In the last thirty years I have worked as a product manager, marketing manager and sales manager. I even wrote a book on marketing in 2002 titled Marketing Alignment. Shameless plug number one - my book is available on Amazon.com. Based on my background, one might think it would be improbable that I would be in favor of banning any consumer advertising and marketing.

Sure, most people understand why companies can't advertise automatic weapons or cigarettes on television. And if you NRA members won't to take me to task on that issue, feel free, but remember I am an advocate of the second amendment. I suspect a lot of you would be in favor of at least limiting the TV advertising of fast food late at night or sugary cereal products targeting kids in the morning. After all, thirty percent of Americans are obese.

My complaint has to do with prescription drug advertising. Congress allocates the FDA $2.4 billion to regulate our foods, drugs and cosmetics. The big pharmaceutical companies spend twice that amount each year on consumer advertising.

About six years ago Congress, in their infinite wisdom, decided that the big pharmaceutical companies were wining and dining the healthcare professionals (doctors, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, etc) in order to get them to prescribe their company's drugs. So they passed legislation to put a halt to most of these practices. Well, the executives at the major pharmaceutical companies scratched their heads and came up with a different approach. They decided to go straight to the consumers and advertise their goods on national television. 

I am certain a great many of you would be happy if you didn't have to witness another erectile dysfunction or enlarged prostate commercial ever again. Include me in that group. There is a movement in congress these days to try to put some limits on this advertising. Representative Henry Waxman, (D) California, would like to see the FDA  bar consumer advertising for any drugs until they have proved safe in real world use. Another democrat, James Morgan of Virginia is sponsoring a bill that would ban ads for prescription sexual aids like Viagra and Levitra during prime time on grounds of decency.

The drug makers and their proponents contend that direct to consumer ads educate the public and inform them about medical advances. Personally, I think diagnosing yourself based on a television ad is dangerous and will do more harm than good. I also believe that this television advertising is a significant contributor to the rising cost of healthcare in America. It seems to me that the big pharma companies see this as an easy way to reach the more gullible hypochondriacs out there who will take any pill they can get their hands on. I believe that healthcare reform should include some type of ban on these prescription drug ads.

Marcia Angell, a senior lecturer in social medicine at the Harvard Medical School and former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, says, "Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising does exactly what it is intended to do - increase sales for drug companies. Increasingly, it does that by promoting medical conditions, as well as drugs. If the industry can convince essentially normal people that minor complaints require long-term drug treatment, its market will grow."  She goes on to say, "The argument that ads educate consumers is self-evidently absurd. No one should look to an investor-owned company for objective, unbiased information about products it sells. Do we ask the Ford dealer whether his cars are any good?"

Still, there are those that argue that these advertisements go a long way in educating the American public about specific medical conditions and how to treat them. That would be a good argument if it were true. A study that compared the health literacy between the U.S. and Canada demonstrates the fallacy in that argument. Canada, where these ads are not allowed, has a higher health literacy than here in America where we are bombarded daily with these ads.

James P. Othmer, a former advertising creative director and author of the forthcoming book, Adland: Searching for the Meaning of Life on a Branded Planet, had this to say about prescription drug marketing, "My all-time favorite pharmaceutical ad is for something called R.L.S. (Restless Leg Syndrome) a condition whose degree of absurdity is topped only by a drug's potential side effects: "Tell your doctor if you experience increased gambling, sexual or other urges." Mr. Othmer went on to say, "If I had a dime for every time I heard the words "ask your doctor" or saw a crude clip of phallic imagery during a commercial break from the evening news, or was forced to contemplate a stomach-turning side effect, I'd be able to afford my own health care."

So what is your take on this topic? Do you think these drug companies should be able to advertise freely on any medium they choose? Are you ready to contact your Senator or Congress person and tell them to ban this advertising?

If you are a Baby Boomer and haven't joined our community, www.boomeropinion.com, please consider it. It is free and only takes a couple of minutes to sign up. You can share your viewpoint and voice your opinion on the critical issues facing America. And if we recruit enough of you, we can positively impact business and political policies around the country.

Just as I was about to write this blog, I remembered that I needed to check my Facebook news feed for new posts from friends and family. I also needed to send a text message to one of my colleagues about an upcoming project and get his feedback. I absolutely had to check my Outlook calendar for any appointments I might have scheduled for today. Oh, and I was going to finish reading that book about Mark Zuckerberg and Social Networking on my iPad. My life has been taken over by technology it seems.

It doesn't seem that long ago when I was bored to death and I would have to find things to do to fill my time. Back in those days, I had 3 network television channels on my TV and the only way I could keep up with my friends and family was by calling them or visiting them. If there was a project, personal or business related, I was able to devote my full attention to it until it was completed. Distractions were few and far between. Today it seems we are all overburdened with technology and communications devices that seem like technology leashes. They pull on us this way or that way constantly.  

