We’ve all been there. We’re watching TV with our friends, and suddenly everyone groans. The mute button is hit while people try to change the subject. Why? The Enzyte commercial is on.
This is a whole genre of commercials, including Enzyte, Cialis and any other drugs helping with sexual conditions. These annoying advertisements are becoming more frequent during primetime TV viewing hours. Truthfully, they have yet to grow on me.
These commercials are inappropriate for television. Off-color innuendos intended to be humorous and blatant descriptions of various medical conditions bombard the audience’s ears. Most viewers, myself included, just don’t want to hear terms like “erectile dysfunction” while they are trying to enjoy a television program. I like to watch television while I eat dinner, but I quickly lose my appetite when I am subjected to someone describing the symptoms of vaginal dryness. If I wanted to learn about that medical condition, I could research it. I neither need nor want to watch someone tout Viagra as the savior of his sexual life.
Apparently, I am not the only person who is offended by these advertisements. The Federal Communications Commission received 33 complaints about this year’s Super Bowl. Five of these protests were about the Cialis advertisement. During last year’s Super Bowl as well as this year’s World Series, commercials for Cialis and Enzyte were shown to an unsuspecting public. Many children were watching these sporting events with their parents and were subsequently exposed to these bare-faced discussions of some men’s sexual performance.
Viewers were outraged. They correctly claimed that the commercials were inappropriate and distasteful. If I, a sophomore in college, do not need to hear about these very private health concerns, then a child certainly does not need to hear about them. Many companies responded to this criticism by restricting their commercials to airtime after 9 p.m. This may protect children who have a bedtime before 9 p.m., but the time restriction alone is not satisfactory to those of us who watch television later in the night.
I realize that these medical conditions are actual, embarrassing problems. The medical conditions and medicines are not offensive in themselves; it is the advertisement’s presentation of such delicate subject matter that offends.
For example, Enzyte commercials feature Smiling Bob and other characters who look admiringly on the results of this drug for “male enhancement.” The narrator spouts double entendres such as, “They have sent the big one,” or “He is standing firm.” This is not even a medical condition, which makes the commercial even more offensive.
Other companies present their commercials in different ways. However, they are no less irritating. It is simply not necessary for a term like “erectile dysfunction” to be used in an advertisement. The intent of the medicine can be conveyed without explicitly stating the medical condition in question.
I understand that these companies do need to advertise their medicines. However, there are ways of presenting one’s product other than exposing innocent television viewers to descriptions of health problems that don’t relate to them.
Magazines are a wonderful way to advertise such products. Readers can choose if they want to read that particular page, and there is much less chance of their being offended. There would be less chance of children being exposed to these advertisements.
Another effective method is to trust that doctors are well-informed about these medicines. People who experience these medical conditions should seek their doctor’s advice. Let the doctor be the one to recommend treatment options.
Some companies insist that television ad campaigns are much too effective in reaching consumers to be done away with. If so, these businesses should reconsider their presentation. There are certainly efficient techniques of advertisement that do not require such unwelcome information to be broadcast to the viewing audience.
Tracey Apperson is a sophomore communication major. She can be reached at [email protected].
Categories:
Ads disgust instead of inform
Tracey Apperson
•
February 18, 2005
0