Erectile dysfunction ads for Levitra - 11.05.2010

When it comes to television advertizing, it’s all about the money. The companies look for the maximum return on the sales of slots slicing their programs into bite-sized nuggets. The advertizers look for the maximum exposure to their desired market niche by buying the particular slots. It’s all remarkably scientific. The companies hire the talent to attract different groups of viewers. They design their shows to maximize the chances that just this demographic will be watching. This gives them something valuable to sell. Equally, the marketers have decided who they are selling to and just need a few seconds to get their message across. The Mount Everest of this business model is the Superbowl. This annual event manages to get more bodies sitting in front of a television set than any other program. As a result, the slots command the highest prices. For the record, there are sixty slots and, this year, it’s estimated the average 30-second slot sold for $2.7m. This is remarkable given the recession continues to hit both corporate and consumer spending. CBS has something of a gold mine in this one event. So what do we think of the ads that aired? Perhaps surprisingly, General Motors and Pepsi were no-shows. In previous years, they have been the biggest spenders. More importantly, they are both family-friendly advertizers. There is nothing even faintly controversial about a colored soda and some vehicles.

This year, families sat down to watch the game and were treated to heavy promotion of alcohol. Perhaps people may try to drown their troubles during an economic downturn, but pushing the bottle at this time seems a little insensitive, particularly when children are watching. Ah, but then came the erectile dysfunction ads for parents to explain to their kids. Should we see the two products as connected? Drink too much and your sexual performance will fade. Thank God for [fill in blank]. But in the midst of all this commercial effort, more often than not trading on sexual innuendo, came something even more difficult to explain to our children. Tim Tebow appeared to “sell” the pro-life idea. The arguments for and against abortion are difficult, even at the best of times. Selling advertizing time for this message seems even more unfortunate than usual. First, it put parents under pressure to start explaining the consequences when erectile dysfunction is cured and an unwanted pregnancy results. Secondly, it picks a side. There is no equal time for the other side of the argument. If you sell to one advocacy group, you should sell to all of them. This might mean erectile dysfunction drug ads should be matched by abstinence ads aimed at the young who might be tempted to give sex a try.

Advertizing is a difficult issue wrapped up in heavy constitutional issues of free speech. The manufacturers of drugs are entitled to persuade you to buy Levitra. But should there not be a time bar. Nothing which might shatter the innocence of the young before, say, 9 p.m. It’s probably wishful thinking to believe children can remain unaware of the adult world including the availability of levitra online. But rather than ram the message of treatments for erectile dysfunction or of anti-abortion sensibility down their throats during a magnificent sporting event, surely it would be better to stick with sodas and junk food. That way, we only have to worry about them growing obese.