My guess is that parent is obliquely referring to that phenomenon.
In my chosen domain of rhinos, it is starting to look as though the public awareness campaigns run from 2008 to 2014 very well could've accidently spread the message that rhino horn is rare, risky, and desirable.
https://www.savetherhino.org/rhino_info/thorny_issues/synthe...
What is your response to this? I really want to save rhinos too, and I'm not sure how to help. I've donated to both of those organisations, and I kind of want to figure out how convince Vietnam that rhino horns absolutely do not cure cancer. Why do you think synthetic horns will work instead?
For instance, from 2008 to 2014 they pushed the message that rhino horn was being used for medicinal purposes. As early as 2012, some intrepid investigators started to make the case that that wasn't what was driving the poaching crisis. There is now a growing consensus that Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) was a red herring all along [1, 2].
I believe they're wrong about biofabricated horn too. If you're interested, you can read my rebuttal to their objections here:
https://sosv.com/why-pembient-is-confident-in-synthetic-rhin...
TL;DR: We have Nobel Prize-winning theory (Akerlof, 2001) underlying our proposed intervention.
[1] https://twitter.com/savetherhino/status/798885174520016896
[2] https://wildlifejustice.org/cn/overlooked-rhino-horn-demand-...
The whole anti-littering campaign story is interesting. Apparently the original campaign that everyone (at least everyone over a certain age) remembers with the crying "Indian" (who was actually an Italian-American actor) wasn't really all that effective.
One of the later campaigns that were considered more effective included "Don't Mess with Texas" which featured actors like Chuck Norris.