The definition that Aristotle gives of Rhetoric makes me think that it could also include contemporary advertising.
The definition of Rhetoric is the following:
Rhetoric may be defined as the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion. This is not a function of any other art. Every other art can instruct or persuade about its own particular subject-matter; for instance, medicine about what is healthy and unhealthy, geometry about the properties of magnitudes, arithmetic about numbers, and the same is true of the other arts and sciences. But rhetoric we look upon as the power of observing the means of persuasion on almost any subject presented to us; and that is why we say that, in its technical character, it is not concerned with any special or definite class of subjects.
Advertising is defined in the following way:
Advertising or advertizing is a form of communication for marketing and used to encourage, persuade, or manipulate an audience (viewers, readers or listeners; sometimes a specific group) to continue or take some new action.
Is it correct or I am missing something?
To me, rhetoric seems wider than advertising, because it does not necessarily persuade to continue or take some new action. Also, rhetoric looks more speculative while advertising is more active, being a form of communication.
Did some authors of the past compare Advertising with Rhetoric?