Selling Toothpaste and Presidents

Selling Toothpaste and Presidents
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, September 22, 2022, p. A4
When travelling the lecture circuit decades ago, I would occasionally get off on a rant regarding advertising’s manipulation of consumer demand.

I would ask the audience to look at the labels on the products in their bathroom cabinet for any that were not heavily advertised on television.

At that time Procter & Gamble’s Gleem toothpaste was widely advertised as “the toothpaste for people who can’t brush after every meal.”

After such lectures audience members would come forward to dispute my assertions. One especially agitated adult with red face, fiery eyes, and a forefinger in my chest asserted, “Other people, maybe; but I’m sure not influenced by commercials.”

As if to politely change the subject, I asked, “What toothpaste do you use?”

“What does that have to do with anything?”

“Just curious,” I said.

“I use Gleem.”

“With all those toothpastes to choose from, why did you happen to pick Gleem?”

“Well, it’s just, … it’s just …, well I just can’t brush after every meal.”

Since many of the lectures were at academic institutions, my ongoing toothpaste survey revealed that most academics used Crest. (Part of my reason for following up with the Gleem fan.)

Since my dentist believed that brushing and flossing twice daily with water – or if one insisted on a dentifrice, baking soda – was adequate, why would academics use Crest?

It’s only a guess, but it turns out the American Dental Association had endorsed Crest. Perhaps dentists’ research revealed it did less harm than other toothpastes. I don’t know. Perhaps it was only natural that academics would go with the toothpaste choice of their fellow professionals.

Apparently by 2014 consumers had discovered another way to brush after every meal, or otherwise manage their dental hygiene without Gleem. With rapidly declining Gleem sales P&G took it off the market.

What does this have to do with the United States’ and other nations’ current slide from democracies into dictatorships?

Advertising isn’t new. One of the earliest ads (for “fine quality needles”) was printed from a copper plate during China’s Sung dynasty (960-1276). Advertising later began claiming its products raised one’s social status. But industrialization provided the products, and boost in advertising, from $200 million in 1880 to $3 billion in 1920.

This was soon followed by the use of psychological techniques, such as appealing to potential customers’ emotions of love, hate and fear. The economy grew by creating millions my late friend, Molly Ivins, described as people believing “more is better, and too much is not enough.”

As Adolph Hitler discovered, these same techniques had the power to flip a country noted for its educational system, creative literature, painting, poetry, music, theatre, and architecture into a Nazi state. (Photo credit: Danzigers Cheer Hitler, Sept. 19, 1939, wikimedia commons.)

Reflect on that, and then think about our current political campaigns' use of social media, the role of MAGA and its leader, in flipping a political party. As media critic Professor Rose Goldsen observed, from toothpaste to presidents, “Even though we know we are being taken, we are still being taken.”
_______________
Nicholas Johnson is the author of "Test Pattern for Living." mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

SOURCES Gleem. “Do Crest Toothpastes Have the ADA Seal of Acceptance?” Crest, https://crest.com/en-us/oral-care-tips/toothpaste/do-crest-toothpastes-have-the-american-dental-ada-seal (“Has Crest Pro–Health Toothpaste received the Seal of Acceptance from the American Dental Association? Yes. In fact, Crest Pro-Health Gel Toothpaste - Clean Mint, Crest Pro-Health Toothpaste - Clean Cinnamon, Crest Pro-Health Night Toothpaste, and Crest Pro-Health Whitening are the toothpastes that have received the ADA Seal of Acceptance for protecting against all these areas: cavities, gingivitis, plaque, sensitivity, stains and bad breath. They also help prevent tartar buildup and freshen breath.”)

“Gleem … the toothpaste for people who can’t brush after every meal,” image and text in LIFE magazine Sept. 9, 1957, http://gogd.tjs-labs.com/show-picture.php?id=1210555662

Rudy Sanchez, “Procter & Gamble Resurrects Gleem As An Electric Toothbrush, Nov. 11, 2019, https://thedieline.com/blog/2019/11/11/procter--gamble-resurrects-gleem-as-an-electric-toothbrush? (“Many consumers may not have heard of Gleem, which, despite being only recently retired, has long been bested by toothpaste competitors like Colgate and Crest. Although parent company Procter & Gamble shelved Gleem in 2014, they rebranded the product as Crest Fresh and White, forced to wear the livery of a one-time market rival.”)

