is actually a shadow is, "Marketing exists, therefore there is a fundamental problem with the underpinnings of free market theory. It does not match reality in one of the important ways that it purports."
You conclude:
[I]f you think ads are bad then the only solution is for the government to start its own version of 'consumer reports' and to publish a simple list of products ranked according to attributes. Hardly a remotely practical or plausible solution.
I have to say, that's quite a gem. In reverse order, I guess, is the best way to address it. Last, your point about it being impractical or implausible is vacuous and, further, not germane. How would the impracticality of any given solution affect the existence or nature of the underlying problem? Second-to-last, if you really believe that the solution you offered is the "only solution", then that is a failure only of your own imagination. One could at least imagine a tighter regulation of advertising claims, for example. (It's suspicious that the "only solution" you offer is the most oppressive and impractical one. Triumphalism like this is rarely the hallmark of independent thought, but often stems from having swallowed someone's propaganda whole.) Third-to-last and finally, the "if you think ads are bad" remark is hardly the most charitable characterization of the author's original point, and is in fact what is termed an "overgeneralization," a kind of straw man. Some more charitable attempts might be, "If you think that advertising about such important and life-changing things like which school to go to will carry unsustainable hazards,..." See how much closer we are to a solution just by framing the question fairly? Granted, the solutions one might come up with from there are perhaps less simplistic and less susceptible to vilification on ideological grounds, and that might not suit your rhetorical purpose. However, I submit that this approach has a countervailing good quality that ultimately recommends it. It shows good manners, maturity, and a willingness to actually further the discussion.