Final Paper

Gardasil TV Commercial

Advertisement in the Unites Sates (US) has paved a long path to its present status. It has moved from being merely means of introducing new city-members to the suburbanite high-class identity in the beginning of the 20th century to being competition grounds for selling mass-manufactured products. It’s gone from dull newspaper text to eye-catching graphics and animations (Johnson, 12). Not only have the advertisements transformed from their original configuration but so has their target audience. Today’s advertisement audience is no longer composed of costumers, but is mostly made up of consumers (Johnson 196). In another words, most products are no longer there to meet needs, but are there to satisfy short-lived desires. For instance, for most Americans, regular clothes-shopping is simply to keep up with the quickly changing fashion world. In the past half a century yet another addition has joined the world of advertisement, the pharmaceutical industry. There once used to be that health-care professionals were the sole communication agents between pharmaceutical companies and the general populace. In the late 1960’s the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) introduced the first patient package insert (PPI) and from there the direct-to-consumer pharmaceuticals advertising gradually strengthened to its present status (Pines 489). Among the various reasons for such flow were the rising advances in medicine. Not only today’s scientists discover new medicine for previously untreatable diseases, but they, also, create different versions of the old medications. As a result, the competition grounds for pharmaceuticals have been widening and have created some controversy. Are the overly concise TV and magazine ads an accurate and sufficient representation of the pharmaceutical medication they advocate? Has the competition forced the pharmaceutical companies to focus their attention on speed of discovery and quantity of production rather than the quality? Etc. Such controversies are especially intensified when it comes to new vaccines. What makes vaccines different from most other pharmaceutical products is that they affect a large portion of the population (if not all) since, concerning the targeted disease, their recipients are healthy at the time of vaccination. A great example of a recently discovered vaccine is the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil. Since its FDA approval in the summer of 2006, Merck, the pharmaceutical company that produces Gardasil, has invested large sums of money in advertising its product. This paper will seek to analyze the Gardasil TV advertisement in order to investigate the rhetorical strategies and biases that Merck uses in the Gardasil TV commercial to market its product as well as to determine whether such presentation of a vaccine is safe and appropriate.
The Gardasil advertisement begins with an emotional appeal to its audience. The target audience in this case is young women and their families. The first narrator is a young girl, most likely a middle school student, wearing safety gear and holding her skateboard. In her opening line she creates a fear in her audience’s mind by informing them that “each year in the US thousands of women learn they have cervical cancer” (Gardasil). By using the word “thousands”, as opposed to the small percentage number of the female population, the commercial producers exaggerate the enormity of the problem. The narrator then offers a relief by announcing that there is a way to avoid being a victim of cervical cancer; that she “could be one less” (Gardasil). The second narrator simply reaffirms the first narrator’s claim. Both narrators have a feeling of concern in their faces. Such facial expression conveys the message that the presented problem has two aspects to it: the possibility of developing cervical cancer, as well as, the anxiety accompanied by the thought of such possibility. The producers of the commercial use these scare-tactics at the very beginning of the commercial in order to attract the audience’s attention. “The law of attraction says like attracts like, and so as you think a thought, you are also attracting like thoughts to you (Byrne 7). The worried facial expression of the narrators, as well as, the keywords “Thousands,” “women,” “cancer,” and “victim” evoke a negative thought in the audience’s mind. This negative thought then acts like a magnet and attracts many other similar thoughts (Byrne 7). What if I or a loved family member is one of the thousands of women they talk about? How will that impact my life? How much physical and emotional pain does dealing with cancer entail? Etc. Similarly the phrase “I could be one less” sparks hope, a positive thought, in the audience’s mind. This over-exaggerated use of emotional appeals ensures that the audience will follow the commercial to learn about the solution.
