If all the dollars spent on these sorts of advertisements end up causing me to spend more dollars on those brands and products, is that a net gain or loss for me? What about for society as a whole?
If it's a loss for me, what can I do to defend against it?
Relevant reading: "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion" by Cialdini.
If you only ever read one book on this stuff, this is the book to read. It is framed around the 6 core psychological principles advertisers leverage, with half the chapter on how to utilize the principle, and half the chapter on how to defend yourself against manipulation of the principle.
But more directly to your question; I think it depends. Was the product you just learned about a pharmaceutical drug that will help improve your quality of life, but that your doctor has never heard of because he left medical school 25 years ago and isn't tapped into current events in this particular field?
It's very possible (and I think, correct) to think of advertising as a net-negative to society. But it does serve the vital function of informing people about things they should know about. It solves problems of information asymmetry.
The startup deadpool is filled with companies that were awesome but nobody knew about.
How is advertising a net-negative to society? Advertising funds many things which are too expensive to produce by themselves: newspapers, tv, movies, etc. You may not _like_ it but it makes possible many things which would otherwise be infeasible.
Some would argue those things you mention are themselves net-negatives. We're getting into the realm of philosophy, and I don't want to foist mine upon you. But to explain my comment: some would argue that mass market advertising is focused on the creation of desire, and that happiness is achieved through minimizing your desires. Or more literally, advertising is about making you unhappy with what you already have so you buy stuff.
If it's a loss for me, what can I do to defend against it?