- Because they’re annoying. (but I guess I already said that)
- Because the negative is highlighted.
- Because it drives home the point that we live in a society where legislation has to exist in order to force companies to be honest about their products. When you stop to think about this it’s almost unbelievable. Isn’t there some kind of Hippocratic oath that pharmaceutical/medical/drug company people take? Are they really just out for money so much that the would sell drugs without consideration of the side effects to the point that laws had to be passed to get them to communicate more accurately? (Apparently).
- Because the obvious response is, “All things have side effects.” Actually Barry Schwartz, from Seth Godin’s book “Small is the New Big,” has a more accurate way of looking at it. He says there are no “side effects” there’s only effects. Everything good and bad affects everything around it.
Life is full of effects… Full on frontals, underneaths, sides, behinds… Keep pressing on. Don't look back. Luke 9:62 (The Message) Jesus said, "No procrastination. No backward looks. You can't put God's kingdom off till tomorrow. Seize the day."
-------------------------
It did get me thinking though. What if there were disclaimers listed for all products. Here’s a sample commercial for your local evangelical church…
Looking For a New Church? Try out First Community. It’s great!
(the next part read extremely fast with a low voice) First Community isn’t for everyone, including men or women who are nursing or pregnant or who may become pregnant or a nurse. First Community may not be right for those with adverse reactions to large amounts of rules, regulations and guilt. Many members of First Community have experienced boring committees, chronically under-funded programs, and mind-numbing weekend retreats to reformulate the existing mission statement. Please consult a professional before trying First Community.
Posts
3 comments:
Fact is, we’re the only – that is only – industrialized country to allow TV advertising for these things – its name over substance, and marketing over growth. BTW – this is Marc Laurent, your friendly neighborhood Minnesoootan. . . .large Vikings sigh . . . I’ve periodically lurked at both this blog and the discover church site – just to find out how things were rollin’ along. Looks like change is afoot – hope the family is well - say Hi to Johnna from Melynda and I. Drop me a line at marc.laurent@wmitchell.edu if you have some time. Be well. Marc
Interesting... I suppose socialized health care in many industrialized countries keeps the marketing at bay? I'm only guessing. Thanks Marc! (sorry about the vikes. of course we've got the cards)
I have no clue about the cause and effect of other countries banning drug ads, but one has to wonder what the companies stand to gain when a few years back US drug companies spent 31 billion on research and development while spending just under 60 billion on advertising and promotion. hhmm . . . When health care is a monetary profit orientated business, who wins and who looses? When figures show that these companies spend nearly $61,000 per physician to convince them to market their drugs to their patients, is the patient reasonable to think that the profit comes before their health - or, possibly better stated, is the relationship subservient to the "rules" of the game?
Marc
Post a Comment