Advanced Medical Institute ad complaints (possible NSFW)

[fireheart17]

OK, a bit of background is necessary. This is an Australian based company that deals primarily with male premature ejaculation. Their current ad is a bit cheesy but funny and involves a couple going at it in bed (lights off) until the lights come on and the "bedroom police" show up, giving the man a card for the AMI.

Anyway, their ads in the past have been fairly controversial...here's the list of complaints (taken straight from the Advertising Standards Bureau Website). I can't get the links working, so I'll do a rough rundown.

April 2009-Complaints over kids having sex slammed in their faces and their 10 and 13 year old kids asking questions..."What's an erection mummy?" (one of the questions I kid you not). This ad was a little different and dealt with lack of female climax, was on Pay TV and is normally shown around 10:30 anyway. Complaint dismissed.

March 2009-Outdoor billboard featuring woman lying on top of a man and the words "Faking It?" in large typeface. Then there was more info underneath it. The complaint was based on a 25-year-old's viewpoint that it shouldn't be out in public, she was having to "reassess" her climaxes and concern for kids. Complaint

February 2009-THREE complaints. Complaint #1 can best be summed up..."sick and tired of talking about sex and sexual disfunction (that's how she spelt it) on TV" "offensive to men, suggesting that if they don't use chemicals to extend their sex they have a problem" and "if they have such a problem, they can find out at the doctor/chemist." (I'm paraphrasing a bit here). Complaint was dismissed. (ad talked about women getting toe-curling climaxes if men used said product)
Complaint #2-radio ad talking about lack of climax for women, my personal favourite response? "Offensive to an intellient human race in the way this has exploded on our public media and should
be limited to medical condition journals etc.."
Complaint was dismissed.
Complaint #3 was another one but dealt with both sexes. Complaints THIS time were more along the lines of poor timing (played about 2:30) and a 17-year-old who thinks it's "groace" Complaint dismissed.

I could go on and on...(the complaints actually go back to around 2007 roughly ) but I won't. The list of case studies is here: http://www.advertisingstandardsburea...udy_search.asp

Basically, what I'm trying to ask is, do we have a double standard when it comes to advertising? Why is it that we can talk about herpes, thrush etc. on TV (the Diflucan One ad springs to mind) yet not about premature ejaculation which is a legitimate problem for men? Another question: should problems like these be highlighted on television?

ETA: Their first complaint was in 2001!

[Boozy]

Before we jump to the conclusion that all of Australia has a double standard for men and women, it would be helpful to know what percentage of Australians these complaints represent.

People who have the time to visit a website to complain about commercials tend to be a bit nutty. I don't know if you have a representational sample, here.

[Greenday]

I'd personally prefer to just not see any ads on premature ejaculation, period stuff, pregnancy tests, herpes, etc. etc.

[AdminAssistant]

Well, in the States, I've always been annoyed that while there are tons of ads for Viagra, Cialis, and the ilk - there is nothing concerning female sexual dysfunction.

[Sylvia727]

AdminAssistant, I was listening to a talk show interview of an expert in feminine sexuality, and one of the questions asked was "why is there no Viagra for women?" The answer was that basically, men tend to be more aroused by physicality, and women tend to be more aroused by mentality. The expert said that chemicals couldn't do much for women's arousal, and that "Viagra for women" was actually Harlequin romances. I'm not sure how true that is, but I am sure that at least one of the factors in the sex-skewed product availibility is a social double standard that men are expected to perform and women are expected to receive.

Personally, I think all the ads about private functions could stand to be a lot more discreet, especially the ones about constipation. That's gross. I don't need illustrated diagrams, just drop your hints about being "regular" and go away. I also tend to be more forgiving of ads about herpes and yeast infections because those can honestly be explained to children as illnesses, and children generally won't pry any further. And if the ads for erectile dysfunction medications were to keep their message in the realm of medicine, I would be similarly satisfied. Unfortunately, some ads do take the innuendo all the way into the realm of flashing neon signs. I'm not thinking only of the children, either. I don't want hear all about someone else's sex life while I'm trying to relax and watch my tv. Keep it tasteful, people.

This company sounds like they are pushing the envelope of common sense and good judgment, although honestly, if your 13-year-old is asking you what an erection is, it may be time to explain a bit more about the birds and the bees.

