There's an anti-depressant called Cymbalta. Perhaps you've seen its commercials. Soft minor-key piano music plays under images of depressed people. A female voice-over asks, "Where does depression hurt? Everywhere. Who does depression hurt? Everyone."(Digression: It's interesting that the grammatically proper phrasing--"WHOM does depression hurt"--is not used. We'd be willing to bet that it's a very intentional non-use, as "whom" would draw too much attention to itself. When did good grammar become ostentatious? EOD)
As a semi-depressive person himself, the Solipsist sympathizes with the condition, and we certainly don't begrudge people whatever relief Cymbalta brings them.
What struck us was a slight variation on this commercial, one that focuses more on the "Who does depression hurt?" question. Same voice-over actress, similar imagery. But this particular ad's visuals focus on the people who are being hurt--not just the depressed people but the people around them. We see images of what we can assume are significant others. We see images of children worried about their parents.
And then we get a visual of a depressed dog.
Seriously. A black lab or doberman is shown forlornly gazing up at its presumably depressed owner.
What are we supposed to make of this? Who is the target audience? Sure, a depressed person might see this and be inspired to take action. We think, however, that the main target of this ad is the people around the depressed person. Someone sees this ad and recognizes him- or herself in the image of the long-suffering friend/spouse/parent and resolves to broach the subject with the depressed person. Perhaps this viewer intercedes on behalf of a child. But are we meant to be motivated by the sight of a sad dog? The Solipsist is as much of an animal lover as the next guy (as long as the next guy isn't, say, Michael Vick), but we think there are greater issues in the world, and greater reasons to intervene in a depressed person's illness--than a sad doberman.
Sheesh, if the dog really cared, he'd be trying to cheer up his owner so he or she wouldn't need Cymbalta!
The Solipsist is NOT going out of his way to entertain a lazy doberman!
*************************************
The Mr. Irrelevant News Story of the Day
Apparently, the Lakers' don't merit front-page coverage, even when they win a championship. Just goes to prove our theory: Nobody cares about the Lakers. But this other story is actually kind of interesting.
The federal government operates a program called "Lifeline," which mandates that everyone be able to receive telephone service, regardless of income. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 opened competition for this service to cellphone providers. A basic package provides a free phone and about 68 minutes of "talk time" per month. The government subsidizes the program.
All well and good, but check this detail: The government subsidizes the carriers to the tune of about $10 a month per client; the approximate cost of the services provided? About $3.
Now, we are not, like our FFB "Math Mama," math experts. We can, however, do some back-of-the-envelope calculations, and conclude that this amounts to a 233% profit.
The Solipsist, of course, is a firm believer in capitalism, especially when it comes to making scads of cash from his sponsors (we're sure the scads will come rolling in any day now). But in these days of financial austerity, this strikes us a bit unreasonable. A mere 200% profit would seem sufficient.
Undrafted Articles
And, of course, "Bryant, Jackson and the Lakers Add to Trophies" (D1)
(Image from "Drop That Sock")
No comments:
Post a Comment