When it comes to sexual content on network television, broadcasting is an evermore risqué business. Yet in one small corner of the TV industry, apeculiar standard prevails: Straightforward and frank television advertising forcontraceptives is almost as unheard of as it was in the Father Knows Best era.
In a recent moment of absurdity, the Fox network denied a contraceptivecompany an advertising time slot during its sexual-adventure show TemptationIsland. The rejected ad was for Encare, a spermicide product made by Blairex Laboratories. "Here's a program that revolves around the premise of promiscuity," says Al Kestnbaum, president of Encare's advertising agency, Chestnut Communications in Greenwich, Connecticut. "I'm grasping for understanding [about] why they won't have our products." Kestnbaum says his understanding of Fox's ad policy is that disease-prevention claims are acceptable but that messages about unwanted pregnancy are not.
The network bias against birth control is even more puzzling given changes inrecent years governing pharmaceutical advertising. The Food and DrugAdministration used to insist that drug companies refrain from"direct-to-consumer" advertising for prescription drugs. But in 1997, the FDAchanged its policy. The result has been a flood of ads for such products asClaritin (for allergy relief) and Lipidor (to control high cholesterol), as wellas the ubiquitous Viagra ads targeted at erection-impaired males. So why notopen up the airwaves to contraceptives, many of which, after all, do not requirea prescription and have a wider potential market than new products such asViagra?
The networks' dubious explanation: It's a matter of taste and respect forcommunity standards. (Read: We don't want the Christian right yelling at us.)There are no federal regulations directly prohibiting ads on TV for condoms, spermicides, or birth control pills. (Cigarettes are banned from television asthe result of a specific act of Congress.) The National Association ofBroadcasters used to promote a general advertising code for TV and radiostations, but it was eliminated in the early 1980s owing to antitrustconsiderations.
In recent years, ads have begun appearing for Ortho Tri-Cyclen, a birth controlpill. During a six-month period in 2000, Ortho Tri-Cyclen spent $13 million inadvertising on major networks, according to data from Competitive Media Reportingin New York. That compares with the $20 million spent to advertise Viagra. Onefactor helping Ortho Tri-Cyclen is that it has been okayed by the FDA as atreatment for acne, a use that makes its message more palatable to the networks.Condom ads occasionally air on broadcast TV, but they are more common on cablestations. According to an Adweek report, the commercials are inevitably focused on disease prevention, not contraception.
Meanwhile, the increasing sexual content on TV is quantifiable. Leaving asidenews, sports, and children's shows, nearly two-thirds of television programminghad some form of sexual content last season, according to a study released inFebruary by the Kaiser Family Foundation. That's up from the 19971998 season,in which the figure was put at 56 percent. And for every 20 times a "sexualsituation" appears, there is just one instance implying a risk or responsibility,the study found. As well, the percentage of sexual scenes that depict teenagersrose from 3 percent in 19971998 to 9 percent in 19992000.
With "reality TV" still in vogue, why shouldn't networks let a little realitycreep into contraceptive advertising? Sex sells--but so could birthcontrol.
