By Tom Burke
So I was watching sports on TV with my grandchildren when BAM! as fast as Felix Martinez’s best heater, up popped a Cialis commercial. You know the one, it’s got the couple holding hands in the two outa-a-place bathtubs; looking handsomely “mature” but quite fit and attractive, if not sexy; and in the mood for … well, not canasta, discussing the merits of Canadian softwood tariffs, or if the car needs an oil change.
And as the spot opened with the lady talking huskily about “ED” (erectile dysfunction) I hit the mute button faster than Russel Wilson rolls out to his left.
Why kill the sound? Because, frankly, I’m uncomfortable that my nine-year-old grandson, or his six-year old sister, might ask, “Grandpa, what’s an erection?”
Now I stumbled through “the talk” with my boys years ago. It wasn’t something I was totally sanguine about (good ol’ Queen Victoria, her legacy lives on) but we got through it.
But for me, it’s my eldest son and my daughter-in-law’s prerogative, not mine, to talk to their kids about S*X. (There she is again: the good, modest Queen.) And I’m mad as hell that Eli Lilly’s Cialis and Pfizer’s Viagra advertising, aired inside family entertainment when little kids are watching, could put me on the spot to teach biology, sex ed or anything other than fishing, good manners and the warmth of a loving family.
Why, oh, why, must they promote erectile dysfunction, or erectile anything, when 5.3 million kids are watching, say, a typical NFL game?
I was a Mad Man for 20 years. Advertising was a great career for me, filled with smart people, real challenges and good money. So I know how the business works; how target audiences are identified; how media gets chosen and spots placed. I also know advertising’s importance to commerce and have no desire proscribe any of it, even online pop-ups.
But I also know the fundamental decision made by Pfizer and Eli Lilly is: Decency or Dollars. And even a cursory glance at their ad schedules show which is more important.
Combined, these two big pharmas spend close to $300 million annually on ED. So it’s tough to avoid the ads. And it’s not like ED is the only affliction showcased on the tube. Kids nightly see real-looking people, identified as “actor portrayals,” suffering from distressing digestive tract disorders, incontinence, halitosis (bad breath), toenail fungus, dandruff, a plethora of lady-parts issues, and the heartbreak of psoriasis.
I have no problem explaining diarrhea, a weak bladder, or skin rashes. Explaining how women need to be “fresh smelling,” or why, “No blood should hold us back,” (the latest ad campaign for a line of pads and liners) is way out of my comfort zone when my grandkids are around. And for the same reason I zap ED spots, I mute those ads as well.
Do my grandkids know about boys-n-girls? Sure. They’ve had an age-appropriate version of “the talk” with their parents. And there’s schoolyard sex-ed as well. While my ninth year is but a hazy memory, I’m sure we spoke of those mysteries on the playground. In hushed tones. Giggling. Wondering.
What’s the solution? There’s two.
The first: Write, call, email, or post on social media your objections to ED ads in programming that kids may see. You’ll feel better, but it’s a waste of time. People have been complaining for years to no avail. Decency or Dollars? That decision was made long ago.
The second solution: Just wait. Both Viagra and Cialis will soon go “generic” as their patents expire. Sales will plummet and it won’t pay to advertise on TV when the same scripts can be had a much lower price.
But, of course, new pharmas, hawking new, cheaper generic ED drugs will probably fill the void with ever more, ever-more-explicit ads as they battle for market share.
Our society has coarsened and what used to be vulgar or simply bad taste is commonplace today. I know I shouldn’t be stressed about ads focused on bodily functions or even procreation, not compared to the death and violence of today’s TV programming or video games, but I am. Those two goofy bathtubs (I have no earthly idea what they represent) pale in comparison to the bloody horror of an average episode of “The Walking Dead,” which is why “The Walking Dead” and similar programming aren’t watched in my house.
So … in case an ED ad pops up, I’ll just have to keep the remote as firmly in hand as Thomas Rawls clutches a football on third and three; and be as quick to hit “mute” as Mitch Haniger gets around on a fast ball. Of course, what I’d really, really like is that the game keeps me on the edge of my seat, not the commercials.
Tom Burke’s email address is t.burke.column@gmail.com.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
