Proof that, despite what certain well-known HN users will so vociferously swear, advertising is not essential to the modern economy.
Fast food chains, chip companies, beef jerky, almonds, other seasonings and more all spend a considerable amount advertising their products include Sriracha.
Sriracha's popularity mostly began when these companies started to introduce products with it to everyday people. It's not like Sriracha didn't exist prior to 2010...
I would be surprised if Huy Fong Foods, the company behind the popular US variation, didn't have something to do with the initial deals that got all this going. Clever marketing, indeed.
I wonder how much they spent on not spending? /s
Existence proof for a particular isn't hard to come by. Lots of companies (including google & facebook, ironically) blew up without sales or marketing playing a significant role.
The "modern economy" OTOH, is big. Advertising (either selling or buying) a core piece of the business model of many of the largest companies. Everything that touches them touches advertising and everything that touches them is a massive part of the economy.
This might suggest that advertising needn't be essential, not that it isn't. Wikipedia & Linux might suggest that IP and shareholders needn't be necessary to the modern economy. But IP and shareholders certainly are, currently, necessary to the way it works.
In that sense, fax machines and beepers aren't really part of the modern economy, but hot sauces very much are.
Make better products.
The methods that are in use in current times on the other hand...
TFA explicitly contradicts your opinion.
Also, Sriracha can be litigious:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/05/sriracha-maker-loses-lawsuit...
Not in the context here - that's not a suit over IP. The basis of the suit is "we overpaid you by $1.4 million, and you refused to return our money". There is nothing strange or even questionable about such a suit, nor is there any reason to view it as an indicator of undesirable practices.
When the final result is an award of $14 million against them plus $10 million in punitive damages, by unanimous jury verdict, it is absolutely questionable and potentially an indicator of undesirable practices.