In an earlier post, I suggested that marketers lose all semblance of ethics when they attempt to offer a product to customer who can derive no benefit from having it - a consequences that can occur when there is a desire to increase sales beyond the point where all people who could benefit from owning a product already have it, and marketing seeks to "expand" into customer segments who have no need, but to whom the company wishes to sell nonetheless.
A comment came in that takes a slightly different approach to the notion, which also bears consideration: that the company makes a bad product. In effect, the product is not effective in addressing the needs it is intended to serve, but is nonetheless sold as an effective means of addressing those needs. This seems entirely plausible, and perhaps even more widespread, than the situation I originally described - and may in part be subjective as it depends on the perception of whether the product addresses the need in a way that is "good enough" to satisfy the customer.
As such, my sense is that this may not be a matter of ethics so much as a matter of estimation. While I don't entirely dismiss the notion that there exist companies that seek to profit by pumping out cheap and shoddy merchandise, I think it more likely that there was an intent to provide some level of quality at a given price point, and can accept the notion that it was an earnest estimation on the part of the company to satisfy a given market segment's willingness to compromise on quality for the sake of price.
An ethical pitfall exists, in the potential to misrepresent the quality of the product to make it appealing to a customer who would not have purchased it if the quality had been represented accurately - though it would be difficult to substantiate the claim of an intentional act of deception.
So ultimately, I can accept this suggestion, though my sense is that the ethical shortcomings of marketers are less pronounced, and less distinct, in its regard.