Analyzing the Audience of Erectile Dysfunction Ads, or, Just Poking Fun at Viagra & Cialis Commercials

My first year as a college professor I had a bright pre-med student in my Freshman Composition class who picked an interesting topic for his media analysis essay.  (Interesting topics are not always abundant in Freshman Comp classes so I still remember this essay years later).  This young man spent a semester researching Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertisements.   I was really surprised by much of what he reported and so I thought I’d share it here.  (Yes, taking the content of a student’s essay as the ultimate truth is a bit risky so don’t worry, I fact checked it on Wikipedia to make sure he was absolutely correct).

The United States is one of only two Western countries that allow Direct-to-Consumer (i.e. public) advertisements for pharmaceutical products.  Most countries have banned these for over half a century and allow pharmaceutical companies to only advertise directly to health providers.  This surprised me although perhaps it shouldn’t have.  What really got me thinking, though, were the effects of these advertisements.  I’ve often thought that we are a country of hypochondriacs.  The plethora of information online, sites like WebMD, certainly contribute to this national state but, arguably, so do the endless commercials we see for prescription drugs. 

We’ve all seen these commercials:  picturesque and often emotional scenes (usually completely unrelated to the product they are selling); a sincere voice over listing symptoms for the medical ailment and assuring viewers that the drug will relieve these; a rushed mention (either in quick speech or small print) listing the possible side effects of the drugs; and a blurb about how to afford this medical wonder (“AstraZeneca can help!”).  When you really study these commercials it is shocking that they could ever be effective, but they are.  (I fully admit that one particular Cymbalta commercial was so effective that the repeated viewing of it almost gave me the depression it promised to cure.  It was one of the “depression hurts” ad sequences the company ran).   But, on second thought, maybe it is not surprising that these ads work.  The symptoms they list are often universal, applying to a plethora of conditions, and for the impressionable or the actually ill, they offer the temptation of hope:  cure in a magical pill. 

The consequences of these ads are many.  Besides for inducing medical paranoia or trying to capitalize on the real suffering of the sick, I imagine these advertisements change the doctor-patient relationship.  Instead of going to a doctor to explain symptoms and await a diagnosis, many people today not only go in with their list of symptoms ready but with conclusions as to which medical disorder these point to and which prescription drug they would like to relieve them.  (Doctors who have been practicing for 20-30 years must find this shift in the Internet information age to be quite unsettling).  Another consequence of these ads is one that might not be apparent at first thought:  they cost money (duh).  And since they cost money, that cost must be covered.  And how is it covered?  By raising the cost of the drugs, which impacts the cost of health insurance, and so on and so on.

Since these ads are just that – ads – it is interesting to analyze them just like you would any other advertisement.  When watching these I ask myself:  what is the product (this is easy), who is the intended audience (this is often interesting), and what persuasive strategies are at work to try to win over the viewer (e.g. logos, pathos, ethos).  While this hobby of mine does not always lead to laughs, it did when I started contemplating the intended audience of the recent Viagra and Cialis ads.

Viagra and Cialis are both prescription drugs used to correct erectile dysfunction.  Despite doing the exact same thing, it seems the companies have decided to market to different audiences – Viagra to men and Cialis to women. 

The last year has seen Viagra commercials featuring a lone manly man off doing some rugged activity.  Two examples include the “sailor” and the “cowboy” commercials.  In the first a man sits on his sailboat enjoying the great outdoors while constantly surrounded by an array of phallic symbols.  (Just glance at the mast below or view the entire commercial if you want to catch the rest). 

 

In the second, a man splashes through the mud riding in his pick-up truck which is being pulled by horses.  (Need I spell out the symbolism of the truck or stallions?)  At the end of both of these commercials the man comes home at the end of his long day to an idyllic white house where someone has left the light on.  The implication is obvious:  this manly mad is about to get his groove on and Viagra is going to help. 

So, if my reading is at all correct, these ads are directed at men.  They stress masculinity, virility, and strength and, perhaps, boost the self-esteem of the intended male user through its message of correlation:  the man in this video is a stud and he uses Viagra, therefore, I can still be a stud and need Viagra too.

The Cialis commercials are quite different.  These typically feature a couple, or couples, instead of a lone man, often focusing more on the woman of the duo.  They are usually composed of a variety of scenarios in which romance spontaneously sparks between a man and a woman:  a quick glance between a couple sitting on the front porch ignites the flame, a casual touch in the kitchen brings about the mood (and maybe even a super sexy tango dance).                                                             

 Other scenes often focus on couples madly in love doing romantic (out of the norm) date-like things:  watching a sunset after hiking over a rocky ravine, sitting face to face while canoeing through a beautiful meadow, relaxing outside in a hammock made for one, etc.  And still other scenes include a bit of magical realism where the everyday world literally falls away when the time is right.  For example, if a couple’s eyes meet in that way that says “it’s time” while standing in their kitchen, then the walls of said kitchen will soon melt away into a romantic outdoor scene.  Although I’m drawing upon some gender stereotypes here (a big no-no for a feminist media scholar), I would guess that women are the target audience of these ads not only because of their focus on romance rather than sex, but also because it is the woman in these scenarios whose everyday beauty triggers the (midday) sexual encounter.

So what’s the problem with these ads?  Perhaps nothing really (besides for the fact that they are a bit silly when studied closely).  But, perhaps they do some damage in portraying unrealistic situations that promise a whole lot more than just an induced erection (that should not last more than four hours).   Some may say that I’m just being a bit hard on Viagra and Cialis here.  (Yes, yes I did just write that.  I couldn’t restrain myself any longer.  The possible puns are just too plentiful).  And, in truth, I probably am.  These commercials are just easy targets.  (And if I wanted to continue to critique them I could mention the lack of racial diversity in the Viagra ads or the heteronormativity present in both).  Regardless, the genre they are a part of (public prescription drug ads) do deserve to be criticized.  So I will continue turning a critical eye toward these when they romp across my television screen… and I’ll also keep giggling like a school girl when the Viagra and Cialis commercials come on because we all need things that amuse us for absolutely no good reason.