I was looking closely at a bottle of pills in the kitchen one day last year when my then 10 year-old son asked me what I was doing. I said I was just reading the label on a bottle, and my son responded by asking me if one of the side effects was an erection lasting more than four hours. Since the pills were a daily vitamin supplement, the answer was, in fact, no. I looked at my son - it was clear he was joking, and I'm glad he has a sense of humor. But why the hell were we even having this conversation?
I thought about that moment again on Sunday as the two of us sat on the couch watching the Redskins-Giants game for a few lazy hours. It's nice - father and son taking a break from grim headlines, from pressures at school and work, from rushing around in general. Except that my son and I couldn't get away from those damn ads for Cialis. And, no, muting the sound doesn't help - key phrases are right up there on the screen. Believe me, I'm not a bit prudish nor do I believe that I can shelter my kids from all the casual sex and violence that bombards them, but shouldn't a mid-afternoon football game be off-limits for erectile dysfunction ads? Of course not. Not when pharmaceutical companies spent $5 billion dollars on direct-to-consumer advertising in 2006. And not when DTC advertising so clearly works. A 2003 study found that "for every 10 percent increase in DTC advertising, drug sales within the classes studied increased on average by 1%." In an article last month, the New England Journal of Medicine noted the effectiveness of DTC drug ads. One of its sources was a General Accounting Office study, which showed that for every $1 spent on DTC advertising, a drug's sales went up a median of $2.20.
The NFL is trying to "protect its brand" with some post-Michael Vick warm and fuzzy ads showing what good guys pro football players really are. In the meantime, the league is raking in the dough from drug companies, apparently not giving a damn about the impact those endless ED ads might have on all the young football fans watching their heroes. Yes, the NFL rejected some ED ads in the past, but that was a short-lived and ultimately not very successful effort to get the ads to be less suggestive about sexual performance. Regulation is an unlikely solution given congressional concerns about First Amendment issues and, of course, the influence of pharmaceutical industry lobbying.
If the NFL really wants to buff up its image, it should consider what impact ED advertising is having on its youngest fans. I asked Dr. Lance Clawson, a prominent Washington, DC-area child and adolescent psychiatrist about this. Dr. Clawson prefaced his comments by saying that while he generally is a supporter of the pharmaceutical industry, he has "reservations" about the direct marketing of drugs to consumers:
I think there are several issues that arise with direct marketing to consumers.
1. It intrudes on families/children, often bringing up issues of sexual function or mental illness that parents aren't prepared to address or do not want to address with their children. Is this an "injury" of sorts? Not necessarily, but it does thrust some delicate topics right into the laps of younger kids who may not be intellectually or emotionally ready to address the issues brought up in the direct marketing campaign.
2. I do feel that the direct market sends a message that all problems, particularly sexual and mental health are cured by a pill. Although medications help quite a bit, and I prescribe them for these problems on a daily basis, I feel that in America we've bought into the fact that pills will take care of any personal problem, and the individual doesn't have to eat right, get enough exercise, sleep enough, limit alcohol and tobacco, do the hard work of relating on a deeper level with their loved ones, or seek psychotherapy, etc.... i.e. it implies that life can be fixed without hard work, and this just isn't so.. Our kids keep getting the message (from the media in general) that they have to be the best, brightest, most virile, richest, etc. and just get there magically (The Paris Hilton effect)... and the direct marketing seems to imply... take this pill and you just may be the thinnest, happiest, most virile, etc. person.. (without any hard work).
I think Dr. Clawson has it right. As the ad says, I'd like to "choose when the moment is right" for my children to learn about such things. And I'm far less concerned about them witnessing Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" than I am about them learning of the dangers of four-hour erections.
