To decide whether advertising is being done properly, I think we need to have an honest, most likely philosophical, discussion about the purpose of advertising. I'd say that advertising is at the very core adversarial in most but not all instances.

Advertising (and other "distribution hacks") are essentially externalities (visual and audible pollution and user-friendly utility trade-offs). They have nothing to do with the product being sold and utility of a product and the only way advertising helps consumers is to help a product reach enough scale that prices drop. Besides that benefit, advertising is mainly for the benefit of the company selling the good at the cost of the consumer. There are a lot of products in the market that meet many needs. In the absence of all advertising, i.e. in a consumer-driven, not producer-driven model, the opportunity would lie with consumers paying money for people to tell them what products provide the most value and an honest assessment of one product versus others. It's the Consumer Reports model.

The Consumer Reports model, absent "payola", provides the greatest utility because it most benefits those that offer the best products and services and not those who are just better at making those product and services known. IMHO, in an ideal world every single producer would compete strictly on value, which lies at the intersection of price and quality (i.e. "fitness for use").

Advertising at it's core is often about adding the perception of value instead of actual value.