Will we ever be able to take control of our lives again, or is it futile to even try? Younger generations seem perfectly happy to stay connected to that leash 24/7. Am I just too old to smell the cappuccino? Am I looking backward and thinking that it would be better to return to the past? Maybe, I should just fully embrace these technologies and take advantage of what they have to offer. After all, I have never had this kind of instant access to my family, my business associates or my world. It's a good thing, right? I think it is a good thing as long as you don't let it completely dominate your life.

If we let technology rule our daily lives, then we aren't really taking enough time out of each day for ourselves or for the ones we really care about. I guess I just need to find the right balance. That is easy to say, but hard to do, right? It is a lifestyle decision. Instead of letting technology run our lives, we need to step back and set some priorities. If you are trying to build the next Fortune 500 company, your time is not your own. You business life and personal life are the same. For you, there is no choice. But, for the rest of us...

Recently I wrote a blog about Mark Zuckerberg's view of social media and why he thought everyone on Facebook should be willing to share the most intimate details of their personal and business lives daily on his social network. One commenter to my blog responded that since Mark could really distinguish between his personal and professional lives, that was easy for him to say and to do. For the rest of us, we probably want to maintain some separation between those two areas of our lives.

So how can we find that balance? When and how can we free ourselves of our technology leashes? First step is to set priorities. Some people would feel completely lost if they had to put away their iPhones, Blackberries or notebook computers. I am sure age impacts those decisions. If you are old enough to have lived without all these gadgets and appliances, it is probably easier to find the proper settings and times to put them away.   

One suggestion for simplifying one's life is to start by stopping. Each day you set your agenda and try to optimize every minute of the day. What if you chose not to set any agenda? What if you just let go and didn't try to be totally productive every minute of the day. You could do whatever you felt like that morning or escape for the entire day. You could go for a walk or take a hike. You could pull out that novel that you have been meaning to read, but just couldn't find the time for.

You could take your kids or your significant other on a bike ride. You could go to the beach or the lake and just take in the natural beauty of the area. If your time is really limited, you could just go outside and watch the clouds roll by. Just remember to unplug. Leave your iPhone or Blackberry in the house or the glove box. If you have to take it with you, at least turn it off.

If you are a list person, then put aside an hour or more each day to do nothing. Write it down on your list. Stephen Covey, the author of The Seven Habits of Highly Successful People, suggests taking time for yourself on a regular basis to sharpen the saw. Translation: do something to improve your mind or your spiritual being. The metaphor is all about being able to perform at your best. Take time to sharpen the saw because with a dull saw you won't cut much wood or be very productive.

If every day of your life is so busy that you can't get everything done on your list, then re-examine your list. Typically, there are a number of things on your to-do list that might seem urgent, but aren't really that important to your job or personal life. Re-evaluate your activities in order to optimize the ones that really are important to your mission. Remove the ones that aren't really fundamentally necessary in achieving your daily goals and objectives. Your list just might become manageable.  

When it comes to your cell and your computer, you can simplify and declutter those devices. I used to receive 50-100 emails per day. A lot of them I thought I needed for work. You know the ones...Briefings on technology, leadership, management, etc. I have unsubscribed to most of them. If I need to learn the latest on any topic, I just Google it and generally learn more than I ever wanted to know in a short time.

If you have joined too many groups on linkedin and receive daily or weekly email updates, then unjoin them. Getting rid of email clutter will make your life easier to manage. Do you have too many friends on Facebook? You can hide them from view and then the only news feeds you see will be about those people that you actually care about. Don't get me started on Twitter. Unless you have a business connection that requires you posting tweets or reading other's tweets...just say no. How important can information that consists of 170 characters or less really be? Check your news feeds no more than twice a day.

And consider turning off your television set occasionally. I realize that is a lot to ask. A great many people turn on their TVs when they get up in the morning and turn them off when they go to bed. Even if they aren't actually watching, it is like an extra voice in the house to keep them company. Bottom line: Living your life vicariously through your favorite television actors or personalities is okay as long as you don't spend the bulk of your free time doing it. I realize that some of you schedule your lives around our favorite TV shows. If you are that addicted, get a DVR and do something meaningful with at least a portion of your spare time.

One final note. Recent studies have indicated that technology appliances are having an adverse effects on the attention spans of humans across the world. Our attention spans are getting shorter and we are having a more difficult time focusing on anything for extended periods of time. It is no wonder that this is happening given the amount of information we are exposed to each day and the methods we are using to communicate with each other over cell phones, instant messaging platforms, email and Twitter.

