FDA, WSJ Do Semiotics

David Card | November 16, 2004, 08:46 AM

I'm just going to run excerpts without commentary from this Wall Street Journal story. Curious readers will make their own judgements. Emphasis mine.

The ads "make representations about sexual activity in men who take Viagra," the FDA wrote. As evidence, the regulatory agency pointed to the pairing of provocative narration, such as "the guy who wanted to spend the entire honeymoon indoors" with an image of the man "gazing at black bra, panties and negligee in store window."

...In its letter to Pfizer, the FDA took particular exception to the implied claim that Viagra "will provide a return to a previous level of sexual desire and activity." The letter said the FDA wasn't aware of data supporting that contention and asked Pfizer to submit the proof, if it exists.

...Levitra has managed to be cleverly oblique. Its early ads featured a man with graying temples throwing a football through a tire swing. More recently, the brand has relied on a sultry, 44-year-old actress wearing a loose man's dress shirt -- advertising short-hand for a woman who recently has had sex -- to talk about the drug's benefits.

Ads for Cialis, meanwhile, feature love birds cooing and a couple in side-by-side bathtubs holding hands. The ads haven't triggered FDA action.

The "Wild Thing" spots were intended to help set Viagra apart in an increasingly crowded field. There are some signs they aren't scoring as well as earlier Viagra spots, such as those featuring a smiling guy named Bob whose officemates can't figure out why he seems so happy.