History of Advertising. “History of Advertising,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_advertising (“A copper printing plate dated back to the Song dynasty used to print posters in the form of a square sheet of paper with a rabbit logo with "Jinan Liu's Fine Needle Shop" and "We buy high quality steel rods and make fine quality needles, to be ready for use at home in no time" written above and below.[3] It is considered the world's earliest identified printed advertising medium.[4]” … “Total advertising volume in the United States grew from about $200 million in 1880 to nearly $3 billion in 1920.[43]” … “The former chair at Johns Hopkins University, John B. Watson was a highly recognized psychologist in the 1920s. After leaving the field of academia he turned his attention towards advertising where he implemented the concepts of behaviorism into advertising. This focused on appealing to the basic emotions of the consumer: love, hate, and fear. This type of advertising proved to be extremely effective as it suited the changing social context which led to heavy influence of future advertising strategy and cemented the place of psychology in advertising.[57][58]”)

“China in 1000 CE; The Most Advanced Society in the World,” 2022, http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/songdynasty-module/ (“During the Song (Sung) Dynasty (960-1276), technology was highly advanced in fields as diverse as agriculture, iron-working, and printing.”)

Germany. “The Weimar Renaissance,” Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/place/Germany/The-Weimar-Renaissance (“Amid the political and economic turmoil of the early 1920s, Germany’s cultural and intellectual life was flowering. … In 1919 Gropius became the founder and first director of the Bauhaus school of design in Weimar, the most important institution in Germany for the expression of Modernism’s aesthetic and cultural vision. Bauhaus artists believed that they were creating a new world through their painting, poetry, music, theatre, and architecture.”)

Rose Goldsen quote. Nicholas Johnson, “Forty Years of Wandering in the Wasteland,” Federal Communications Law Journal, 55 F.C.L.J 521 (2003), https://www.nicholasjohnson.org/writing/masmedia/55FCL521.html (“[FN22]. (“The latest organization of media educators was announced as this paper was being written. See Action Coalition for Media Education, at http:// www.acmecoalition.org (last visited Mar. 2, 2003). However media-savvy one may be, a search of cupboards and cabinets may provide illustrations of an insight Rose Goldsen [author of “The Show and Tell Machine,” 1977] once shared with the Author: ‘Even though we know we are being taken, we are still being taken.’") And in Nicholas Johnson, “Your Second Priority,” (2007/2008), p. 83.
# # #

A Strategy for PUMAs

September 9, 2008, 8:00 a.m.; September 13, 2008, 5:00 p.m.

Maria Houser Conzemius, Deepak Chopra, and Molly Ivins
Our local PUMA ("Party Unity My A**"), popular and often insightful Press-Citizen blogger, has announced today why she is leaving the Democratic Party: the Party's failure to bestow its nominations for either president or vice president on Senator Hillary Clinton. Maria Houser Conzemius, "Why I've left the Democrats," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 9, 2008.

By September 13 the Press-Citizen had received enough response to the column to devote an entire page to columns and letters of rebuttal -- linked at the bottom of this blog entry.

She is expressing a frustration, and taking action on the basis of it, that many Democrats and Republicans have felt over the years with regard to one disappointment or another.

There is a progressive wing of the Democratic Party -- sometimes called "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" -- the members of which feel a great deal of frustration with "the corporate wing of the Democratic Party." These are the folks who feel the Party has turned its back on its natural constituencies of poor, working poor, working class, and lower middle class -- and ask their Party's leaders, "So, how's that working for you?" Because their abandonment has happened to coincide with a good many lost elections, when in the progressives' view, had the Party stood by them it could have won virtually every position in the country from court house to White House. They feel they are being taken for granted, that the Party leadership believes it can ignore them because they have nowhere else to go.

But the reality is that they really don't have anywhere else to go -- except to third parties.

How to reconcile their dilemma? The late Molly Ivins advised disaffected progressives, when Ralph Nader was running: (1) determine how close the Democratic Party-Republican Party race is in your state; (2) if it's close, vote Democratic; (3) if not (either way) vote for Ralph.

Isn't this another case where the PUMAs can "have it all"? Rather than not voting at all, or voting for McCain-Palin, why not apply the Ivins' rule?

