Its the primary public facing function of a consumer-facing business. Its really a lot more difficult to argue that they shouldn't be judged on for it, when its

Its the primary public facing function of a consumer-facing business. Its really a lot more difficult to argue that they shouldn't be judged on for it, when its specifically the main thing a business is trying to be judged on. The only immediate argument I can think of is that A) mass marketing is, and should be, frowned upon as a field, due to their use of extremely abusive strategies But that doesn't mean you shouldn't appreciate those who advertise well, and that all of marketing should be frowned upon B) marketing doesn't imply anything about the business But in a lot of cases, it does, because they're either in a market where they should (most consumer products), or they're in a market where there's no need to (free software, extremely cheap retailers. business to business, non-finalized products, middlemen like amazon, monoprice, etc). And if they're in the former, and they pull off a shitshow, I don't see how its reasonable to not judge them for it. There's a reason a large chunk of silicon valley puts such a massive strain on look&feel, UX, and all the shitty css frameworks, despite tech having the history of not giving the slightest shit. They've moved into a market where marketing does play a major role, and their success at it should be indicative of other successes. The backend stuff might not have to care (but, it turns out, they still do; just a different fashion), but any final product landing on your phone as an "app" certainly does care, and they should be judged for trying, and failing.