[AFPheonix]

If I had my way, prescription meds wouldn't be allowed to be advertised to the public, since in general the public doesn't understand biochemistry at all. That, and advertising is a fairly large chunk of the cost of brand name medications. I'd rather see that money go to R&D. I'm ok with drug reps going around to doctors and pharmacists, they can actually understand the mechanics of the drugs, and I appreciate getting coupons to give to patients that are getting meds that aren't covered by insurance.

If I also had my way, OTC meds would have to go through the rigorous testing that prescription meds do. Then maybe useless drugs like dextromethorphan would go away. But that's just me.

[fireheart17]

Before we jump to the conclusion that all of Australia has a double standard for men and women, it would be helpful to know what percentage of Australians these complaints represent.

People who have the time to visit a website to complain about commercials tend to be a bit nutty. I don't know if you have a representational sample, here.

Those are just examples I gave above. Some of them are actually legitimate (think those ringtone commercials and ads for movies like Saw) but those were just examples I gave above and were somewhat nuttier. Some of the AMI ads have been pulled, most famously is the one that's just the words "Want Longer Lasting SEX?" and then the details on the bottom. It wound up with a Censored Sign over the word "SEX" and then they were pulled altogether.

And in regards to the ads being graphical, no they aren't, most of the time it may mention euphenisms like "the big O" or "going the distance" but even on TV, there aren't any pictures showing an erect penis or anything like that (even in silhouette).

[DesignFox]

I'd prefer they didn't show any commercials about prescription drugs. The general population doesn't know dick about anything let alone medication; the last thing we need is Homer Hypochondriac asking his doctor to prescribe all sorts of drugs (oh right, that's what big pharma WANTS, silly me).

I don't care for ED/male enhancement commercials, although at my stage in life I tend to giggle like a teenager at most of them. They tend to be so over the top. I think the worst thing about them is hearing them on the radio- particularly when you're fooling around with your boyfriend! Nothing turns me on like a sultry girl voice talking about penis length/girth .

But- in the US, for me, the biggest WTF goes out to Cialis. What the fuck is with the people in bathtubs? I mean, really? A man and a woman, in their own separate bathtub overlooking a sunset from a cliff? bwah? o_O I still don't get that. If anyone can explain to me what bathtubs and cliffs have to do with gettin' it on, I'm listening.

[Greenday]

But- in the US, for me, the biggest WTF goes out to Cialis. What the fuck is with the people in bathtubs? I mean, really? A man and a woman, in their own separate bathtub overlooking a sunset from a cliff? bwah? o_O I still don't get that. If anyone can explain to me what bathtubs and cliffs have to do with gettin' it on, I'm listening.

Exhibitionists?

[DesignFox]

Exhibitionists?

How does that work if you're sitting in your own tub? You're not putting anything on display!

[Greenday]

How does that work if you're sitting in your own tub? You're not putting anything on display!

The way you make it sound, they are sitting in bathtubs, on top of a cliff. That'd be kinda public.

[DesignFox]

The way you make it sound, they are sitting in bathtubs, on top of a cliff. That'd be kinda public.

Well. ya. but the tubs are covering them up. and they can barely touch each others' hands. *laugh*
And enough of my rambling. Stupidest ED commercial ever.

[Dreamstalker]

If I had my way, prescription meds wouldn't be allowed to be advertised to the public, since in general the public doesn't understand biochemistry at all.

I'd prefer they didn't show any commercials about prescription drugs. The general population doesn't know dick about anything let alone medication; the last thing we need is Homer Hypochondriac asking his doctor to prescribe all sorts of drugs (oh right, that's what big pharma WANTS, silly me).

Ditto. I've always thought that the TV ads create more hypochondriacs/people who "ask about" Medication X when they don't even need to worry about the condition it treats. And what if someone convinces their doctor to actually prescribe X, but is presently taking something (prescription or non) that can interact badly? The one who should be sued in that instance is the drug company for running the ad that led to "Homer" demanding the med. Instead, the doctor (whose only mistake was listening to the guy) is sued.

It also seems like the side effects being trumpeted on TV would prevent the patients who actually do need these drugs from even asking about them.

[Greenday]

Doctors are supposed to know which medications you can and can't take together, that's why the get sued. Pharmacists are supposed to check also.

[Boozy]

Actually, in my experience, pharmacists are far more likely to catch contraindicated drugs than doctors are. That's why you should always use the same pharmacy for every script.