“Imagining that your dog is talking to your cat”…

Cidu Bill on Jul 10th 2017

cable.GIF

I can think of several different possible explanations, none of which quite makes sense.

Filed in Bill Bickel, CIDU, Mike Peters, Mother Goose and Grimm, comic strips, comics, humor | 25 responses so far

25 Responses to ““Imagining that your dog is talking to your cat”…”

  1. MKV Jul 10th 2017 at 08:40 am 1

    This is an easy one.
    She’s clicking through the commercials, and they’e all for ailments that afflict old people.

  2. Markus Jul 10th 2017 at 08:41 am 2

    This one seems straight forward: Cable tv only shows programs about health problems for the, uh, chronologically challenged population. Younger viewers do not see the point of watching gross details about medical conditions they didn’t even know existed (and might be afraid that one day, they will). Thus, average age of cable tv audience rises.

    Couldn’t say whether this joke is fitting, where I live I never noticed such a trend.

  3. larK Jul 10th 2017 at 09:23 am 3

    Chicken or egg: all the commercials are for old people, so young people don’t watch, or young people don’t watch, so therefor the commercials are all for old people…?

    Either way, once the pattern is established, it’s self-re-enforcing.

  4. billytheskink Jul 10th 2017 at 09:27 am 4

    This strip, of course, gets its reasoning backward. Pharmaceutical ads litter cable television because it is still widely viewed by an older demographic. I can see where that is not as a strong of a joke, though.

  5. BillClay Jul 10th 2017 at 09:37 am 5

    I don’t think the “IDU” part is the basis for the comment, but rather who “you” refers to; who is the dog talking to. The cat? I doubt the cat wonders such things. The old lady? Maybe, but the direction he is looking would seem to suggest it isn’t her.

    My guess is he is breaking the 4th wall.

    Either that or he is commenting that everything on TV these days is nothing but infomercials.

    Ads are placed based on the demographic of the show that contains them. If a show is geared towards the 18 to 35 crowd the ads will be about cars, deodorant and light beer. Infomercials are inherently geared towards older folks. 18 to 35s don’t seem to be the type to watch such things. Even if you made an infomercial about products they would care about, they likely wouldn’t sit around watching.

    One last nitpick… chronologically challenged would imply a youngin to me. Chronologically gifted would imply a geezer.

  6. VoodooChicken Jul 10th 2017 at 12:40 pm 6

    Yesterday I bought a newspaper for the first time in YEARS. There was not a single LOL in the entire Dallas Morning News comics, and most of them were “meh” or less

  7. James Pollock Jul 10th 2017 at 12:41 pm 7

    If she were watching televised football, 2/3 of these would be for boner pills. I suspect it might even be higher for televised golf, although I have no way to tell.

    They made a mistake when they decided that pharmaceutical companies could advertise directly to consumers for drugs that consumers can’t choose to buy.

  8. James Pollock Jul 10th 2017 at 12:52 pm 8

    I thought this would be settled by now.

    She’s watching television. Over and over, she sees advertising for medications for very specific ailments. It is NOT true that all of them are for conditions that only afflict older folks, some also afflict younger folks. It’s advertsing, not programming (sorry Markus, BillClay, but I think you guys are wrong.)

    Old folks talk about their ailments, and young folks don’t (for the most part) want to hear about it… they’re still immortal and indestructible, and don’t like to think about that time in the future when these will have worn off. Or your own psychobabble reason for why old folks talk about the things that afflict them instead of the incredible range of their life’s experience, if you don’t like mine. The truth is that young people prefer to dodge commercials entirely, not just commercials for products that they have no use for; I don’t imagine those that have endured a political cycle or two are too fond of the political advertising every two years, either. But the cartoonist is linking these two things… older folks talking about their ailments a lot, and younger folks wanting to dodge those conversations, and television being made up of 1/3 advertising, and younger folks wanting to dodge those, as well.

  9. Boise Ed Jul 10th 2017 at 02:41 pm 9

    BillClay [5]: Grimmy the dog is talking to Ralph, the other dog.