If you're an angry Hillary Clinton supporter who lives in a state that's "too close to call" vote Democrat. If the polls indicate either McCain or Obama are going to win in a walk, by a wide margin, write in Senator Hillary Clinton for president.

Wouldn't that be a more effective way to make your point? You'd actually get to vote for Hillary -- at least in some states, making your point, and your frustration, much more specific and clear than by not voting, or voting for McCain. But you'd also avoid turning the country over to the right wing, anti-feminist ideology and programs, the continuation of the Bush Administration, represented by the McCain-Palin ticket.

This is gratuitous advice, I recognize. I don't have a dog in this particular fight. But I can relate to Maria's frustration and just think there may be more effective -- and less destructive -- ways for her and other PUMAs to vent it.

Deepak Chopra is a controversial guy. I don't want to take responsibility for all he's ever said and written any more than I'd endorse everything ever said by a visiting minister in my church. But I've always been more interested in judging ideas on the basis of their content than on the basis of their source. And I thought his take on the significance of the differences between Palin and Obama -- not unrelated to Maria's column -- worth excerpting this morning.

Sometimes politics has the uncanny effect of mirroring the national psyche even when nobody intended to do that. . . . Palin's pluck has been admired, and her forthrightness, but her real appeal goes deeper.

She is the reverse of Barack Obama, in essence his shadow, deriding his idealism and exhorting people to obey their worst impulses. In psychological terms the shadow is that part of the psyche that hides out of sight, countering our aspirations, virtue, and vision with qualities we are ashamed to face: anger, fear, revenge, violence, selfishness, and suspicion of "the other." For millions of Americans, Obama triggers those feelings, but they don't want to express them. He is calling for us to reach for our higher selves, and frankly, that stirs up hidden reactions of an unsavory kind. . . .

Palin reinforces the overall message of the reactionary right, which has been in play since 1980, that social justice is liberal-radical, that minorities and immigrants, being different from "us" pure American types, can be ignored, that progressivism takes too much effort and globalism is a foreign threat. The radical right marches under the banners of "I'm all right, Jack," and "Why change? Everything's OK as it is." The irony, of course, is that Gov. Palin is a woman and a reactionary at the same time. She can add mom to apple pie on her resume, while blithely reversing forty years of feminist progress. . . . Republicans have won multiple national elections by raising shadow issues based on fear, rejection, hostility to change, and narrow-mindedness.

Obama's call for higher ideals in politics can't be seen in a vacuum. The shadow is real; it was bound to respond. Not just conservatives possess a shadow -- we all do. So what comes next is a contest between the two forces of progress and inertia. Will the shadow win again, or has its furtive appeal become exhausted? No one can predict. The best thing about Gov. Palin is that she brought this conflict to light, which makes the upcoming debate honest. It would be a shame to elect another Reagan, whose smiling persona was a stalking horse for the reactionary forces that have brought us to the demoralized state we are in. We deserve to see what we are getting, without disguise.

Deepak Chopra, "Obama and the Palin Effect," The Huffington Post, September 4, 2008.

For a view that is, while not identical, certainly not inconsistent with that of Chopra, see George Lakoff, "The Palin Choice: The Reality of the Political Mind," Tikkun Magazine, September 4, 2008.

I'm not saying Chopra's "right" -- after all, how could you ever "prove" or "disprove" such an hypothesis to the satisfaction of the scientific community? I'm just saying I found it something worth reflecting upon this morning as I continue to try to make sense of this year's presidential election.

The September 13th Response

Lisa Krotz, "Palin comes at too much of a price," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2008, p. A17 ("Conzemius quotes a pro-Hillary blogger saying she looks forward to a day when the Democratic party is 'willing to nominate and support female candidates.' Was she asleep during all of 1984 when Geraldine Ferraro was running on the democratic ticket for vice president? If Conzemius chooses to vote against Obama for political, ideological and issues-based reasons, that is certainly her prerogative. But voting against . . . what appear to be her own self-interests serves little purpose.").

Lenore Holte, Brenda Pearson, Amy Correia, Dixie and Phil Ecklund, Kathy Gloer, Linda Louko, Niki Neems and Tricia Zebrowski, "Making life fair for women everywhere," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2008, p. A17 ("McCain's choice of Plain as a running mate appears to us to be less a commitment to the political future of women and more a diversionary tactic to try: To appeal to disillusioned Clinton supporters, To appease rightwing social conservatives; and To distract the electorate from the fact that he has an abysmal record in supporting causes important to women.").