Finally, twelve seconds into the commercial, the third narrator offers the solution to the problem that the previous narrators address. She defines Gardasil and provides the audience with some specific information regarding the vaccine’s nature and efficacy. Further details, such as the recipient age group are provided in the form of text with special emphasis on the word Gardasil. This narrator seems to be in her mid 20’s and she is portrayed as a horse-back rider. The older age of the third narrator symbolizes better decision-making skills and higher levels of knowledge. The fact that she is a horse-back rider symbolizes strength. Women highly praise such qualities and the producers of the advertisement use them as analogies for the vaccine users. Such logical fallacies distract the audience from the main argument and draw her mind toward the ideal mental image of herself. The commercial conveys that receiving Gardasil not only reduces the audience’s chances of developing cervical cancer, but it, also, helps in establishing her best perspective and personality.
After the introduction of the product, the producers of the advertisement incorporate the logo “one less” many times either in form of narration or in form of text. The narrators are girls and young women coming from different backgrounds and with different interests and personalities. There is a drum player, a soccer player, a dancer, a clothes- designer, and finally a group of young girls playing jump rope in addition to the original skate-boarder and basketball player. Furthermore, the narrators come from many different ethnic backgrounds. The incorporation of such diversity of interest and ethnicity represents different audience subdivisions and is a form of ethos. “According to Aristotle, ethos works as a rhetorical strategy by establishing the good will or credibility of the writer or speaker” (Alfano, 43). The producers of the Gardasil commercial deliberately create a setting to which all different subdivisions of the target audience can make an association. Such identification allows the audience to develop a sense of trust and credibility. When in form of text, the logo is a part of the setting of the Gardasil advertisement as opposed to a computerized text with an in-front-of-setting layout. In most cases, the producers portray the logo in the form of the narrator’s personal hand-writing and design. Such incorporation of the textual logo, along with the intimate and yet serious voice tones of the narrators, strengthens the growing sense of trust in the audience’s mind.
According to Roy H. Williams, an advertising expert, in order for an advertisement to be successful, “the listener must be a participant in your advertising. You must cause him to imagine himself taking precisely the action you so artfully describe (Alfano 37). The Gardasil advertisement achieves such goal by allowing common people, as opposed to celebrities, to promote the product. For instance, when an African American female dancer or a young girl who aspires to become a clothes-designer watches the Gardasil advertisement, she immediately makes a connection with the specific narrator. Such connection stems from the intrinsic presumption that if two people come from the same ethnicity and/or have a common interest, then they share many other commonalities as well. Thus, the mentioned audience can easily imagine herself being in the narrator’s place and promoting the product. In addition, the producers of the advertisement depict the narrators as role models; they portray them as successful, passionate and determined young women. The soccer player is wearing a number one jersey. The basketball player shoots the ball right into the basket. The step-dancers are determined to nail down their moves and excel in their performance. And, finally, the clothes-designer and the drums-player passionately enjoy the art and music they’re trying to master. Such role-model creation evokes an authoritative perception of the narrators in the audience’s mind. If the target audience aspires to become the strong role-model she sees in the commercial, she should make the same decision as the ones that her ideal narrator presents.
As the last few paragraphs demonstrate, the Gardasil TV commercial uses many different rhetorical strategies which deliberately convince the audience regarding the quality of the product and their immediate need to consume the product. Besides the eloquent use of language, setting and design, the commercial contains many facts regarding the HPV vaccine, but lacks other necessary information. Right after the introduction of Gardasil, different narrators inform the audience about the four specific strains of the Human Papilloma virus that the vaccine targets, the mostly injection-site related temporary side effects, and the fact that pregnant women should not use the vaccine. The narrators, also, inform the audience that Gardasil will not treat cervical cancer and vaccine recipients should continue with their regular cervical cancer screening check-up, and that the vaccine may not fully protect everyone. However the commercial does not mention the length of the vaccine trials, which scientists perform to ensure the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. In addition, the commercial does not provide any information regarding incomplete trials such as the ones on fetal and infant outcome.
