What's Wrong with People?!: Bodily Function Commercials

So I've decided that I'm going to start a new series of posts entitled, "What's Wrong with People?!" for those moments when you really do wonder what people are thinking.  Think of this as a more elaborate version of the FAIL blog.

Now, granted, I've done and said some things that might cause someone to ask this question about me but, you have to admit, there are some instances where this question is warranted, whether it be for the sheer stupidity involved or simply what I like to call the "did that really just happen?" factor.  So, with a disclaimer about the fact that I may not have the authority to put myself in this position of judgment, let's forge ahead, shall we?

The other day, I was watching television - I believe it was something on the Travel Channel, probably Anthony Bourdain - and this ad for Charmin comes on.  You may be familiar with the series of ads featuring those supposedly adorable bears in funny situations involving going to the bathroom.  Okay fine.  They're cute, we're familiar with them, they recognize how important toilet paper is to everyday life, I can handle that.  The commercial in question involved a bear cub going through "inspection" with his mother.  Paws? Check.  Teeth?  Check.  Bottom?  "Needs work!"

Really?  We have to be told that Charmin Ultra Strong toilet paper doesn't leave uncomfortable wads of tissue stuck to your behind after you wipe?  And I could even handle the concept if they didn't show us a visual of them stuck to the bear's rear end while he jauntily wags his stubby tail back and forth.  Quite frankly, I've see more disgusting cartoons (bodily function scenes in South Park come to mind) and, until the end of the ad, none of this had really bothered me.  I've seen these before.  No big deal.

No - it was the tag line that got me.  "Charmin: Enjoy the Go."

Pause.  Let that sink in for a minute.  Enjoy the go?  When did it become good marketing strategy to tell people that your toilet paper is the one to buy because they will enjoy wiping their butts so thoroughly using your product that they can't wait to go again?  Next they'll make the little bears happily come down with diarrhea just so they have an excuse to use more toilet paper.

And that's not the worst of it.  Other commercials involving bodily functions are upping the ante and growing more bold and less afraid of societal taboos every day.  Take Huggies, for example.  Watch this video:



Did you see the slogan at the end?  Yep.  That's right.  "Huggies: The coolest you'll ever look pooping your pants."  How is this okay?  I'm all for getting rid of embarrassment and perceived restrictions on discussing something as personal as going to the bathroom, but this is pushing it, even for a baby who doesn't yet understand the concept of privacy.  It's more, how can I say this....gross.  Maybe it's wrong for me to eat my dinner on the couch with my husband while watching television.  Maybe this is my punishment for not sitting at the table, but, honestly, I nearly spit out the food I was eating. You can sell diapers without talking about poop.  That's all I have to say about that.

Let's move on to other bodily functions.  Again, I'm glad that it's becoming okay to talk about things like overactive bladder or heartburn or erectile dysfunction.  (Not poop, though.  Still not okay with that.)  Many people suffered through these problems in the past because they were too uncomfortable to discuss these things with their doctors, let alone anyone else.  But these advertising companies have got to approach these things differently.  Take Cialis - similar to Viagra if you didn't know - as an example.


First of all, let me say that, in the realm of erectile dysfunction drug commercials, Cialis takes the high road compared to Viagra.  That whole blue horns thing that they pulled a few years back was uncouth and uncalled for.  However, Cialis isn't much better.  You can add romance to your story and make the characters in your commercial frolic in California Wine Country before settling down for an evening of passionate love-making courtesy of this supposed wonder drug in an attempt to make your consumers think your drug is upscale and classy.   I'm fine with that.  I get that you're trying to talk about sex without really talking about sex because, let's face it, the less we can talk about erectile dysfunction, the better.  No, my problem is the logistics of it all.  Take a look at the theme of the Cialis commercials that is also the symbol for their product:

Awww, isn't that cute?  They're in matching bathtubs.  And they're free-standing, clawfooted bathtubs so they're classy.  And, frequently, the aforementioned characters are featured in the aforementioned classy bathtubs in an empty field somewhere or up on a hill overlooking the skyline of some exotic city at sunset.  Romantic, right?  But, wait a minute, this is a commercial about sex.  Don't you need to be in the same bathtub for that?  This is my problem - they've tried to steer so far away from the topic that they've physically separated the two people preparing to participate in the very act that the drug is supposed to assist with.  Maybe this is supposed to represent the idea that, with 36-hour Cialis, you don't have to be forced into the same bathtub any sooner than you want to.  You can stare at a skyline instead.


