I really wonder how valid this "truism" is. It sounds more like a word trap, wherein anything other than "I'm susceptible" is the wrong answer.

It's a lot like those silly word games in the early 2000s where saying anything other than "I'm secretly gay" was simply taken as further proof of latent homosexuality.

You are not special. The placebo effect works even if you know it's a placebo.

In this context, I think the "Mere Exposure Effect" of branding might be more relevant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-exposure_effect

"The most obvious application of the mere-exposure effect is in advertising, but research on its effectiveness at enhancing consumer attitudes toward particular companies and products has been mixed."

"A subsequent review of the research concluded that exposure leads to ambivalence because it brings about a large number of associations, which tend to be both favorable and unfavorable."

This would make sense, since it's the unfamiliarity itself that elicits a negative response. Once that unfamiliarity is gone, you'd react normally (positive or negative). We're all familiar with Facebook, Google, Ford, Tide, dogs, hamsters, veal, brussels sprouts... But that doesn't mean that we necessarily have a positive view of them.

So the "Mere Exposure Effect" remains unproven for positive response in an advertising context.

Riight... And everyone's the same. And we can decide what's true without scientific evidence.

The older I get, the less I believe the old wives' tales.

I would love to see a remake of The Network (1976) about modern marketing with this quote in it.