making money or just transferring it
Certainly. Let us proceed to examine.
What do you want to do with your life?
Sit on a beach basking in the sun? Have sex twenty four hours per day? Be fed by slave girls from the most delicious cuisine on the planet? Take in all the best shows ... hobnob with all the famous and powerful "nobs"?
I suggest that the foregoing will keep the average person amused for a year or so but in the end what we really wish to do in life is struggle to achieve a goal ... achieve it ... reap the rewards directly connected to that achievement ... then move on to a new goal and repeat the adventure. We are not designed to be satisfied as permanent observers of existence. We require movement against some resistance. Thus we take our measure and sense of self-worth. Laying around always is nice for a rest but continuously it is a slow (albeit pleasant) form of death.
Which brings us to ...
Making money vs just transferring it to your account
Wouldn't it be nice to wake up one morning to find that you've won the lotto? I would surely like that. What would you do with all that money after you've taken care of your bills, bought a new house and a few cars, etc? Would you just lay around on the beach as in the above? Maybe ... if you are past sixty you might just take every available cruise and see the world. But if you are much younger, all that extra cash will be used to test out your ideas in the civilization in which you are embedded. You will find something to do which advances that civilization in some way and thereby take your measure by the degree of your success. That is, you will do exactly as before but an a somewhat grander scale.
So, transferred wealth (un-earned) gives no sense of accomplishment of itself. It has no philosophical value ... only earned wealth has that. And that is what you really want ... to do something worthwhile in civilization and thus gain wealth as a measure of personal worth. This is what it means to "make money". It is about the creation of wealth ... not its transference.
Hence, inventing something useful and making money from it is much more satisfying than simply acquiring it for no reason at all. And in fact you would probably be better off not winning the lotto as many ruined people will attest to (though I would certainly like to see if it would ruin me).
Then ethical business adds something useful to civilization in order to turn a profit. That profit is the measure of the company's success both economically and philosophically ... and the same goes for its employees as well. A company wherein its officers just find mechanisms for transferring money to the company without accomplishing anything worthwhile for civilization is not ethical even though it may be legal. And there is no rational satisfaction here either. Those who profit by such means are simply variant lotto winners or perhaps thieves.
Some businesses border on being intrinsically un-ethical ... like banking, insurance and other such endeavors where money simply "moves" from one hand to another. They may be marginally useful in supplying an economic "base" for civilization ... perhaps even necessary (at least at this time) ... but they are inherently, always, on the precipice of ethics because they produce no goods or services that are conducive to the maintenance and furtherance of civilization. Their place in civilization is arbitrarily dependent on the current set-up, i.e. they are not intrinsically necessary. That is, their degree of necessity does not warrant that their executors should reap large monetary rewards. These executors are simply the people who control the spout.
I am reminded here of newspeople on TV. Why should the opinion of a "TV news reader" be more significant than any other randomly selected person? It is only because they are seen by the multitudes. Their significance is due only to being familiar. So too with a TV company. They have more political clout because they control the "TV spout" whereas some other company does not.
Now, what is marketing?
In the current civilization "marketing" means getting people to buy a product they do not want or need. It is the science of jamming it down your throat ... of cheating you out of the contents of your wallet or bank account by any legal and sometimes illegal means. A "marketer" is just a legalized con-man ... everything he does is necessarily unethical. His goal in life is only the transfer of money and not the maintenance of civilization. What he is selling is just a prop to that end.
Advertising is often blurred with marketing in today's society. It has been tarred by marketing's lack of ethics. Essentially, advertising is the method by which a legitimate business informs the public of what it has to offer. It may blend into marketing if the business tries to bring its message to the public too often. Extreme repetition may increase sales to some degree but here the business is attempting to "jam it".
Note: There is ... and cannot be in principle ... telephone advertising. This is strictly a marketing technique. Advertising is to "display" ones wares. It is entirely passive. Marketing is entirely intrusive. Its intent is to grab you by the hair and jam your nose into it till you can't breathe ... then ... force a sale in exchange for release ... something philosophically akin to extortion.
That's it in brief.
Advertising is like a pleasant conversation or the telling of an anecdote or joke designed to inform the viewer or listener that something is available ... if ... you might need it ... in order to MAKE money. Marketing is about the application of psychological force to TRANSFER money from your wallet into the hands of the marketer against your will.
The only proper response to marketing is ... ceaseless refusal to bend to the will of another ... same as any other attempt to cajole or force you to give up your rightful autonomy.