Just want to echo Andrew’s point in today’s post. Lame, preachy anti-smoking (or other drug) campaigns don’t work. Everyone remember the old “Break-free” Luba commercials from the eighties? If you want to see a really lame current campaign, check out the WHO’s Feel Free Campaign. I especially like the duck-hunt-like game where you have to kiss the non-smokers. “Don’t kiss the smokers,” it says, “you’ll burn your face.”

But before you think that I agree with the CEO of Rothmans, just remember that this is a guy who spent a hundred million dollars in advertising, in a year when advertising was completely banned in Canada. His real point is that advertising works. Good advertising works. Rothmans knows what good advertising is, but many people in the government don’t.

Advertising doesn’t usually work on the level we think it does: does anybody, for instance, drink a Coke because they think they’ll be surrounded by happy multicultural people smiling and having a good time? Or drink Labatt’s because bears will come out of the woods and start singing. No, but for some reason, people drink more Coca Cola products in the U.S. than they drink water (I suspect that fact is an urban myth but you get the idea). And drink more Labatt’s than any other beer. Advertising isn’t very good at some things, but when it’s done right it’s very good at suggesting, at planting that idea in your brain until it’s ready to germinate. No one wants to admit that advertising works on them, but it does. Companies don't spend billions every year out of the goodness of their heart. Your "choices" are influenced by advertising. So a counter-advertising campaign, like that for smoking, can certainly work if it’s effective. While you won’t get anyone who will say “That commercial made me quit smoking,” it could have planted that seed. Luba doesn’t do that. Just Say No doesn’t do that. Lame “I’m happy and a non-smoker” don’t do that. But it doesn't mean that there can't be an effective campaign like this one from Minnesota called Target Market.