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.