The obvious case is a commodity, like wheat or soybeans or oil, where nobody bothers branding it at all until they get to a retail product. In the retail marketplace, the primary differentiation between one kind of cleaning product and another is the marketing, advertising, and associated superficial differentiations: coloring, fragrance, and so forth. That's why the largest advertising budgets are for companies with similar competitive products: GM/Honda/Ford/Nissan/Toyota/Hyundai; Procter&Gamble, L'Oreal, Estee Lauder; Samsung/Sony/HP; Progressive/Allstate/State Farm.
They aren't advertising to get new customers into the market: they're advertising to shift customers to competing suppliers.
Samples pulled from adbrands.net list of top 100 US advertisers. There are many, many more clusters there to illustrate the point.
Going back to the stanford example, great marketing companies understand user problems and design products that solve that problem in a scalable way. Awareness (via advertising) is only one aspect of marketing.
So while advertising in a commodity market might be a zero sum game, I contend that true marketing is not.