I
almost fell off my chair when I heard it the first time. Because,
after all, there was no way the announcer in the advertisement
actually said what I heard.
Let’s
say the product was called Boom Boom Diddly Doo. Here’s what I
thought I heard during that commercial for this new wonder drug…
“Don’t
take Boom Boom Diddly Doo if you’re allergic to Boom Boom Diddly
Doo”
Then…
I heard it again… a few times actually, as part of a commercial
that is still airing as I write this, and it most certainly offered
that disclaimer exactly the way I heard it the first time…
“Don’t
take Boom Boom Diddly Doo if you’re allergic to Boom Boom Diddly
Doo”
This
disturbs me… and likely should disturb all of us… for a few reasons.
In
the commercial’s defense, there are side effects to medications.
(And lots of people looking to bring companies to court.) Disclaimers
are there, all the time.
There
are basically two scenarios for those falling into the side effect
suffer group if they intend to take the medication. First -- You
have no clue that side effects will become troublesome for you,
and won’t know this until after you take the medication. Second
-- You do know that you will fall victim to side effects, but
the benefits of the medication outweigh the cons of whatever you
may encounter.
So…
you get it… either you don’t know there is going to be a problem,
or, the problem is less bothersome than the larger issue you are
trying to address.
Unfortunately,
this particular disclaimer means the bar is being raised to a
brand new level. See, it’s outright telling you not to take Boom
Boom Diddly Doo if you are allergic to it. (Hey, you might want
to take it anyway… but please don’t!)
And
that’s scary. It’s not saying there might be side effects. It’s
saying if you know you’re allergic, stay away.
Thing
is…
Years
ago, Saturday Night Live delivered a simply outstanding
commercial parody for a product called Happy Fun Ball. (Look it
up… you’ll find a few places where you can view the commercial,
read the transcript, and learn details about the effort.) In this
piece, there is a great moment where a simple warning is offered.
As opposed to other sections where longer dialogue is offered
or details shared, it is simple, direct, and attention grabbing
by being just a step off beat in the way it pauses everything…
“Do
not taunt Happy Fun Ball”
Right
there, in the middle of explanations of storing the toy properly
or what goes inside of one, a simple, short, warning, without
expansion and just enough of a pause before and after to build
dramatic impact then allow you to accept and consider the implications
of the statement.
“Do
not taunt Happy Fun Ball”
It
raises questions, offers no answers, and just simply is there,
stunning you with the notion and thought: “Who would taunt Happy
Fun Ball?”
Which
brings us back to:
“Don’t
take Boom Boom Diddly Doo if you’re allergic to Boom Boom Diddly
Doo”
Why
on earth is this warning provided? Would it really hold up in
court if someone ignored it, knowingly allergic to Boom Boom Diddly
Doo, and took the medication? Does it really need to be said?
I’ve
laughed over the years as commercials for drugs have become more
and more frequent, and also a bit more… shall we say… considered
in their design and content. After all… if we go to our doctor,
either for an annual visit or to discuss a specific issue, and
we get into details about a subject… should it be me that asks
the doctor if particular-drug-unnamed is for me? Wouldn’t it benefit
me more to see a physician that, when presented with a medical
condition that apparently needs treatment, has an option or two
to offer without my research?
(Pause
here for a moment. Yeah… there is an outside chance that a doctor
has been provided or been contacted by certain pharmaceutical
companies. And maybe that doctor has some, albeit completely legal
and above board, reason for preferring one drug over another.
So sure… my being pitched the medication as a potential patient
by a commercial could be drawn in a similar light as the doctor
being pitched a medication as a potential prescriber by a drug
rep. I get the premise of this. I reject the idea with regard
to this essay.)
The
thing is… even if I do walk into a doctor’s office with information
and research and knowledge and suggestions… the idea that a commercial
would recommend it kind of speaks volumes about where we stand
as a mass consuming populous. Personally, I’m not totally convinced
that a commercial for a product is really the definitive source
of material I should be using to decide what medication to use.
It’s one step short of the company that manufactures the drug
having the president or chairman of the board appear at the end
so they can tell us they approved the message.
We
have a tendency to make fun of these things. (Just pull up the
old search engine of choice and look it up -- stupid product warning
labels… dumb product disclaimers -- and you’ll find some wonderful
examples. Some of my personal favorites are the warnings in the
instructions to only use the product according to the instructions,
which of course… if you didn’t read the instructions… well… I
hope I’m preaching to the choir.) But it would certainly appear
that we as consumers have asked for it.
We’ve
shown that we’ll listen, investigate the medication, and possibly
even purchase it. So the commercials continue. And, we’ve shown
that we’ll avoid responsibility and look for any reason to blame
someone else when it backfires (and pocket a dollar). To paraphrase
Men in Black -- a person is smart, people are idiots.
There’s
an old joke… classic joke… where a patient tells a doctor it hurts
while doing something, and the doctor’s response is simply “then
don’t” do it. Unfortunately, it seems like we’ve moved on as a
society, and the concept that experience is the best teacher now
needs to carry a disclaimer.