    JP [8]: It’s not just youngsters who like to avoid commercials. (The first time I read your comment, I thought “but there aren’t any Dodge commercials nowadays.”) Even when I want to see a show right away, I record it and wait 15 minutes or so, so I can skip the blather.)

  10. Scott Jul 10th 2017 at 03:14 pm 10

    It is definitely ads, not programs. However I’m not sure why “cable” is at issue, unless that now means anything not streamed, since the weird drug ads I see are on what would be over the air channels if I got them over the airwaves.
    And if the drug companies would put their marketing money into R & D, we’d all be living to 200 pretty soon.

  11. James Pollock Jul 10th 2017 at 03:27 pm 11

    “It’s not just youngsters who like to avoid commercials.”

    I didn’t say it was.
    But these darn kids have never known a time when “television” didn’t cater to their viewing preferences. Streaming services on demand, etc. — which I would have LOVED to have even in 1981, when commercials were only 10% of broadcasts, rather than the current 35%, and political attack ads ran for a couple of weeks every two years, instead of 18 months or so out of every 2 years.

  12. Markus Jul 10th 2017 at 03:41 pm 12

    James Pollock wrote:
    > It’s advertsing, not programming (sorry Markus, BillClay, but I think you guys are wrong.)

    I stand corrected and plead guilty to the charges in question. Before the verdict I’d like point the judge to the fact, that were I live this specific targeting of ailments of the elderly cannot be observed in television, neither in commercials nor in programming. In fact, most commercials seem to be targeted at people obviously far too young to make rational decisions. Thus I plead ignorance.

    Now get off my lawn you young wippersnappers.

    Markus
    P.S.: Since I, as stated, do not live in the relevant cultural area, I hope i used the right wording to tell young people to leave the vicinity.

  13. James Pollock Jul 10th 2017 at 03:51 pm 13

    “if the drug companies would put their marketing money into R & D, we’d all be living to 200 pretty soon.”

    Drug companies are not in the market of making human lives better. They are in the market of making boatloads of cash.

    BEGIN rant/digression
    The thing is, the pharma industry has an INCREDIBLE barrier to entry… it costs a lot to develop and bring a drug to market. This can be avoided… a new company could simply start by manufacturing drugs which are already developed and tested, but… drugs are patented.
    Big deal, you say, if you know a little bit about how patents work. They get the patent approved, they have a limited period of time of exclusivity, then the patent expires and the patented invention becomes free to use by anyone. But the pharma companies are brilliant at gaming the system. A substantial amount of research (and patent applications) involves finding a new and previously not used purpose for a drug that already exists. Another popular game is to take two drugs and combine them into one “new” medication.
    THEN you add in the side complications… one being, for example, the existence of “orphan” drugs… drugs which are known to have beneficial, even life-saving qualities for people with rare illnesses. Since there aren’t enough sufferers, the pharma company can’t make money manufacturing the drug. So they don’t. The biggest complication, though, is one that befuddles the medical industry in general… mismatches between interested people and people who make decisions. Here’s what I mean: The person who decides what drugs you should take is your licensed medical professional… whom I shall now summarize as “doctor” even though not everyone in the category is actually a medical doctor, or even a doctor at all. Ideally, they decide which drug(s), if any, you will take based solely on their considered opinion of what, exactly, it is that you need, based on your case and circumstances. But that, of course, is not quite how it works. They get marketed to, and you get marketed to, and then your insurance company weighs in to decide what they’ll pay for, which often affects what you can have. You see an ad for Dammitol, the drug for everything about modern live that gets you upset, and ask your doctor if it works. Your doctor, who gets a free trip to a “medical conference” in Molokai if he writes 20 new prescriptions this month, reviews your case and decides that, on balance, your medical condition would be improved by a prescription for Dammitol and writes you the script. Then you take the script down to your pharmacist, who tells you that your insurance won’t cover brand-name Dammitol, but will cover a generic. You can either pay full retail price for the brand-name, or let the pharmacy substitute the generic.
    So… you didn’t think you needed a medication until the ads, your doctor didn’t think you needed a medication until the “coordinated marketing program”, and you didn’t even get the drug you decided you needed. Then, when you get a new doctor, that doctor will assume that you really needed that medication, and never take you off it.
    END rant/digression

  14. James Pollock Jul 10th 2017 at 03:58 pm 14

    “In fact, most commercials seem to be targeted at people obviously far too young to make rational decisions.”

