So in what category were those commercials for smoking? Clearly these campaigns were based on disinformation, manipulation, and they were highly successful.
Awareness, (increasing) interest and desire:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchase_funnel
Smoking dates back millennia:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_smoking
It is was just more productized in the (mid-)1900s, just like everything else was.
So, none of those commercials teach you what smoking is actually about. It is about getting you addicted so you become an ATM for big tabacco.
Not in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s.
The Marlboro Man first appeared in 1954:
If you mean that in 1954 nobody knew about the effects of smoking, you are wrong. The cigarette industry was well aware of it:
But to say that all marketing is ill-intended and manipulative seems way to extreme.
"Providing good documentation" could be considered a marketing move, if that was what would set a product apart, and make it interesting to buyers.
Making bad ad-copy and intrusive advertising in general is not something I find very interesting personally. That doesn't mean, that it doesn't work, or isn't morally wrong (you mention smoking).
Selling and promoting your product is necessary for most companies. And it can be done in a tasteful, informative and non-intrusive manner.
> Anyone who tries to manipulate anyone in any matter is a fool.
and provided a counter example. Of course, commercials don't have to be malicious, and can be informative and a net positive. But commercials rarely are honest sources of information.