Euphemisms. Why can’t they just say what they mean?

[Packard]

I was watching CNN yesterday and at ad for one of those prescription-only drugs came on. 

The small disclaimer at the bottom said, “Subjects portrayed by on-screen talent.”

“Actors.” What is wrong with the word “actors”?

(And why are they advertising directly to the public medications that only are available by medical prescription?)

 

[woodbutcherbower]

Same over here. The guy used to be a window cleaner. Now he's a 'transparent glazing hygiene maintenance technician'.

 

[Tom the Remodeler]

I was watching CNN yesterday and at ad for one of those prescription-only drugs came on. 

The small disclaimer at the bottom said, “Subjects portrayed by on-screen talent.”

“Actors.” What is wrong with the word “actors”?

(And why are they advertising directly to the public medications that only are available by medical prescription?)

One of the beauties of the English language is that it allows us a tremendous amount of flexibility and specificity, never mind creativity.

For example, it would be specific and technically accurate to call a picture framing shop a "Workshop". Technically accurate and descriptive of the work being performed, but not very creative or specific. In the trades, we distinguish between "laborers", "apprentices", "journeymen", who could all just be called “workers”, “minions”, or “wage slaves”. In the corporate world there's an entire alphabet salad of CEOs, CFOs, etc.., which could just as easily be called "overhead".

My suspicion is that "on-screen talent" has some technical significance and differentiates those individuals from "actors", but that's just a guess from a person who doesn't work in the industry.

On a lighter note, I always enjoyed the following from John Hodgman: “ I don’t understand any job that didn’t appear on the pages of a Richard Scarry book.”

 

[ChuckM]

Maybe some on-screen talents are not actors by profession. For example, some corporations use family members of their staff to appear on their catalogs who by definition are not actors.

As for advertising prescription drugs to consumers, many patients educate themselves about treatments and medications, and they can be an indirect help in pushing sales of certain drugs if they become aware of the existence of those products.

 

[Sparktrician]

Same over here. The guy used to be a window cleaner. Now he's a 'transparent glazing hygiene maintenance technician'.

I've always admired the term, "ceramic defecatorium" as being conspicuously different from Archie Bunker's "terlit".  [big grin]

 

[Vondawg]

Haha !

 

[Packard]

I was between “real” jobs after college and working as a bouncer.

If anyone asked me what I did, I said, “I’m in ‘crowd control’.” (Not far from the truth, but not an accurate way to describe what I did.) [big grin]

 

[Peter Kelly]

I was watching CNN yesterday and at ad for one of those prescription-only drugs came on. 

The small disclaimer at the bottom said, “Subjects portrayed by on-screen talent.”

“Actors.” What is wrong with the word “actors”?

All language used around drug advertising is endlessly reviewed and approved by every pharmaceutical company's legal department. There's almost certainly a liability in using the term "actor" in disclaimer copy.

 

[Mini Me]

I was watching CNN yesterday and at ad for one of those prescription-only drugs came on. 

We don't have advertising of that nature here in any media so I am curious as to what exactly they are advertising? Are you supposed to get the doctor to prescribe a particular brand of a drug? The whole thing sounds a bit dodgy to say the least if that is the case.

 

[cpw]

I was watching CNN yesterday and at ad for one of those prescription-only drugs came on. 

We don't have advertising of that nature here in any media so I am curious as to what exactly they are advertising? Are you supposed to get the doctor to prescribe a particular brand of a drug? The whole thing sounds a bit dodgy to say the least if that is the case.

Pretty much yes.  They pharmaceutical company is trying to get people who have some medical problem to be aware of the treatment, and then "ask your doctor if [treatment] is right for you".

 

[Packard]

I was watching CNN yesterday and at ad for one of those prescription-only drugs came on. 

We don't have advertising of that nature here in any media so I am curious as to what exactly they are advertising? Are you supposed to get the doctor to prescribe a particular brand of a drug? The whole thing sounds a bit dodgy to say the least if that is the case.

This is especially so with newly developed drugs for previously untreatable conditions.

Psoriasis, for many years was treated with limited success with cortisone.  So some people with the condition who were using that treatment might not know that there were immune-suppressing drugs that could do a much better job. 

The earlier commercials were dressed up as public service announcements.  Usually ending with a variation of:

Ask your doctor if “XXXXX” is right for you.

They still frequently end with a variation of that, but when a new class of drugs are all vying for a share of the treatment of a specific condition, these ads sound very much like conventional advertising.

I would note that the FDA (Food and Drug Administration, a Federal government administration) publishes rules on these ads and they monitor those ads for compliance.

It is too much to quote here, but the link below lists the rules in their entirety.
https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-info...sing-risk-information-consumer-directed-print

I do remember reading in the 1970s that Psoriasis, an auto-immune condition, was the number one reason for teen suicide.  It made the teens feel like they were ugly and were often teased about it.

Nowadays, that condition almost certainly falls to 2nd place behind cyber-bullying.  No drug treatment for that as of yet.

 

[Sparktrician]

I would note that the FDA (Food and Drug Administration, a Federal government administration) publishes rules on these ads and they monitor those ads for compliance.

Be glad for the existence of the FDA.  We might otherwise still have smoke enemas or other quack treatments.  [blink]

 

[Cheese]

Be glad for the existence of the FDA.  We might otherwise still have smoke enemas or other quack treatments.  [blink]

That's cute...  [big grin] ...I'll betcha that's where the expression of blowing smoke up your ... came from. [jawdrop]

 

[Sparktrician]

Be glad for the existence of the FDA.  We might otherwise still have smoke enemas or other quack treatments.  [blink]

That's cute...  [big grin] ...I'll betcha that's where the expression of blowing smoke up your ... came from. [jawdrop]

That's exactly where it came from.  [big grin]

 

[Crazyraceguy]

I remember when I was not legal in the US either.
I would bet some team of lobbyists was involved in that change.

I think the reason for pointing out that the people are "actors" (or whatever ridiculous term applies) is to distinguish them from actual patients who have used the product.
The funny thing about that is in the "fine print". When the subject is a real patient, they go out of their way to inform you that they were "compensated for their time". Oh, you mean paid, like you would expect anyone to be.

A lot of things used to be illegal for TV advertising, but ok for print. Doctors, lawyers, etc.