Ad Vent

Yes, this is my time to rant about TV commercials. Perhaps they actually do increase sales of the products and services they're promoting, I don't know. But, do they have to do it without any principles? The ad people lost their scruples years ago but now they're brazen about it. I mean it's like they've all turned into lawyers instead of salesmen. Or maybe, it's that the lawyers are multiplying, and growing, and spreading like a cancer, and... Quick, shut off the TV, run, hide, they're coming!!! Okay, I'll save the issues I have with lawyers for another time. And now, back to the commercials.

It's our own fault you know? The reason we have so many and such stupid commercials is that we have become a nation of stupid consumers. I have to fess up here and admit that I'm one too. I've called "the number on my screen" and bought one of those "amazing" gadgets pitched by the late Billy Mays. It turns out that my nephew could have made me one of better quality at nearly no cost but I just had to have one right away. We see it, we want it, and we want it now! That's how smart we are as consumers.

It's the small print on the bottom of the screen and the disclaimer statements that really get me riled up though. There's nothing I can do to get those to go away however because, as long as there's a product we will find a way to use it not like it was intended. I'm sure the FDA requires that all drug advertising include the statement "use only as directed" because somebody, somewhere intentionally did otherwise and then got the lawyers involved. Most commercials run through the disclaimer so quickly that it's obviously done solely by requirement and not as an actual precaution to consumers. I spent about an hour pausing live TV on my DVR and actually reading the fine print and the following is what I found:

• "Based on a study, XYZ allergy medication, 50mg 3X daily, performed better than ZYX allergy medication, 10mg 1X daily..." I wonder if I would become more intoxicated if I drank 3 6-packs of beer rather than just 1 6-pack of beer.
• "Testimonials by paid actors" (They were stating how the medication made them feel.) Isn't this kind of like a lawyer paying someone to "act" like they were a witness to a crime?
• "Simulation for illustrative purposes" (It was an animated illustration of arteries progressively clogging.) They're going to need better animation than that to get me to believe it was the real thing. And someone tell me what other purpose a simulation like this would have!
• "Professional drivers on a closed course" (There were two cars doing about 90mph, passing each other, and swerving dramatically on what appeared to be a grand-prix race track.) Actually, I'm glad they cleared this up because it looks a lot like the high school down the street from me just letting out.
• "Dramatization" (An animated tablet dissolving in an animated stomach.) I'm betting that a lawyer told them that somebody would think it was real if they didn't state otherwise.
• "Symbolic representation" (This was a product that helps reduce back pain and they had a persons' bare lower back with computer generated ropes representing the back muscles and flashing red arrows indicating pain.) My personal favorite.

I have no doubts or reservations in saying that lawyers are responsible for these kinds of ludicrous statements. I would have some more but I need about an 80" LCD HDTV with a high-definition broadcast signal to be able to read print that small. One of them was an ad for an erectile dysfunction drug that "may cause blurred vision" according to the audio disclaimer.

(Study based on 30 minutes of actual time during broadcast of the NBC Nightly News and the commercials aired between segments by actual advertisers for actual products, either useful or not, through which the author claims no knowledge of truth in advertising lawsuits that may or may not have been filed to produce such ludicrous disclaimers of such minuscule nature as the advertisers have so deemed necessary. XYZ and ZYX are representative symbols and not actual medications.)

My problem with testimonials is that we're such gullible consumers that we've come to accept them from "paid actors" that may never have used the product. If you have a good product in the first place then you should be able to find "actual users" that may just happen to be actors. But don't get a well known attractive actress to tell us about how your product helped her with her bowel movements. That's just cruel because now I can't watch any of her movies without thinking "she was constipated when she filmed this". If you can't get anyone that has actually benefited from your product then I suppose a good pitchman would help. Now that the best one in the business is gone however, you advertisers need to find someone other than that cross-eyed dude that hocks things on late night TV. He's just too creepy to believe. And the guys with the foreign accents just cause us to think it's also a foreign product and support our feeling that you don't think too much of us Americans.

Of all the pharmaceuticals that are advertised on TV it's the erectile dysfunction drugs that get the most attention. I understand that it's a problem with a lot of men so it should just sell itself without the annoying ads. Just one question though. If it's been so long since you've used that part of your anatomy that you have to check with a doctor to see if you're healthy enough, then why would you want to enhance it? I equate it to playing the drums. I did it for quite a few years and became pretty good at it. But, I'm not going to go out and get a new drum set because I probably couldn't get any gigs. I'm just fine with knowing that I have a set of sticks that I can pull out and play around with whenever I get the urge.

sacatk