This implies that advertisers would be better off if they occasionally violated such assumptions (such as saying “of the top five” when they were in the top four) enough that it weakens the inferences viewers can make, by enough to benefit the advertisers.
Of course, the coordination problem in doing this is hard, but there are several ways around it (and not all of them just involve advertisers directly colluding with each other).
Honestly, since only a small group intersection of logic-savvy and ad-watching people is ever going to notice such a glomarization, it’s not worth it, even if the coordination problems between advertisers was solved.
This implies that advertisers would be better off if they occasionally violated such assumptions (such as saying “of the top five” when they were in the top four) enough that it weakens the inferences viewers can make, by enough to benefit the advertisers.
Of course, the coordination problem in doing this is hard, but there are several ways around it (and not all of them just involve advertisers directly colluding with each other).
Honestly, since only a small group intersection of logic-savvy and ad-watching people is ever going to notice such a glomarization, it’s not worth it, even if the coordination problems between advertisers was solved.