Chris Owen, "Don't judge just in terms of party," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2008, p. A17.

Leroy Powell, "Obama campaign is falling apart," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2008, p. A17.

Holly Hart, "PUMAS should be voting Green," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2008, p. A17.

Jean Justice, "Cut off your nose to spite your face," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2008, p. A17.

Gary Gussin, "Column must have been satire," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2008, p. A17.

Amy Dobrian, "Columnist insults Clinton's legacy," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2008, p. A17.

Dale Bingham, "Conzemius is a traitor to Dems," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2008, p. A17.

And Maria's response:

Maria Houser Conzemius, "Conzemius responds to her critics," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2008, p. A17 ("The battle strategy of voting for McCain/Palin is not a game to us PUMAs; it's war. We've had enough. We're not stepping aside anymore. We're not going to the back of the bus anymore.").

# # #

Media's Medicines

August 12, 2008, 8:10 a.m.

[Note: The "Sexual Assault Update," July 19-August 8, 2008, blog entry remains at its former location; however, any updates to it following August 8, 2008, will be found, along with the blog entry as of August 8, at a new Web site, Nicholas Johnson, "University of Iowa Sexual Assault Controversy -- 2007-08."]

Practicing Medicine with an FCC Broadcasting License
Are broadcasters practicing medicine -- or at least undercutting our family physicians ability to do so?

I found a report on last evening's [August 11] "ABC World News with Charles Gibson" a little troubling.

Unfortunately, I cannot now find a link to a transcript or video of what ABC's Dr. Tim Johnson said. But in some ways that helps to make my point. [I subsequently (Aug. 14 9:00 p.m.) found this ABC Audio feed interview with Dr. Tim Johnson that is comparable. He repeats that he's now added a 1000 IU dose to his former 400 IU of vitamin D; he goes on to say that there's no evidence doses in that range and higher cause any harm; and he says nothing about the adverse effects of doses of 2000 IU and above reported by the Mayo site, referenced below.]

Unless we TiVo or tape the TV news, days or even minutes later we have little but faintly recalled impressions to draw upon regarding what we learned; impressions created from moving images (more than the voice over) and however much attention we were paying at the time.

TV news may not be a very efficient, or safe, way of communicating information that matters. In fact a Pew study revealed that the more TV news viewers watched the more likely it was they would be misinformed regarding such things as whether the 9/11 terrorists had come from Iraq, and whether we'd actually found weapons of mass destruction there.

Dr. Johnson was reporting on new studies revealing that some of us, some of the time, have inadequate levels of vitamin D. The more shocking and attention-grabbing suggestion was that, as a result, we were more likely to die.

So what was he, personally, doing with this information? Although he was formerly taking a multi-vitamin with the standard 400 IU of vitamin D he was now, as a result of these studies, adding an additional 1000 IU to his daily intake.

So what's wrong with that?

What's wrong with it is an application of my late friend, Molly Ivins', insight that her fellow Texans are a people who believe "that more is better, and too much is not enough."

While that observation related to conspicuous consumption generally, especially of hard goods, it is applicable beyond the borders of Texas, automobiles, houses and jewelry.

How many Americans are today buying up vitamin D capsules, hoping that if 1400 IU will keep Dr. Tim Johnson from dying, just to be safe they're going to start taking 5000-25000 IU a day?

To the best of my recollection, during the TV news broadcast there was no effort to explain the many limitations on the studies' findings, or even more significantly the very serious harms that can come from taking excessive dosages of vitamin D.

And yet, as the Mayo Clinic's online resource points out,

"Vitamin D is an essential nutrient for your entire body. Still, it's possible to have too much of a good thing. . . . You're unlikely to get too much vitamin D from the food you eat, and prolonged sun exposure doesn't seem to cause vitamin D toxicity. Over time, however, megadoses of vitamin D supplements can cause nausea, vomiting, poor appetite, constipation, weakness and weight loss. More seriously, excessive doses of vitamin D can raise the level of calcium in your blood — which can cause confusion and changes in heart rhythm. Generally, the upper limit for vitamin D is 2,000 IU a day."

