Advertising is like a drug. But better because it doesn't mess up your liver.

The most interesting thing I've read lately is Wired"s "Placebos Are Getting More Effective. Drugmakers Are Desperate to Know Why." In modern double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials, Big Pharma is getting beaten by sugar pills at an increasing rate. And it's not just new drugs that can't find a way to make the cut.

Some products that have been on the market for decades, like Prozac, are faltering in more recent follow-up tests. In many cases, these are the compounds that, in the late '90s, made Big Pharma more profitable than Big Oil. But if these same drugs were vetted now, the FDA might not approve some of them. Two comprehensive analyses of antidepressant trials have uncovered a dramatic increase in placebo response since the 1980s.

What happened? Wired hypothesizes it's advertising.

Part of the answer may be found in the drug industry's own success in marketing its products. Potential trial volunteers in the US have been deluged with ads for prescription medications since 1997, when the FDA amended its policy on direct-to-consumer advertising. The secret of running an effective campaign, Saatchi & Saatchi's Jim Joseph told a trade journal last year, is associating a particular brand-name medication with other aspects of life that promote peace of mind: "Is it time with your children? Is it a good book curled up on the couch? Is it your favorite television show? Is it a little purple pill that helps you get rid of acid reflux?" By evoking such uplifting associations, researchers say, the ads set up the kind of expectations that induce a formidable placebo response.

Is this an indictment of the pharmaceutical industry or a testament to the power of the mind? Probably both. But mostly, it's a reminder that the ad game is scary powerful and not really a game at all.