    Cue rant about political advertising. Wait, discontinue. Cue rant about advertising for alcoholic beverages made from rotted grain, particularly in televised sporting events. Wait, discontinue. Cue rant about billions of dollars spent convincing people which type of fizzy sugar water to drink… er, which chemically-sweetened fizzy water to drink, er, which brand of ordinary, brand-name WATER to drink. Wait, discontinue. Cue…

    ARRRRRRRGH!

    Stop. Read a book instead. Say, this looks like a good one. “The Space Merchants”, by Frederik Pohl and Cyril Kornbluth.

    Say, whose lawn is this? I don’t recognize it.

  15. BBBB Jul 10th 2017 at 05:01 pm 15

    JP @ 7: In spite of the presumedly older demographic of TV golf viewers and golfers, there are very few boner pill commercials on golf telecasts. Obviously, we golfers don’t need them. We have plenty of shafts and balls.

  16. John Small Berries Jul 10th 2017 at 05:32 pm 16

    If I’d have been the cartoonist, instead of literally copying and pasting the television and its word balloons for the throwaway panel, I would have come up with hilarious ailments as a treat for the people whose newspapers didn’t butcher the comics.

    Something along the lines of Prescott Pharmaceuticals’ side effects.

  17. John Small Berries Jul 10th 2017 at 05:34 pm 17

    James Pollock @ 7: “I suspect it might even be higher for televised golf, although I have no way to tell.”

    Well, you could tell by watching televised golf, but some knowledge comes at a price too terrible to justify its acquisition.

  18. James Pollock Jul 10th 2017 at 06:09 pm 18

    “Well, you could tell by watching televised golf”

    Not possible. This would require me to watch televised golf.

    I will seek out football telecasts. I enjoy beach volleyball telecasts. I have been known to watch world-class gymnastics for upwards of an hour at a time, but I probably flick between channels and wind up watching something else by the end.

    I tolerate the following sports telecasts, in 15-minute or shorter invervals: Olympic coverage, baseball, skateboarding.

    I tolerate the following televised sports in “highlight” form only: Basketball. College football.

    I tolerate the following televised sports only in “blooper highlight” form: Tennis, track and field, weightlifting. auto racing.

    Televised golf? No. Hockey? No. Sailing? No. Just… no. I’ll leave it on a channel I don’t get first.

  19. Meryl A Jul 11th 2017 at 01:37 am 19

    James Pollock - Among the several medications husband (and I ) take is a generic for high blood pressure - Lisnopril. (We take this one as opposed to the similar ones such as enalapril as this one is currently the $10 for 90 days at Walmart - this no longer affects him as he is on Medicare, but it does affect me as same is cheaper than this or any of the similar meds through my medical insurance.) We take different dosages so this problem only affected him.

    He got a renewal of his prescription. The bottle is filled with the same pill it has been mixed with pills the same color and markings, but about half the size of the ones he has been taking. It being Saturday night and we were about to go on a trip, so we could not wait to contact the pharmacist, we checked online and the manufacturer has started making the pills smaller.

    How do did they do this? They took out most of the filler that was in the pills originally. Sounds okay. But people are having problems as they are having the side effects of the pills intensified - horrible dizziness, nausea, etc.

    Husband is a very susceptible person - when he gets a new med I read the side effects just in case as if he read them he would have all of them. So he was very upset. In addition the pills now are the same size (and color) as a Diabetes pill he takes - so both will be in his pocket pill box to take with meals and he can’t easily see which is which - he might end up taking them at the wrong time or taking two of the Diabetes pill at once instead of one of each - a major problem as he will have a blood glucose low.