Katherine Zeratsky, "Vitamin D: How much is too much? Is it possible to take too much vitamin D? I know vitamin D is important, but I wonder if too much is dangerous?" MayoClinic.com, July 25, 2008.

It's true that sunscreen reduces your skin's ability to make vitamin D from sunlight. But sunscreen also reduces the likelihood of your getting the skin cancer called melanoma -- which, if you're interested in long life, has the possibility of shortening rather than lengthening it. Some may react to Dr. Johnson's comments by risking sunburn (not to mention skin cancer) in their rush to grab as many unscreened rays as possible before school starts -- convinced that tans are now good for you because they are a source of vitamin D.

The power of the Internet is such that it has turned all other media -- radio, television, newspapers, magazines, billboards -- into advertisements for itself, efforts to direct readers and viewers to Web sites. That's where you are sent to see the company's full catalog, T. Boone Pickens' energy plan, the continuing conversation in the ABC "This Week" green room, the online store from which you can order and pay for the advertised product.

And so it is with ABC News. And in fairness, its full-length, online report on the vitamin D studies is relatively full and balanced, complete with scientists' skepticism and warnings. Joseph Brownstein, "'Sunshine Vitamin' May Cut Death Risk; Vitamin D Appears to Cut Risk of Dying Early; Exact Mechanism Remains Unclear," ABC News Medical Unit, abcnews.com, August 12, 2008.

[T]he study's researchers and others were quick to say that the study provides absolutely no evidence for now that taking vitamin D can reduce the risk of heart disease.

"Before we tell all Americans out there that this will definitely prevent heart attack, we need some clinical trials," Michos said.

Some took it a step further and questioned whether low vitamin D levels can even be considered a risk factor at all at this point.

"A relative increase in risk of death of 26 percent is not trivial, but not huge, either," said Dr. David Katz, director of the prevention research center at Yale University School of Medicine.

"Consider that being physically active, not smoking, and eating well could reduce the risk of premature death by as much as 80 percent," said Katz. "We would not want people to get the impression that a vitamin D supplement is a panacea. The findings are by no means that significant."

Others strongly agreed.

"It can't be considered a risk factor with the strength of cholesterol and hypertension until further studies are done," said Dr. Melvyn Rubenfire, the director of preventive cardiology at the University of Michigan. . . .

Dr. James O'Keefe, a cardiologist at the Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo., . . . noted that the latest study's findings were unclear because many of the risk factors for heart disease, like obesity, can actually cause a deficiency in vitamin D. So, it may be a marker rather than an agent.

Of course, however much harm can be done by inaccurate, or inadequate, journalistic reports of medical studies, they pale by comparison with the potential harm from the broadcast of pharmaceutical companies advertising of "illegal drugs."

Why do I call them illegal drugs? Because it is against the law for TV viewers to buy the product being advertised. They are not over-the-counter medicines. They are medicines that, by law, can only be authorized for purchase by physicians. So what it the purpose of the commercials? To encourage us to put pressure on our doctors to give us prescriptions for the advertised drugs. And the commercials work.

Moreover, to the extent the effect of this aspect of broadcasting is that we are taking medicines that may be at best unnecessary for our conditions, and at worst actually harmful, it is the result of deliberately manipulative presentations, drawing on all that is known about the psychological and emotional promotion of sales, as applied by America's most professionally skillful advertising agencies. Journalists may be simply not fully informed, or not given sufficient time (or space) to tell the full story. Pharmaceutical companies' presentations are focused on one goal only: an increase in sales. "Broadcast and print advertisements accounted for some 94 percent of the $4.2 billion spent in 2005 on direct-to-consumer drug ads, according to a recent report by the federal Government Accountability Office. It said that such ads are increasing each year by about 20 percent a year, and officials say the spots are working, increasing profits of drug companies . . .." Bill Hendrick, "Self diagnosis from TV drug ads can be dangerous," Atlanta Journal-Constitution, January 8, 2007.

As a former FCC commissioner I can assure you, whatever Congress originally authorized the Commission's broadcast licenses to permit broadcasters to do, it never intended them to be a license to practice medicine.

Taking excessive quantities of most vitamins only results in a waste of your money as you transfer most of them directly into your local sewer system.

Not so with vitamins A and D.

Before you are swept away with enthusiasm for excessive doses of vitamin D in your quest for life everlasting I'd recommend you see your doctor.

# # #