Monday, September 28, 2009

Viagra: The Little Blue Pill That Could




Oh Viagra, is there nothing you can't solve? Often perceived to be the one stop solution to all of life's social and sexual problems, our nation, among many other industrialized countries, has perhaps grown too dependent on the drug. Whether it's to fix even the most dysfunctional, poisonous relationship, alleviate chest pain, or just to give a man a little extra boost in confidence, Viagra is a wunderkind of the medical field.


Viagra (or Sildenafil citrate) was conceived in the Pfizer labs as an experimental drug for high blood pressure and for a type of heart disease. When the unfortunate side effect of erection was discovered, Pfizer, instead of scrapping the drug, realized it had tapped into the previously uncharted terrain of the cure for erectile dysfunction (ED). Viagra was patented in 1996 and was approved by the FDA in 1998, an approval process that took a mere six months. The rest is history. Since then, it has been used by millions of men and has essentially become a household name and a cultural mainstay.


Viagra, predictably enough, is marketed and advertised for men; specifically for white, heterosexual men. While the packaging for the product varies, some can be very sensual. Although not available in this country (as far as I know), this package, shown to the right of this paragraph, shows a woman in ecstasy. The picture is certainly alluring and sexy, although at the same time, not especially risqué or in particularly bad taste. Of note is that the woman is blue, as well as her pendent necklace, which subtley refrences Viagra: the Little Blue Pill. In this context, Viagra clearly wants to impart on the male consumer that they too can and should pleasure their partner in this way, and the best way of doing this is through Viagra.


On the other hand, much of its other packaging and advertising are very unexciting and tepid. Bob Dole (Senate Minority/Majority Leader, 1996 presidential nominee), was in a series of Viagra commercials in the late 1990s, and most people would agree that he is not sexually appealing nor sexually provacative. Furthermore, most ads for Viagra are nonsexual in nature and mostly feature men exclusively. Country folks singing a take off of Elvis' "Viva Las Vegas" (in this case "Viva Viagra") do not elicit much excitement for the product (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umhEoIdKYm8). Nor is a commercial showing men prancing around jubilantly to Queen's "We are the Champions" very scantilizing or arousing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk9JwV8sZTs&feature=related). It would appear that the advertisements' key message is to emphasize the incredible confidence and feelings of masculinity one gets from the product, which strengthens homosocial bonds.


It is also strange that there are no women in the advertisements, as if women are inconsequential and irrelevant partners in the sexual experience. Although, I can see the possibility that if they did feature females more prominently, they would only be there as sexual objects and not as human beings. So, perhaps it is better without them. The most sexually charged commercial I've seen is one for Cialis, in which an older couple are in separate bathtubs outside, enjoying a sunset. Which begs the question, why bathtubs and why can't they at least share one, albeit in a nonsexual way?


These advertisements in a way neuter Viagra and its very sexual purpose. Indeed, perhaps this is the reason why these adverts aren't more sexualized: it is because of the assumption that the product is sexualized enough in and of itself. I would agree with that. Nobody has any illusions about what this product is and what it does for the male anatomy. We know that it revitalizes relationships, helps with sexual dysfunction, and helps to boost men's egos. Therefore, oversexualized commercials are unnecessary. And America's tendency toward puritanism, as well the ever-present FCC, are reasons enough not to offend people's sensitivities. However, it isn't out of the question that Viagra, or one of its competitors, won't push the envelope to get more customers. After all, it is a bit strange that advertisements for Carl's Jr. are far more sexualized and racy than any ED product.



I chose this topic because this widely-used product is incredibly influencial in a myriad of unforeseen areas. Did you know, for instance, that Viagra has played a significant role in the War on Terror? Apperantly, the little blue pill has been distributed to polygamous tribe leaders in Afghanistan in the hopes that they will provide U.S. forces with information. So, in effect, we are directly contributing to the horrendous oppression of Afghan women, perpetuating the legal rape of females by their husbands, and a ban on their education. Additionally, there is evidence that Viagra can possibly make men sterile. There are also a handful of cases where men went blind after using the drug, although its causality is unclear. Viagra and other ED drugs are also pursuing cures for female arousal disorder (i.e. achieving orgasm, increasing libido). Nine tablets of this drug are distributed every second of everyday worldwide. It is these little-known facts, among many others, that make this product intriguing and worthy of further study.

Sources





Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Camel No. 9: Effective Advertising or Shameless Pandering?





Cool. Sexy. Distinctive. These adjectives, among many others, are the perceptions that the Big Tobacco Industry have impressed on us about their cigarettes since before we could talk. And they are quite effective: between their appealing advertising blitz, alluring products, and powerful lobbyists, it is no wonder that 19.8% of all U.S. adults (22.3% of men, 17.4% of women) smoke cigarettes--about 1 out of 5 people (CDC 2007). And this does not include underage smokers. Because 47% of smokers are women, R.J. Reynolds, whose female consumers accounted for a mere 30% of total profits, recognized the need to tap into this rich feminine reservoir, lest its competitors get the upper hand (NBC News).

