By Jeff Orvis
In the past, I've commented on how
corporations are cutting quantities of products, most notably in the
grocery stores, in an apparent sneaky attempt to boost profits at the
expense of consumers. When was the last time you were able to buy a
one-pound can of coffee, apart from those trendy natural food places?
Major brands have been cutting the number of ounces in their least
expensive sizes for a number of years now.
There seems to be more water in a can
of vegetables, more liquid in soup cans and even air bubbles in
toothpaste tubes.
I realize companies are in it to make
money. But what about integrity? Is this any way to reward customer
loyalty?
My near constant companion these days
is TV. It's the first thing I turn on when I walk in the door after
being gone. I may not pay constant attention to what's on, but I've
learned how to multitask with a baseball or hockey game on.
I have become a bit amazed at the
number of ads for prescription drugs on shows at any time of the day
or night. We've all heard horror stories about the high price of some
prescription drugs. Big Pharma will try to tell you that those
increasing costs are due to the costs of research of new medications.
But I would bet we would all be amazed if suddenly these companies
were forced to open their financials to public inspection. What do
you think it costs to produce a thirty second TV ad on the nightly
network news? Then how much does it cost to buy the commercial time?
What is especially appalling is how
you will see an ad for gastrointestinal distress, for example and
after spending 15 seconds extolling the qualities of the product,
complete with a happy couple frolicking in a meadow on a picnic, you
hear a voice telling you that certain people might die if they take
this stuff, or at the very least, you will quit breathing or your
nose will fall off. Of course, the companies were undoubtedly advised
to say these disclaimers in their ads to avoid nasty lawsuits in the
event that something goes horribly wrong.
What I've noticed is even as they are
running through the possible side effects of their product, you still
see the couples frolicking in the meadow, or paddling in a canoe or
moms baking cookies with their kids. That way, the visual effect will
make you want to use that drug and make you forget the warnings that
are playing in the background.
I think somebody ought to make these
companies hire actors to simulate the possible side effects of their
drugs, while these warnings are being read. The first time a drug
company has to portray certain bodily functions or show a person's
nose turning black and falling off, the TV networks would have to
decline to sell them air time.
At the end of these ads, you are urged
to ask your doctor if this miracle drug is right for you. With the
dwindling number of general practice physicians, they often have
little time to explain what is wrong with you, let alone explain to
some woman why a product to improve erectile function is probably not
right for her. I've asked doctors if there is any good reason for
their patients to suggest a drug they have seen advertised. The
doctors usually shake their heads and roll their eyes.
The point is we are not doctors. We
may know that we are not feeling well, but if you trust your doctor,
wouldn't it make more sense spending his or her valuable time briefly
explaining how you are feeling, then let the examination commence?
Drug companies are trying to put pressure on doctors, through their
patients, to sell drugs. If the TV and print ads suddenly disappeared
and the drug companies went back to giving doctors free pens, an
occasional meal or maybe even a vacation, I'll bet the cost of
prescription drugs would plummet. The companies could also use part
of their savings on some of that expensive research, giving their
investors a dividend and bribing a congressman or two.