    I picked out the larger pills and used same in his pill boxes for the trip.

    I am guessing that they save money shipping the pills smaller as they take up less room and weight than when they were larger and the pills are,apparently,made in India.

    On our return we went to the pharmacy and spoke with the pharmacist in charge who was very upset that they put the two sizes in one bottle and also did not put the “these are the same pills but look different” sticker on the bottle. He was also surprised as he had not know of the change or the side effects being reported. He told us that in the future I should ask for the ones in the blister pack as they are a different manufacturer and the same size as before and he replaced the small pills with the larger ones.

  20. James Pollock Jul 11th 2017 at 03:21 am 20

    I have a drug habit, as well; mine keeps me from having episodes of atrial fibrillation.
    Or at least, I think it does. I’ve almost definitely had the condition all my life, mostly undiagnosed because of lack of symptoms. I had a severe attack of afib with associated tachycardia (on the order of 300) which required hospitalization with drugs and cardioversion required to return to normal rhythm. I was on a maintenance medication for about a year, and the cardiologist said I could stop. So I did. I went another two years without problems. Then I got this cold that hung on and hung on and hung on… and one morning, about three weeks in, I woke up with afib symptoms and had ANOTHER hospital stay, this time not requiring cardioversion to correct.

    But this time, I won’t be asking the cardiologist if I can go off the pills again.

  21. Keera Ann Fox Jul 11th 2017 at 03:13 pm 21

    This is what both annoys and amazes me about watching TV in the US: All the commercials for something medical–in between all the commercials for something edible. In Norway, you can’t advertise for prescription drugs, anywhere.

  22. Arthur Jul 11th 2017 at 04:47 pm 22

    I have a drug habit, as well; mine keeps me from having episodes of atrial fibrillation.

    That’s one of the reasons I won’t go to a Hard Rock Cafe. They
    have big signs saying, “No drugs or nuclear weapons.” I can get
    by without drugs, but my wife has to have hers with her.

  23. Scott Jul 11th 2017 at 09:02 pm 23

    JP may not be aware that drug advertising is banned in all or most of Europe, with no ill affects. Many new drugs are developed by start-ups which get bought by Big Pharma, which has been a more effective method of innovation than the companies doing it themselves. Not to mention that much of the basic R&D which leads to new drugs is government funded. (A good thing.)
    I know all about the approval process, my wife worked on one, and I know a bunch of people working in R&D for the drug companies near Princeton.
    I can’t figure out if you think drug companies hacking patents is a good or bad thing, but beside the things you mentioned they modify some drugs just slightly - which is why Viagra still costs a fortune.
    In an ideal world doctors would only prescribe necessary drugs, but in this one they succumb to patient pressure, even without free trips. My daughter did her PhD work in medical decision making, so the situation is a bit more complicated than you might think.

    The fact remains that drug company marketing costs are greater than R&D costs, Europe gets along without this, and we could too. Though I’m glad you understood that living to 200 was hyperbole. 150, tops.

  24. James Pollock Jul 11th 2017 at 10:16 pm 24

    “I can’t figure out if you think drug companies hacking patents is a good or bad thing”

    Depends on whether you buy drugs, sell drugs, or practice patent law.

    “Though I’m glad you understood that living to 200 was hyperbole. 150, tops.”

    I plan to live forever, through the simple mechanism of not dying. It’s working so far.

  25. Meryl A Jul 18th 2017 at 02:50 am 25

    When I was in law school in the mid 1970s it was still illegal to advertise medications which had to be prescribed (as opposed to aspirin and such). It was also illegal for professionals to advertise - no “Dr Tush” or blond woman telling you that if you ever took X or did Y this law firm can get you the big bucks. Heck, a dentist in town had a tree die in front of his house and he carved it into a large bear and would dress it for holidays and was told that he had to stop doing so and get rid of the bear as the bear was near his professional sign and therefore was advertising.

    Then it was decided that professionals should be able to advertise discretely - not even to mention a specialty and that people should be aware of new medications coming out and BOOM - new advertising industries were born.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply