Did anyone else notice that this article is a pretty poor puff piece? I mean, don't get me wrong, the points it made are pretty much correct, but it just did a

Did anyone else notice that this article is a pretty poor puff piece? I mean, don't get me wrong, the points it made are pretty much correct, but it just did a terrible job doing so. Through-out the piece, the key evidence that advertising works was an anecdote that a friend of the author could remember two adverts. And then, at the very end, almost as if realising "oops I forgot to actually back up any of this with facts" he adds "Access to data that proves their point." Oh well that's good to know, I guess that's settled then. He could have written it in a "this is what they are trying to do" way, or if he really wanted this "I can show you that it works" then he should have actually proven it, not suggested it and then waved his hand in the air muttering "see I told you" under his breath.