When will folks ever learn the “less-on”?? The “less vs. fewer” debate rages on. Case in point:
Citi is running a promo. It starts out fine, but quickly grates on grammarians with the phrase …
“Less trees being cut down …”
OK, everybody repeat after us …
I will use “less” for amounts that cannot be counted as discrete items, such as water, sunshine, and money.
I will use “fewer” for numbers of items that can be counted as discrete items, such as drops of water, rays of sunshine, dollar bills, and … of course, trees!
Get it? Got it. Good!
See also our previous post: Limit less …
Grammar Police a.k.a. GrammarCops 
Definitely one of my biggest pet peeves. Nearly up there with there/they’re/their, it’s/its, who’s/whose, and your/you’re/yore.
ENGLISH. IT IS YOUR NATIVE LANGUAGE. Seriously, people.
To be fair, in this example, the author may well have understood this rule, but wanted to make the pun on “less is more.”
[…] we are going to shamlessly steal from our earlier post: Less is not always more … and may continue to do so until correctness catches […]
[…] Less is not always more … […]
I will not argue correctness. I will say the ‘more or less/fewer’ issue is more a question of psychology.
Contrast gets attention. Dark opposes light, up opposes down, black opposes white, etc. In most minds, less is the opposite of more, not fewer. Using ‘less’ incorrectly is simply more valuable in advertising than being grammar champions. There’s no doubt in my mind Ad companies know the proper usage, but just don’t care.