The only way to extend your ability to focus and extend your attention span is by practicing. Stop scanning the news or trade sites and start reading full articles. Read entire books. Find projects that require your full attention for extended periods of time and engage. If you want your mind back, you will have to exercise it the same as you would exercise your body to gain muscle tone.

If you want to take your life back, you can do this. It isn't really that tough. I encourage you to tell us about your ideas on unleashing yourself from technology. Inquiring minds want to know.

My web community, www.boomeropinion.com  is all about capturing and broadcasting opinions and viewpoints. We provide daily polls, discussion forums, and news about critical issues facing America and Baby Boomers. If you are a Baby Boomer and haven't joined us, please consider it. It is free and only takes a minute to join. Coming soon you will be able to create your own polls, initiate discussions on topics you choose and ask questions of the membership. We also have a Twitter page, http://twitter.com@boomeropinion.

Popularity of the Leno show was higher than it had been in its late night timeslot. Ad revenues for the network were ahead of where they were before. Yet, because NBC's old business model, the affiliates were able to dictate to the network what they wanted and Leno was not the ticket. So the late night wars begin again.

While the infighting between Leno, Conan, Jimmy Fallon and NBC continues, it does make good material for other talk show hosts. Will Jay return to his old timeslot? Probably. Will Conan take his football and go home until his $40 million contract is paid up or his non compete clause runs out? No doubt. Will NBC regain its competitive edge? Maybe, but probably not.

The bottom line here is that technology and the internet has changed the playing field forever. The major television networks no longer only compete with each other. They compete with DVRs, cable network programming, video gaming and online media. Their markets have been shrinking over the last 10-15 years dramatically. Unless they get really creative and come up with some revolutionary programming, they will go the way of the small town newspapers.

Another problem for the television networks is their shrinking audience. Millenials (ages 14-25), view the computer as their primary entertainment device and don't care that much for television. According to Deloitte's State of the Media Democracy survey, Millenials spend one third less time watching television than other generations.

Given that Millenials represent approximately 80 million Americans, this should be disturbing news for the television networks. The networks' future is indeed in jeopardy. Now if NBC could just come up with a social media reality show, then...maybe...naaaah that won't do it.

If you watch television these days, you have probably noticed that cable networks like HBO, Showtime, TNT, USA, and others have been adding high quality dramas and comedies to their lineup in the past few years. In the past, you could only find such programming on the major networks. Not only do the big three television networks have to compete with new media, now they have to scramble to compete with the 2^nd tier cable channels.

So what will the traditional big networks do to stay on top? In the last few years, they have been franchising their most popular shows like Law and Order, CSI, NCIS, etc. They add new locations and new characters to formats that have done well. How many iterations of the same shows do they expect us to watch in any given week?

Are reality shows the answer? I don't think so. Obviously shows like American Idol get the ratings, but what have ABC, CBS and NBC given us? The Biggest Loser, Wife Swap, The Bachelor? The only reality shows on those networks that I personally like are Survivor and The Amazing Race. Survivor is in the top 5 of reality shows, but The Amazing Race didn't crack the top 20.

So unless these networks bring in some really creative folks and come up with some very compelling content or new media directions, their days are numbered. Oh, they will be around, but only as a small network division of some media giant. Wait a minute, isn't that happening to NBC as I write? Of course, NBC was already a division of GE and now will be split between Comcast (51%) and GE (49%) ownership.

Can they reconstruct their business model? What's your view on this topic? Can the major networks rebound and make a startling comeback?  Or will their content become a small weekly download on your video iPod?

If you are a Baby Boomer and haven't joined our community, www.boomeropinion.com, please consider it. It is free and only takes a couple of minutes to sign up. You can share your viewpoint and voice your opinion on the critical issues facing America. And if we recruit enough of you, we can positively impact business and political policies around the country.

The government is bailing out banks, mortgage companies, automakers and numerous other industries, so why not bailout the major newspapers? Some of these news organizations have been in business for a century or longer. They have covered wars, famines, natural disasters, assassinations, depressions and every other story worth writing about since the founding of our country.

Okay, I know what you are going to say. Giving the government any ownership or any involvement in private news organizations is tantamount to government controlled media. That is a dangerous and slippery slope that cannot be in the country's best interest. I won't argue that point, because I know you are right in making that assumption.

On the other hand, I believe we need these newspapers to continue to provide unbiased news on the events of the day, as well as editorial content challenging social, political and business practices that are taking place in America every day. There has to be some way to keep the presses rolling. Isn't there some middle ground, here?

Their revenues have always come from classified and display advertising. Craigslist, Ebay and similar services have taken the classified ad business from them. Between the shrinking economy and declining circulation, their display advertising revenue has been decreasing for sometime.

