this article is so dis-genuine it hurt. Because it pretend to be an unbiased scientific study

It voluntarly misses 2 points that everyone know are the heart of advert:

1- Familiarity

As KleinBloo pointed out, the more you see a brand on ad, the more you have a familiarity with it. When come the time to buy something, you are more confident in the brand you saw on TV/net , than the scary off-brand, you never heard of.

That is less easily testable, because it 's a long term ploy. Mostly you're advertising NOW to children, so that they buy/use your shit when they become adult

2- Information

If you never know Apple just launched a new iPhone, even if it's your favorite brand, you'll never get to go buy one.

The few last month I had the displeasure to watch some ads on TV. 90% of them are for new stuff. The new 3$ meal, the new phone, the new car.

Without the ad, you just wont buy it because you just wont know it exist.

It could be easy to test the launch of a new product with and without ads.. and my bet is on the ad doing wonder. But the article doesnt give those data