Near as I can tell, they are not so much advancing an argument as using this opportunity to complain about a tangentially related phenomenon. The point seems muddled since the efficacy of advertising wasn't ever in question, but, basically, they're just saying it grinds their gears when someone points out that advertising works as a justification for its existence. They believe that there are metrics to consider which aren't "did the ad generate a sale".

Could be I got that wrong, but I think that's the gist of what they were saying. I, too, am a little confused, since no one seemed to be doubting ads work, despite consumer hostility, but, in their defense, they did declare up-front that they wanted to piggyback on this topic to address a pet peeve of theirs, so it's not like we weren't informed of their intent.