Sponsored Content WEBINAR: ELECTION 2008: E-mail Tips from a Political Insider   WEBINAR: Becoming the Illusionist: The Magic of Using "Brand" to Drive Response without Results Disappearing in the Process   WEBINAR: Score and Win Through Cooperation   TOOLS OF THE TRADE: Holiday's are prime-time for email marketing - maximize your ROI by getting to the inbox   ON DEMAND WEBINAR--MASTER CLASS: High Performance Online and Off-line Strategies for Large Scale Customer Acquisition   FREE WHITE PAPER - Direct Mail and the Internet Find any supplier you need - agencies, CRM, fulfillment, lists, e-commerce, paper, printers, telemarketing, and more. Featured Categories Lists and Data Telemarketing Database Marketing E-commerce Web Marketing Agency & Creative Services Print, Production & Paper Lists and Data Processing :: view all categories Get free access to more than 50,000 list data cards - one of the most comprehensive databases in the industry. >> Search Now DIRECT Buzz Blog Webinars Buyer's Guide Calculators JobZone ListFinder Promo Calendar Research Store E-Newsletters Print Magazine This Month in Direct Magazine Deal With It Direct had a full house for this year's list roundtable. Considering all the additional responsibilities on brokers' plates, that's impressive... See Full July Issue

To my fellow citizens:

Of late, legislators have tried to place marketing channels under consumer control. The results range from the successful (the federal do-not-call list), to the questionable (the dubious effectiveness of e-mail registries as anti-spam mechanisms) to the unexplored (anti “junk mail” lists are not mandated by the government.)

Pushes for these regulations are often accompanied by spurious economic statistics. For instance, according to anti-marketing groups repetitive stress injuries resulting from citizens standing over their wastebaskets and throwing away “junk mail” will single-handedly bankrupt our healthcare system by 2045.

But the government has been reluctant to regulate the most pervasive marketing channel – the “junk television commercial.” Think junk mail is bad? The economic impact of junk television commercials makes damages caused by junk mail look like a rounding error in Warren Buffett’s pocket money.

Assume the average television hour includes 14 minutes of junk commercials. Now say the average elementary school child watches three hours of television per weeknight, as is his or her inalienable right, and four and a half hours every weekend day. This means the average schoolchild is exposed to just over five-and-one-half hours of junk television commercials every week. This is precious time that could be spent studying.

What this means is that a generation of architects and carpenters, having forsaken its homework in favor of watching junk television commercials, doesn’t have the algebra knowledge necessary to build new homes. As housing starts go, so goes the economic health of the nation.

The slowdown we are currently seeing is not the result of overextension of credit, changes in consumer purchasing habits, or even the cyclical nature of economic trends. The blame lies squarely with junk television commercials.

There is also a consent issue. American consumers do not “opt in” to receive junk television commercials merely by purchasing a television set, any more than they “opt in” to receive junk mail by dint of having a mailbox.

A case in point: I don’t know how many automobile commercials I was subjected to during the Super Bowl. Now, I don’t have a driver’s license, so any car commercials I see are untargeted, as far as I am concerned. They also represent a hazard to society. If ten thousand unlicensed drivers such as myself are lured into purchasing one of these vehicles, the result will be an armada of unlicensed drivers on the highways of America.

Does America really want that? The damage we could do to other consumers (to say nothing of property) would be enough to bankrupt our healthcare system by 2038.

I’ve called the manufacturers of the Yugo and the Corvair, as well as other automobile makers, and asked them not to send their commercials into my television set. Compliance has been limited, at best.

What of the junk television commercials themselves? They are not benign! Often they are loud, louder than the entertainment that surrounds them. They are flashier, as well. Over time this causes considerable damage to the eyes and ears of consumers, particularly the in-formation ones of children. The need to take care of these problems will further strain our healthcare system, effectively bankrupting it by 2032.

Unthinking individuals will rise to the defense of these junk television commercials. “Ignore them,” they will say. “Skip them, or just turn away from the television set when they’re on.”

This is not a solution. It is the abetment of another problem. Commercials give television viewers time to obtain unhealthy snack foods, having been urged to do so in the initial junk television commercial breaks. Sweets and junk food television advertisements are responsible for leading consumers into bad eating habits, and should be as unwelcome in the American home as my gin-scented cologne is unwelcome at AA meetings.

Don’t think this is a serious concern? Consider the recent rise in obesity and diabetes. At current rates, 110% of all Americans will be afflicted by one of these conditions by 2025, effectively bankrupting our healthcare system.

If our so-called legislative leaders won’t act, there can be only one solution for “junk commercials”. Readers, I implore you: Eat your TV sets.

To respond to the opinions in this column, please contact richard.levey@penton.com