I like to think I fall into the same category, where ads don't prompt me to spend money I wasn't going to spend before, but I think all else being equal I stick to brands I've heard of (via ads).
Early on I was fond of both brands, but later, if you offered pepsi half the price I'd still pick out a can of coke.
Now I don't drink anything but water so ..
I'm still subject to influence, because I have eyes, but it's mostly negatively, advertising is a cheap trick void of information to me. I can't buy something because a handsome male pretended to use it in a video.
Even those with informations are often lying to put a spin on their product. Health products with a new molecule. Green vehicles. etc
Plus if you know a bit about production you know brands are often using the same materials with a few superficially differenciating details; so in the end.. same product.
I still have a technical mind, and it's my main mode of functionning. Influence can still be there but I'd bet 10$ it's barely significant.
I don't really understand your point but I'm not educated in the subject either so ..
Since it is inconsequential to you, you don't care or notice the impact.
Do they think
- "meh it's all bs ..."
- "hmm I'd like that! can't wait to go to the mall and get one"
- "oh I didn't know this, it could help me <there>"
I recall feeling 3) once in my life, it surprised me because that was my first deep positive reaction to an ad. Even though I've seen similar products all my life.
Does marketing count on negative bias in their theory ? "he may dislike the add but we have a foot in the door now, he'll buy our shit later"