TV Advertising

Advertising on television is a true mixture of good and bad. Kept in control by some federal bureaucracies that try to prevent it from being untruthful has pushed some advertisers to overload their presentation with a mass of truth that takes up 1/3 to ½ of a screen of teeny tiny type that you can’t read during the four seconds it’s on the screen.

Worse, though, is that it forces the advertisers (relying on their agencies) to present their message as quickly and forcefully as they can. That means trying to get and keep your attention and fascinate you into remembering what they are pushing … either product, service, or reputation.

Their problem is that once you have been exposed to a presentation technique that works, other advertisers start to use it. Then, once it becomes “standard” viewers become tired of seeing it and stop paying attention. Overuse destroys effectiveness.

Example: remember the “solarization” technique? A scene is presented, the audio begins, a phrase of two are uttered, and BANG!! The screen goes totally bright white, there is a whoosh or bang noise and a new scene appears. The narrative continues. A few phrases or scenic views and …. FLASH – BANG. Another solar experience. And so on through the ad until the required few seconds display (required by the bureau controlling TV ads) of the product or service name.

Before long, a gaggle of other ads use the technique. And viewers become used to it, ignore it, or turn away. It stops paying off as an effective technique.

Example: a new technique is created by some creative person(s). A speaker begins the presentation. A phrase or sentence is voiced. A sudden change of presenter is made, but the audio continues (in the current presenter’s voice) and the message continues without skipping a beat. SWITCH! A new presenter, for a continuous flow of message. SWITCH! Again! SWITCH! Again! This continues until the end of the message. “Tiring it is,” says Yoda. Effective? It does get your attention at least once. The presenters, and perhaps the order in which they are presented, are carefully chosen. A true cross section of our country. Men, women, different styles of dress, different races, different ages, etc.  Soon, the viewer sees this technique used in ad after ad, but after a couple of exposures to each of these, this also becomes boring and loses its effectiveness. Time to do something different again.

Now the agencies get onto a new track. The latest thing I’ve noticed now is “psychological” shock. And it seems to have landed on a scientific product presentation. Namely, Big Pharma. Yes, the pharmaceuticals have come up with their own “thing.” Product names! And their fascination seems to be with the letters “x,” “y,” and “z”. (Sounds a little like Sesame Street, no?) The “x” is usually used in it’s basic letter sense, pronounced as in “x-ray,” but some times is used as “z” as in “Xerxes.” The “y” gets used to replace “I,” and the “z” looks like it has replaced “s.” Remember when message boards and Usenet started doing this to be different (and perhaps lazy)? Warez and other terms, and shorthand “words” to cut down on typing (“ur nam soundz familure, bro”), or some such. Even the use of there/they’re/their gets changed to whatever you want to use for the sound, like “r u going to there sho?” really looks “kool,” doesn’t it? I guess Twitter is to blame for some of this stuff.

Back to pharm namez. Here are just a few of the ones I noted and jotted down as I was watching late-night programs. I guess they occur all day, but that’s when I watch TV mostly. The letter “v” and “w” creep in once in a while, but I don’t think they are being picked specifically. After all, there were older names like “Exlax” that fit the pattern. And one new one ends in “x” in the same “lax” context.

Here’s the list. Let me know what you think.

Xanax …. Lyrica …. Dulcolax …. Invocana …. Xeljanz …. Taltz …. Prodaxa …. Cosentyx …. Viberzi …. Xarelto …. Plavix …. Entyvio …. Zostavax …. Harvoni …. Linzess …Parodontax

And the new winner (get this!)  XYZAL.  

Sous Vide -- Read all about it!!

Sous vide is a really good way to cook.

I just ran across an article from Bon Appétit (March 20, 2017) titled “The Best way to cook a steak?” Well, now, we’re getting somewhere. I figured they were going to push sous vide! Oh, no, that wasn’t it at all! The “secret” they give you is to oil the meat instead of the pan when frying the meat. (It works for beef, pork chop, and lamb chop.

What the article says about this technique is probably all true; it sounds plausible. If I were frying a steak I’d probably try it. Go ahead … give it a whirl. I’m sure it will make a good eating experience.

However, putting the steak in (say) 130 degree F water (in a sealed cooking bag, of course) for anywhere from 1 to 4 hours gets you a never fail medium rare steak cooked to exactly the same doneness through the entire piece. Look up “sous vide” on the Internet and read all about it (https://anovaculinary.com/what-is-sous-vide/how-to-cook-sous-vide/). Of course it is easier (but not really that much) if you have a controlled heating element that also circulates the water (and items being cooked) in a pot, maintains the temperature you select, and shuts off all by itself after the maximum time you choose.

When you are ready to eat (the window of three hours after the beef is ready is a true convenience when guests arrive late), you just pull it out, brown the beef in a pan if your guests object to eating meat that doesn’t look “cooked” or they want a crisper outer shell on the beef. I usually allow 30 seconds on each side and a little bit on the edges to brown the meat a little without cooking the inside more. Here’s where the technique of “oiling” the meat instead of the pan might be useful.

I don’t oil the pan at this point, actually. I just use a cast iron pan that is really hot and lay the meat in it. 30 seconds and then flip it. At this point I salt, pepper, and lay a bit of butter on the meat, and then get it onto the plate. Done! Simple, quick, and perfectly cooked and served when you want it.

My son gave me my sous vide “tool” (an ANOVA immersion heater) and it’s one of the best kitchen gifts I have ever gotten. While it can be used for eggs and vegetables, I find it most useful for meats and chicken. Because I use a vacuum sealer for freezer items, all my main dish items go into bags, separately, and ready to cook this way. You do have to thaw them out first. Warming them up to room temperature is just as fast as putting them into pot water and using the sous vide heater to warm them until the whole pot comes to the cooking temperature. I just toss them into the sink a couple of hours before I am going to cook them. Hey! They are in vacuum sealed bags!

There are other brands, of course, and lots of techniques to play with until you are comfortable with sous vide. But this is a great way to easily make really good meat and chicken dishes. There are also DIY instructions on the net on how to build your own sous vide tubs and equipment. Some of them are interesting, but not for me!