That depends on the feedback, no? I mean, if a developer wants to develop a game in a certain way, and while that way is perfectly functional, there's some feedback from the community suggesting that some people in the community don't like that certain way. Then, to be a "good marketer" you'd have to at least say that you're going to stop developing what you want to develop, and instead, develop what the people want you to develop.
Now, there's a couple problems with that. First of all, we all know a microfraction of the community can be extremely vocal about a certain thing, such as, to use a recent example, Tracer's butt. They're such an insignificantly small minority that they're a drop in the ocean. However, they yell loud enough, and then those loud yells are echoed in regular media, social media and on forums, and there you go; bad publicity. However, now that they - the developers - make that change, they're not actually listening to actual community feedback. They're just listening to two or three morons who thought that a thing should be changed and who yelled loud enough. So what kind of PR and marketing will that bring, then, when the vast majority of the community realizes that said change wasn't done because the community wanted it, but because the developers immediately bowed down to ridiculous demands? That's poor marketing if you ask me.
Secondly, do we honestly want developers always developing the game the community wants? Do we honestly think that groupthink and the will of the herd of sheeple that is the gaming community will create the best possible outcome? Isn't expecting developers to immediately do what the community wants them to do, instead of allowing them to express themselves, stifling their own artistic views? And what kind of marketing is that, then? I mean, giving the impression that they have no view, no vision and no conviction to carry out that vision, but instead, if someone thinks what they're doing is somehow wrong, they immediately change it? I'd say that, again, is poor marketing.
I would say that good marketing from the PR people and developers would be to, yes, be open to community feedback, but when that feedback is in direct conflict with the developers' own vision, and there's no reason why they'd have to change anything, then they should outright say that the community is wrong, and end the discussion there. Yeah, the kneejerk reaction to that would be "well you can't tell people they're wrong, they won't buy your product!", but I don't think it's quite that simple. Some thin skinned assholes might "boycott" the product, but people who can recognize true conviction and true faith and trust in the product by the developers, would actually see this as a plus.
All I'm saying is, I don't think it's that black and white. There's a fine line between being an independent company with independent developers who listen to feedback but aren't afraid to tell the people giving that feedback that they're wrong, and becoming complete and utter assholes like, for example, all the Gawker publications.