So, why can't the newspapers just transition to the web and continue to do what they have been doing all along? So far, it doesn't appear that they have come up with a viable business model that will support the cost structure of running a modern newspaper. I know they are trying to crack the code, but since the web came online in the nineties, every one and their brother has become a de facto reporter and news provider. And the newspapers have been slow to adapt.

So what's the answer? Should the government step in and bail them out? Should they become non-profit like PBS and rely on public funding and government subsidies? Should the giant media companies consolidate even further and keep them in business offsetting their losses with profits from their television and internet unit revenues? That trend has been going on for a while, but the powers that be in the media conglomerates don't care for unprofitable business units.

Frankly, I wish I had the answer, but I don't. All I know is that we need to find a way to keep these newspapers afloat until their management can come up with a sustainable business model. I am not so naïve to believe that the content has to be delivered on paper. It is just seems to me that they do a better job of collecting and delivering the news than their internet counterparts. If we lose them, it will be a sad day for all of us.

What do you think? There are polls, forums and discussion threads on my web site, www. Boomer-insight.com. Please join us and weigh in on this issue and other pertinent issues affecting all Americans at Boomer Insight. It takes less than a minute to sign up. Thanks for your support.

 In a recent blog by Scott McKain titled, "Trapped in Traditional Thought...", McKain points out that a thirty second spot on the number one television show, "NCIS" costs $133,304 while a thirty second spot on "Grey's Anatomy" costs $240,462. Given the fact that "NCIS" has four million more viewers than "Grey's Anatomy", why would the ads cost less for "NCIS"?

This contradiction points to the traditional agency approach and thinking when it comes to what population segments to target. The demographics for "Grey's Anatomy" are younger and the agencies believe that younger viewers will be more easily influenced and become brand loyal over time. McKain points to the fact that his brand choices during his younger years have indeed changed over time. In his younger years, he drove a Chevy and now he drives a BMW, he drank Pepsi and now drinks Diet Coke, he listened to a Sony Walkman and now listens to an iPod, etc.

Matt Thornhill, in his book, Boomer Consumer, states that Baby Boomers are no where near done consuming. They will be buying things marketed to them for the next 20 years. And they represent a very large segment of the population. He also points out that with age comes wisdom and that Boomers are not particularly brand loyal. They are ripe for conversion, if a product appeals to their needs.

So why should the advertisers and ad agencies focus more on Boomers than the younger generations? Let's start with the fact that Baby Boomers spend $2 trillion a year on consumer products and services. That is $400 billion more annually than their younger generation counterparts. Baby Boomers represent one of every three adults in America. Almost 80 million Americans are Boomers!

Boomers like to travel, they buy lots of tech gadgets, they are still buying cars and homes, they are into fitness, and they eat out regularly. Given that a large portion of the Boomers are empty nesters with disposable income, they should be the prime targets of the marketers and advertisers in this country. And even the Boomers who aren't empty nesters, keep their kids clothed, fed and supplied with plenty of music and electronics.

Baby Boomers control 70% of the wealth in America. So why don't the advertisers and ad agencies target them more? It is beyond comprehension. And as a Boomer, believe me when I say, we would really prefer fewer advertisements about erectile dysfunction and bladder issues. Keep in mind, Baby Boomers on average feel like they are 14 years younger than their actual age. Treat them as seniors or older Americans and you won't sell them anything.

Use words like mature or senior in your ad and the Baby Boomers will tune you out in a New York minute. So if you expect to capture their attention, don't try to take them back to the sixties or seventies or use age related content. Most Boomers still believe that they are young and vital. Treat them as such and you will be more successful. Don't over do it, though. If you treat them like twenty or thirty year olds, then you will miss the boat and waste your ad dollars

The characters portraying Boomers in advertisements should be cool, hip, and youthful, not grandpa or grandma. Baby Boomers remain idealistic, eager to embrace change, and believe in self empowerment. Don't expect them to march in lockstep or be influenced or persuaded by traditional approaches. If an ad agency expects keep its clients, it had better begin targeting this segment of the population and use non-traditional, innovative approaches when designing the campaigns.

Finally, when creating the ads, the agency should understand that Boomers are more receptive to the ads that tell a story. Boomers expect the ad to appeal to their generation, so make sure you personalize the pitch to them. When using personalities in an ad, ensure that the Boomers can identify and relate to the personalities. Be sure to include a "what's in it for me" connection. Follow these simple rules, create a compelling ad and you should be able to capture this lucrative market segment.

What are your thoughts on this topic? Are you targeting Baby Boomers and if so, how successful have you been? If not, why aren't you going after this market?

If you are a Baby Boomer and haven't joined our community, www.boomeropinion.com, please consider it. It is free and only takes a minute to sign up. You can share your viewpoint and voice your opinion on the critical issues facing America. And once enough of you weigh in, we can begin shaping policy in Washington, as well as at the state and local levels.