Predictably, the American Association of Advertising Agencies responded to the release of a study that shows that alcohol advertising is effective by claiming that it's not effective at all — at least as far as young adults are involved.

“We’ve seen over the last several decades that as alcohol-advertising spending increased, underage drinking substantially decreased," the AAAA's executive vice president and director of government relations told Ad Age [registration required]. "The raw facts of the marketplace contradict the main finding of the report.”

If that sounds convoluted, it's only because it is. For one thing, in today's fragmented media marketplace, it costs far more to reach the target audience (particularly the elusive male and youth market) than it did in the past. Alcohol marketers, like all addicts, have to progressively buy more stuff to get the same buzz .

Secondly, I don't know how far back the AAAA is going in stating that "underage drinking substantially decreased," but SAMSHA says its figures for 2004 were essentially the same as those for 2003 and 2002. Those figures are pretty alarming:

Both sides can make stats dance on the head of a pin all day long. Crime figures are way down nationally. Most crimes are committed by people who abuse alcohol and other drugs. (BTW, a new study out of Sweden determined that 58 percent of 133 violent offenders drank shortly before their violent incidents.) Should the alcohol industry be congratulated for somehow having a hand in the reduced crime rate? Perhaps those little teasers about "drinking responsibly" are having an impact? Oops. No. How can that be, if advertising doesn't influence consumption, only the choice of brand?

If ads don't make kids want to drink, why don't marketers create boring ads that talk about things that old folks relate to, like legacy and quality?

A study from the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE) showed 66 beer ads to 253 children and found that 35 percent said ads for Budweiser that feature a talking ferret made them want to buy the beer. Only 5 percent wanted to buy beer after viewing an Anheuser-Busch ad focused on the company's "Legacy of Quality."

The Ad Age piece also refers to a spokesperson from Miller Brewing Co. who "noted that that the vast majority of youth in Roper Youth Reports cite their parents as having the most influence over whether they drink."

In response, I can't say it any better than Jeanne Kilbourne did.

Full disclosure: In the Nineties, I did a lot of writing for the AAAA's now-defunct magazine, Agency, and launched and wrote BackChannel, a newsletter about interactive advertising for its members. The AAAA's officers and staff, and most of the members, were not only highly intelligent but also honorable professionals. I never understood, though, the AAAA's positioning on alcohol and tobacco. I certainly understand an advertising trade organization's imperative to defend the right to advertise a legal product. What I don't understand is why it does so with an argument that not only undercuts the bigger message — advertising works — but also flies in the face of common sense.