Enter Camel No. 9, which was released in 2007. Wrapped in a simple, even elegant box, cigarettes have never looked so good. The package is black, bordered by either a hot flamingo pink or a cool green teal (for the menthol variety). In the centre of the package is the now iconic camel. Inside of the carton is the same lush fuchsia colour, akin to the plush lining of a small box bearing a ring. All this suggests the dark and sexy feel of a cabaret or trendy bar. There is a certain mystique to the package, as if it reads like a seductive mystery novel. The smart packaging would also appeal to young girls. If I was more than a very occasional, nearly seldom, social smoker, I would be tempted to pick up this product because of the subtle, one could say nuanced, attractive packaging.

This suggestive display is coupled with an equally provocative tag line: "Light and Luscious." Clearly, R.J. Reynolds has no reservations about proclaiming who its target audience is. These terms are unarguably "feminine." The word luscious is usually associated with whipped cream, fondue, meringue, or one's luscious lips and luscious skin. Coming from someone who has barely picked up a cigarette, the terms seem incompatible with the product that is being sold. I suppose it could apply to filters and low tar? It is as if they are advertising a completely different item. In fact, I think that this is exactly what Camel Cigarettes is attempting to do. The company wants to transcend its label of cigarette to appeal to a wider audience. "Yeah it's a cigarette, but it is so much more. Look at how sophisticated this is and imagine how intelligent you'll look with this cigarette brand," it's trying to say.

Of equal note is the name that Camel selected, which was the winning name among focus groups. The name invokes many ideas that have tapped the American imagination over the years. "Love Potion #9" was a romantic themed rock song written by The Clovers in 1959. The name also invokes the upscale French cosmetics and perfume company Channel No. 19. And according to an R.J. Reynolds representative, Camel No. 9 recalls the expression "dressed to the nines" (NY Times). All this leaves the inescapable conclusion that women will look, feel, and be more sexy and desirable with this product. Not only will your tobacco needs be satiated with this product, but you'll also be making a profound social and fashion statement.

I chose this product, not only because of the smoking pandemic afflicting most countries, but also because of what I think to be the shameless pandering to the female consumer. This product stood out largely because I remember Camel's advertising campaign when I was a kid. While No. 9 at least has a subtlety to it, Joe Camel of yesteryear was overt and in-your-face. He had a smug and cool air around him, permeating hyper-masculinity, whether he was playing pool, driving in a sports car, or hanging around women. Joe "Old Joe" Camel screamed out coolness and demanded the attention of younger children, who may not have been aware of the health risks inextricably tied to the product. Even when they were aware of the danger, they might have had a hard time shaking off the positive images they have internalized about the brand. Indeed, according to a 1991 Journal of the American Medical Association study, Joe Camel was equally, if not more, recognizable than Mickey Mouse to kindergartners. Certainly, this kind of advertising has an affect on children, and it is not out of the question to assume that the tobacco industry's advertisements and products influence the probability of children to take up smoking later in life. Furthermore, to celebrate No. 9's grand inaugural, Camel sponsored free parties with complimentary cigarettes, jewelry, and makeovers across the country. One could validly argue, as I do, that this industry aims to get children hooked on cigarettes, and establish a brand loyalty, whether they are of legal age or not.

Granted, No. 9 isn't the first, nor the most blatant attempt to attract the female consumer, but it is the most contemporary example. While this development began in the 1920s, it hit a peak in 1968, with the advent of Virgina Slims. With slogans such as "You've come a long way, baby" and "It's a woman thing," the company, Phillip Morris, overtly pursued the female market. Additional tobacco companies have also produced women-centered cigarettes.

To be clear, I do not seek oppressive restrictions on, nor a prohibition of, tobacco products. Like any other drug, I feel that it is the individual's right to decide what substances they ingest, and it's not my place to judge. However, I do take exception when that industry deliberately draws the underage population to their products. Joe Camel, and the more subdued No. 9, certainly appeal to that age group, so that they'll be hooked from the cradle to the grave. I don't particularly begrudge the industry because, like any other business, I don't naively expect them to change their ways. They have a product to sell and they need to portray it in the most positive light as possible, regardless of the social and health implications. But at long last, the FDA now has regulatory power over the industry. It boggles the mind that there wasn't any oversight of it until June of this year. Thus far the agency has banned flavoured cigarettes and will soon disallow the term "lite" on cigarette brands. There is speculation that the FDA could go after tobacco products that target children, which could include Camel's No. 9.

Camel No. 9 Cigarettes can be found at any fine convenience, grocery, or liquor store. They cost around $5 per pack, although the price varies by state and its accompanying sin tax.

Sources



Posted by at 1 comment:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)