The importanc e o f thi s selectio n proces s gav e media a plac e i n th e Output colum n o f the model o f the advertising proces s in Section 3.6 .

That views of advertising effectiveness ar e both mixed an d comple x i s illustrated b y th e on-goin g debat e abou t th e effec t o f advertisin g o n th e consumption o f cigarettes . A working paper by Martyn Duffey, Advertising and Cigarette Demand in the UK (UMIST 94 08, 1994), concluded tha t adver - tising effect s wer e alway s estimate d t o b e negative : '.. . n o evidenc e ha s been foun d i n thi s researc h t o bac k u p th e vie w tha t aggregat e cigarett e advertising serve s t o expand tota l deman d fo r cigarettes . On th e contrary , the result s presente d her e sugges t tha t th e genera l effect , i f on e exists , o f brand advertisement s .. . may hav e been t o restrain aggregat e deman d fo r cigarettes.' One may be slightly perplexed a s to why thi s might be the case, until one realises that cigarette advertising in the UK must carry prominen t health warnings . The working paper wen t o n to state that 'cigarette adver - tisements ma y paradoxicall y reinforc e an d disseminat e th e healt h educa - tion messag e throug h thei r warning s content' . I t mus t b e sai d tha t thi s view conflict s wit h th e Healt h Committe e statemen t tha t advertisin g undermines th e health educatio n message .