No, of course advertising is not an exclusive means of communication. But it's an important one.
If you make a drug like Viagra, how would you make people aware of it? Especially if they aren't lining up to tell everyone that they can't get an erection?
Gah, you picked a horrible analogy with Viagra and ED. Viagra and Cialis tv ads are so common that people make fun of their jingles and themes. Not only have they become a joke, but if you watched American tv you'd be under the impression that ED is affecting practically every man in the country!
(Along with acid reflux disease, high lipids, diabetes and depression. In between the ads for McDonald's, Olive Garden, dentures, scooters, and booze.)
In reality, everyone knows someone who 'can get them Viagra' for nights of sustained sex. It's become an underground black market med, probably due to the massive marketing campaigns.
Viagra is a lifestyle drug.
Not exactly a cancer cure or AIDS vaccination.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
How about public service announcements, then? ED is usually associated with other diseases like hypertension, diabetic neuropathy or a circulation problem. Those are the things to be targeted by what I'd call an actual Health Ad, not just a commercial to treat a symptom.Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I've yet to see an ad for a cancer or AIDS drug, but they are all regulated prescription-only drugs so frankly the issues of access and information are similar.
So in short...advertising?
I mean seriously, you're saying that some prescription drugs should be advertised and some shouldn't depending on the symptoms. It's a rabbit hole. We have a Food and Drug Administration that regulates the release of new drugs and mandates strict guidelines around promoting those drugs, right down to approvals for the text that describes it.
There are tv ads for chemo adjuncts (to build white blood cell count). Plus ads for IV treatment of osteoporosis and arthritis. Very sophisticated meds.
I'm saying (if you think ads are about information) then IMO those ads should be about the disease process itself, that there are treatments, and consult your doctor. Sponsored by Glaxo-Smith or whatever, as a byline. Our FDA hasn't done a great job of even screening what meds make it to market, let alone how they're advertised....did you read my link about law suits?So in short...advertising?
I mean seriously, you're saying that some prescription drugs should be advertised and some shouldn't depending on the symptoms. It's a rabbit hole. We have a Food and Drug Administration that regulates the release of new drugs and mandates strict guidelines around promoting those drugs, right down to approvals for the text that describes it.
You may disagree if you only look at it from a Madison Ave. perspective, or how big pharma tries to find ways to get more users, to make more money (to pay for the expensive cancer drugs?) We're not talking bed sheets or kitchen appliances here, but medications. Pharma loved it when OTC meds were freed up from physician script pads, and most consumers did, too. Now we have a Walgreen's across from a Rite-Aid cattycorner to a CVS. It might be more convenient for us, but we're not necessarily healthier.
Another interesting angle is to look at what's NOT advertised. Besides the cancer chemo or AIDs cocktails, there aren't ads for infant formulas or baby food. That used to be an industry voluntary "ethical" agreement, in part as a bow to breast-feeding (pediatricians and La Leche League). Carnation (Nestle) breached that unwritten rule a few years ago, and Similac (Abbott) and Enfamil (Mead) had a hissy fit.
To add a Wiki FYI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_formulaMarketing
This section requires expansion.
See also: Nestle Boycott
Marketing of infant formula and the regulation thereof varies between countries.
The International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes is a statement of principles regarding infant formula marketing, including strict restrictions on advertising. Its implementation depends on the laws of different countries and the behavior of infant formula manufacturers – the code has no power itself. Legislation and corporate behavior vary significantly between countries: in some countries the code is implemented in law and followed by formula manufacturers, while in others it is not.
Practices that are banned in the code include most advertising, claiming health benefits for formula, and giving free samples to women able to breastfeed – this latter practice is particularly criticized because it can interfere with lactation, creating dependence on formula.
Free samples of infant formula have been provided to hospitals since the 1930s, which practice has been criticized continuously since then; further, infant formula is the only product routinely provided free of charge to hospitals.[74]
[edit]United States
In the United States, infant formula is heavily marketed – both in advertising to mothers and doctors and via free samples – in violation of the principles in the code, which has not been adopted or implemented by manufacturers in the US for US marketing.
In surveys, over 70% of large hospitals dispense infant formula to all infants, which is opposed by the AAP and in violation of the code.[75]
The American Academy of Pediatrics opposes marketing of infant formula directly to the public.[75]
The Gerber Products Company began marketing Gerber Baby Formula directly to the public in October 1989, while the Carnation Company began marketing Good Start infant formula directly to the public in January 1991.[75]
United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, infant formula advertising has been illegal since 1995,[76] but advertising for follow-on formula is legal, which has been cited as a loophole allowing advertising of similarly-packaged formula, and is confusing to mothers.[38]
There's been a study that doctors who were provided with free samples tended to prescribe those samples more frequently - and not necessarily the correct medication or the cheaper one.
If you can influence people who know a lot about drugs that easily, then I don't quite see a positive effect for advertising to the general public. After all, you want the people to buy your drugs regardless of whether they actually need them.
Please, Dread, you're acting as if there's no way the pharma companies could get word about their new drug spread and that they only have our best interests at hand. Hint: Companies don't act that way.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Huh, strange market you're in. I never see 'em. Acid reflux, cough medicine, anti-allergens, arthritis medication. That's what gets time around here.Gah, you picked a horrible analogy with Viagra and ED. Viagra and Cialis tv ads are so common that people make fun of their jingles and themes. Not only have they become a joke, but if you watched American tv you'd be under the impression that ED is affecting practically every man in the country!
(Along with acid reflux disease, high lipids, diabetes and depression. In between the ads for McDonald's, Olive Garden, dentures, scooters, and booze.
