NYT: Viagra and the Battle of the Awkward Ads [View All]

[DeepModem Mom]

Viagra and the Battle of the Awkward Ads
By STUART ELLIOTT

Published: April 25, 2004


ADVERTISING has had its share of nasty three-way battles over the years: McDonald's vs. Burger King vs. Wendy's. Bud Light vs. Miller Lite vs. Coors Light. Toyota vs. Nissan vs. Honda. Kellogg's vs. Post vs. General Mills.

Now comes Viagra vs. Levitra vs. Cialis. It is a Madison Avenue dream. And nightmare.

It is a dream because the three rivals are flush with cash and eager to compete aggressively in a market that is already big and is forecast to grow fast. Ad agencies have been panting like lovesick suitors over the idea of clients willing to spend more than $300 million this year when many other clients are pinching pennies.

The problem is that the products in question treat erectile dysfunction, a condition, like adult incontinence or hemorrhoids, that is hard to discuss without being too vague or too vulgar. So the advertisers have to figure out how to build customer demand and loyalty without offending people and without providing additional fodder for endless gags by late-night talk-show hosts.

Even worse, the products are prescription drugs, so they come freighted with federal restrictions and requirements about advertising content. For instance, if an ad mentions the product name and what it treats, side effects must also be disclosed - in this case eyebrow-lifters like "erections that last for more than four hours."...


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/25/business/yourmoney/25viagra.html