Poor TV Commercials

I’m not sure of when FCC rules were changed or laws were passed by Congress that allowed certain kinds of advertising to be on TV. I suspect about the time cigarette ads were prohibited, feminine hygiene products were allowed. Then, I think attorneys were allowed to advertise beyond phone book listings, then tacky newspaper ads, then hideous TV commercials. Then, I think prescription drug commercials began showing up on TV. I may not be completely accurate on when or who approved and it’s probably good that I don’t recall who is to blame. I certainly wouldn’t hesitate to name them by organization and person.

First, I must confess I object to all product and service commercials on broadcast TV, even institutional ads, public service announcements, programming ads, etc; if it isn’t content, I object to it’s being on citizen owned government licensed broadcast frequencies.

My specific objections are: feminine hygiene products, sexual stimulation and protection products, prescription drugs, any attorneys or firms of attorneys for any purpose, and so called Public Service Ads, especially those that are demonstrably inaccurate or false.

In reverse order let me offer an example; US Forest Service’s “Smokey the Bear” ads stating, “Only you can prevent wildfires.”

You, even if you occasionally light campfires, can do absolutely nothing about the vast majority of forest and grassland fires which are caused by lightning strikes and wind downed electrical power lines. Most of the others are malicious or arson caused fires which are started on purpose by foolish, ignorant, stupid, or mental diseased individuals on whom these pronouncements are meaningless. Why would they care or even know what a cartoon bear on TV is trying to tell them. Accidents do cause a few fires each year and sometimes they do enormous damage to public infrastructure, interrupt services, and destroy private property that many people depend upon for life, health and safety. To the extent that non-malicious accidents can be reduced they certainly should be. Even with elaborate precautions accidents do occur. No amount of coaxing by Smokey on late night TV will help you prevent them.

Attorney commercials; I think good taste and sound judgment prevented them for most of my lifetime. I think the National Bar Association, who knew their members better than anyone else, thought it would be a bad idea thinking perhaps it would degrade into cheap tacky ambulance chasers and medical malpractice ads traipsing out victims on their deathbeds and promising vast award settlements for fringe or self-aided ailments. Wheezing old geezers or accident victims looking pathetic on national TV may be exactly why the Bar Associations opposed it for many years. Carefully word smithed video presentations and cleverly worded promises of vast awards, so easily seen through by all but the most gullible, may be another tasteless reason they were once avoided. Whoever is responsible for unleashing this shameful parade, and those who take money for this public spectacle should hope they remain nameless forever.

Prescription drugs; until some time in the 1990’s commercials for prescription drugs began appearing. Apparently the FCC, FDA, or FTC decided they could if they followed a script outline. The outline included benefits, side effects, and warnings with pictures of active healthy people enjoying life, and an admonition to “Ask your doctor” if X, Y, or Z is right for you. Initially, there was just an occasional one or two Diabetes or Heart Disease medications. Since then dozens of diseases, disorders, syndromes, and ailments have been identified and named, and medications created to treat them. Now there is several each evening in prime time, many about erectile dysfunction. Often the side effects sound worse than the disease that it supposedly treats. All are unnecessary. If you that one of these diseases wouldn’t you expect your doctor to prescribe the proper medication. Sure you should be active participant in your treatment, but propose your own medication based upon a TV commercial, I don’t think so!

Sex aids and sexual hygiene products; I’m in favor of anything that helps people have satisfying, safe, enjoyable gratifying sex with consenting adults and life partners, I just don’t think broadcast television is the right place to take advantage of the opportunity for commerce. I don’t object to home parties, mailed brochures, print media, internet ads, or word of mouth and anything else that requires approval, informed consent, transaction, or deliberate effort that allows access to product information. It’s not that I’m offended, nervous or bothered by the subject.

It’s been years since I’ve been embarrassed or offended by any subject. What I’m opposed to is being bombarded unwilling by those taking commercial advantage of unsuspecting watchers of program content. Very few people watch TV commercials seeking accurate data on which to initiate important purchases. Some, not mentally well people, may choose foolishly to act on the exaggerated, frequently false, and often misrepresented images and words by cleaver Neuro-Linguistic Programming and other petty tricks of the eye and mind presented in TV Ads.

Broadcasters and businesses should be ashamed of themselves for collaborating to trick the ignorant poor and the mentally crippled out of their scant personal resources via the public airways.

Broadcast and public service TV content should be completely free of any form of interruptions, especially any advertising commercial opportunity.