At the time of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of Gardasil, the length of its human vaccine trial was merely “36” months (Koutsky S3/115). Such short trial length is concerning especially knowing that Merck has a reputation of rushing pharmaceutical products into the market. In 2004, Merck withdrew Vioxx, an arthritis pain medication, from the market after studies showed that it increased the risks of heart attacks and strokes (Harris). In 2007, the company intended to introduce another similar pain-killer Arcoxia to the market. This time “a panel of federal drug advisers voted 20 to 1” to reject the application for approval of Arcoxia right from the beginning once again for causing “nearly three times as many heart attacks, strokes and deaths” as other existing pain pills without offering any “substantial benefit” (Harris). Such past history undermines Merck’s credibility and the safety of the HPV vaccine. In addition, the efficacy human trials of Gardasil are limited to less than five years. “Additional follow-up of vaccinated cohorts is required to determine whether short-term antibody titers seen in the ongoing clinical trials predict long-term protection” (Koutsky 115). In another words, it’s not quite clear yet whether an eleven year-old girl who receives the HPV vaccine now will have immunity against the four strains of HPV by the time she is 17.
Another major source of concern regarding Gardasil is that it affects the reproductive system of its recipient. Even though, there is ongoing data collection on pregnancy, fetal and infant outcomes, there will not be any definite results until the vaccine is used in widespread immunization programs (Koutsky). Therefore, if harmful, the HPV vaccine can endanger the future generation. Such was the case for Thalidomide Saga in the early 1960’s. The use of Thalidomide as an anti-emetic during the first trimester of gestation “led to alarming rates of phocomelia, defects in long bones, absence of auricles, cleft lip, and cardiac and gastrointestinal anomalies” (Melchert 2). Therefore, as the producer of the vaccine, Merck should properly incorporate the lack of such important data in its Gardasil TV commercial in order to allow the future mothers to consider all the aspect of receiving the vaccine before making their decision.
All TV commercials take advantage of logical, emotional and ethical appeals one way or another. What makes the Gardasil commercial different is that it promotes a product that can affect public-health. One may say that this is the case for all pharmaceutical drug commercials. However, most pharmaceutical drugs target a small portion of the population who bear a certain disease or disorder and who look for ways to reduce or eliminate the symptoms. For instance, in case of Claritin, the target audience is people who suffer from seasonal allergies. By the same token, in case of Prilosec OTC the target audience is people who suffer from heartburn. The effects of most of these pharmaceutical drugs are often temporary and stop upon discontinuation of use. Gardasil, on the other hand, is a vaccine “for girls and young women ages 9 to 26” (Gardasil). A vaccine, in most cases, has life-long effects on its recipients which is advantageous in that it protects them against a certain disease. The down-side, however, is that this life-long efficacy may hold true for certain adverse side-affects as well (Brennan). Such adverse events may not manifest themselves until later on during the vaccine recipient’s life. Especially, in case of Gardasil, since the vaccine affects the reproductive organs, not only a potential side-affect can harm the generation of young women receiving the vaccine, but it can, also, endanger the future generation (Brennan). Therefore, if the HPV vaccine turns out to be absolutely harmless, then the Gardasil TV commercial, with its current presentation, is doing a great service to the society. On the other hand, if any adverse side-affects manifest themselves in the future, the commercial can simply be an invitation to a state of healthcare disaster. The Food and Drug Administration approval of Gardasil indicates that the US Healthcare Department believes that the benefits of the HPV vaccine outweigh any possible harm. However, with the limited available trial period, there cannot be any guarantees. The Gardasil commercial provides certain facts about the HPV vaccine. However, it is misleading in that it does not provide its audience with any information regarding incomplete trials and potential harm. When the average American, with limited science and medical knowledge background watches the Gardasil commercial, she merely sees all the positive features of the vaccine. Therefore, she may make a decision without considering all aspects and possible consequences of the action.