What brought that to an end was not industry self-interest or conspiracy but a series of misguided regulatory interventions that transformed cigarette advertising into the images of sweetness and light we take for granted today. Less spectacular episodes of self-correcting market dynamics occur every day as sellers try to build brand share by telling consumers what is wrong with rival products. Ad bans, in contrast, utterly fail their ostensible purposes. Whether the topic is price claims, prescription drugs, health claims for foods, or ads directed at children, prohibitions on advertising have been consistently harmful to consumers. Take away advertising, and you take away the benefits of advertising.
New toys are rarer and more expensive in Greece and Sweden, where advertising to children is banned.
Consumers know less about nutrition when food sellers cannot mention disease, and they know less about potent medicines when advertising goes only to doctors. Prices of just about everything are higher when price advertising is suppressed. The more intensive the research, the stronger the evidence against bans. Bans on cigarette ads have served primarily to frustrate movements toward less harmful cigarettes and to buttress entrenched sellers. That is especially true in developing nations.