In my opinion, Canada got it right.  A few years ago, we were in Toronto and I was watching television in the hotel room before going to sleep.  A Cialis commercial came on, but I had no idea that was the focus because this particular ad did not resemble the ones we're used to in the slightest.  I'll try to describe it since I can't find a copy of the video online.  As with many things in Canada (and, yes, I'm being stereotypical here) it began with hockey.  There was a group of men in their fifties playing weekend hockey.  Several of their wives were looking on from the bleachers.  One of the men loses his footing on the ice and slips, twisting his ankle in his skate.  His wife makes an, "Oh, no, I'm sorry, honey" face.  She wraps her arm around his shoulder as they leave the arena, waving goodbye to everyone else who is wishing him a quick recovery.  As they shuffle toward the car, halfway through the parking lot they pause.  They both look around to make sure no one is watching.  He stands up straight, brushes off his pants, stops limping, and the two quickly pile into their SUV to drive off and, presumably, make use of his new Cialis prescription.

The reason I like this one is because, not only is the ad making fun of its own product to some extent, but it also assumes that the audience will get the joke.  In the US, a lot of advertisers have to lay everything out for consumers, betting that we're too stupid to know what they're talking about.  This commercial gave consumers a wink saying, "We know what you're using it for.  Here's one way to enjoy it."  Less pandering, more creativity is the way to go.

For example - Kotex gets it.  I never thought I'd be praising a tampon company, but they understand that women aren't stupid and they don't need to be tricked into buying a specific type of tampon.  Check these out:  Ad 1



Ad 2



I think both of these put into words what I can't.  They respect women's intelligence and actually call out other companies that don't.  (For example, have you seen those Tampax ads with Annie Potts as Mother Nature?  Please.) Charmin, Huggies, and Cialis should take notes.

Context and How it is Changing

I went to a book signing by Lauren Belfer for her new book A Fierce Radiance at Borders on Thursday and she mentioned something that I thought was quite interesting. If anyone takes the time to read this, I'd love to know your thoughts on the topic.

The book is historical fiction and is about the process of discovering and developing penicillin. It took Belfer eight years to research and write the story and much of her research process involved looking at old Life magazines and issues of The New York Times. She pointed out that, now, it's possible to simply search the Times website for the information you're looking for but that, even though it's more cumbersome, she prefers to use microfilm to view the original documents because it provides context. She gave the example of reading an article during the time period in which she's writing and turning the page to find that there was a sale at Nordstrom that week on shoes; she might then include a side note in the story about the character having to run to the store to buy new shoes while they're on sale.

Granted, this is a sort of trivial example but it makes sense. What if she had been researching an article, turned the page, and came across another, small article mentioning the rise of burglaries in a neighborhood at that time that concerned the people living in that area. Let's say that her character lived there - it would flesh out that character to have her mention that she is also concerned about the recent thefts.

I guess that what I'm trying to get at is, are we losing context with the developments we've had in technology over the last few decades or is our context simply different? If I'm reading the newspaper online, my experience will be very individualized. If there's a pop-up ad or an ad on the website itself, it will be tailored to the date, time, and, in most cases, my preferences.

Cookies know that I've been searching for an airline flight from Phoenix to Buffalo for my friend Kim so that, when I'm on certain websites, a Travelocity ad will show up talking about discounts on that particular flight. If I refresh the page, the ad might change to one about the Nook being on sale at Barnes and Noble. If someone twenty years in the future wants to search for and read that same article that I was reading, the ads will be different or not included. Does that eliminate the historical context? How would we change the way we examine this information?

(Oh, and, as a side note on the topic of context...why is it that sponge cake loses all flavor when placed in the context of a Chinese buffet restaurant? Even more importantly, why does it look so appetizing? Why are people, knowing it has no flavor and that the experience will ultimately be disappointing, still drawn to eat it?)