And why would pharma be interested in devoting all of their general marketing budget to PSAs which don't actually do any marketing for them? They run some sure, it helps support their public image, but the return's pretty low.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Pretty much all of the direct advertising is for quality of life drugs.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Probably more due to the channels I watch and the time slots. Networks with shows aimed at women or people over forty (with insomnia) have different sponsors.
I also notice the ads for Bayer as part of a 'cardiac health' OTC med. "BAYER SAVED MY LIFE". They even put up a quick blurb about how Bayer aspirin is "more effective than other types of aspirin", but no idea how they can make that claim. Then an actor says to "consult your doctor before beginning any aspirin regiment".
In essence, they've taken one of the oldest and cheapest drugs, with so many applications and uses, and targeted a niche with marketing tactics alone. Bayer has a mark-up price of about a gazillion percent over any generic aspirin.
Do you find it at all odd that "70% of large hospitals" *which means their pediatric or obstetrics wings* are doing something which the professional association for the ranking staff in those wings are opposed to?
I checked the source. While as a matter of policy the members of the AAP appear to be more opposed to this than not, their behavior doesn't match, and *with regard to what their hospitals are doing* "a large proportion of respondents did not respond or responded inconsistently to questions regarding hospital policies on infant formula dispensing." I.e. the survey's results are not reliable or usable on that matter.
I'd like to take this opportunity to reiterate that Wiki is crap.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Yes, but it's just a Wiki link. I didn't feel like searching a journal (or turning this thread into an infant formula tangent). But it used to be standard practice to discharge a new mother with a diaper bag (with logo) filled with things like a bottle with nipple, starter formula and coupons (same brand), in addition to the toiletries and a disposable diaper. We'd have to ask a new parent here if that's still done or to what degree.
Hospitals got caught in that 'rabbit hole'. They routinely had to balance books with insurance payments, and got lured by a Sponsor that would give them free formula (or hugely discounted) to supply their entire nursery, labor and delivery. Formula manufactured by a traditional Pharmaceutical company was considered more 'professional' than one made by a multi-national food/chocolate company. Plus, the NICU would get the prescribed premie and special formulas only a Pharma company makes.
Get 'em early, see. It would transfer to pediatrician's offices, especially those who take Medicaid and have WIC families. Infant formula is VERY expensive.
That's actually illegal. Per FDA "fair balance" rules, advertising cannot contain both a condition and a brand name without some sort of fair balance about possible side effects, complications and instruction to consult your doctor.
So, all the ads contain some mention of possible side effects, complications and instructions to consult your doctor. Who may or may not prescribe it. Also, remember we're talking about print, radio, TV, online, mobile. People are accessing information through an increasing array of mediums. You can't just cut people off -- because FYI pamphlets, Websites, mobile applications, etc. are all considered DTC marketed by the FDA.
Do doctors in Germany get free samples of drugs from pharma reps?
You seem to be specifically saying they shouldn't get the word out about their drug.
No, I'm talking about PSAs about medical conditions with NO medication brand name, just a disclaimer that "this ad was paid for by....."
I'm already starting to see this type of tactic. There's a new tv commercial targeting Lupus vicitms: it shows young women listing their symptoms, being frustrated and confused. "Why is my hair falling out? Why is this rash spreading? It started with a pain in my knee..."
It ends with the narrator saying, "Maybe it's time you asked your doctor the right question" and the patient asks, "Could I have Lupus?"
I'm fairly sure it's sponsored by a pharmaceutical company, but not sure yet. Regardless of who made the ad or if it's for their new drug, I prefer that type of commercial to the ones hawking a drug or product (where they say the brand name at least seven times--as part of that memory marketing thing).
You don't watch much tv, do ya? You probably don't read print magazines that have all the pharma ads on one page, and the side effects and warnings on the next (so small you'd need a magnifying glass to read it)....very common in "women's magazines", the kind you find at the pediatrician's or orthodontist's offices.....So, all the ads contain some mention of possible side effects, complications and instructions to consult your doctor. Who may or may not prescribe it. Also, remember we're talking about print, radio, TV, online, mobile. People are accessing information through an increasing array of mediums. You can't just cut people off -- because FYI pamphlets, Websites, mobile applications, etc. are all considered DTC marketed by the FDA.
I don't advocate cutting people off from information. I just don't advocate for prescription pharmaceuticals being hawked the same way as OTC Extenzze. Surely you've heard or seen the ads for THAT? I think it blurs the line between sophisticated meds that require physician follow-up, with herbs/vitamins or non-FDA-approved capsules and tablets.
You have to realize that our culture is now a pill-popping one, and millions of people actually think, "Hey, if it didn't work, they couldn't run the ad, right? Because that would be false advertising. And if they're running the ad during Prime Time or Super Bowl, where a 30 second spot goes for millions of dollars, then it must REALLY be good!"
In Germany, they do. It's forbidden in the USA.
However, I was using that as an example that advertising does not necessarily drive down costs...
It's never Lupus.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
huh? US doctors get free samples all the time, and pass them onto their patients. I received some just a few months ago.....one month of blister packs and instructions written on the paper bag.....I had to ASK for the insert information. Then a 15 minute appointment in one month, to "evaluate".
Did I read your post wrong?
That's true. My paper bag meds turned out to be effective but quite expensive, with no generic equivalent (not off patent yet). The physician didn't have a fucking clue.However, I was using that as an example that advertising does not necessarily drive down costs...
I still think it's better to present symptoms and say see your doctor, than the way we're doing it now.It's never Lupus.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmVk3YXN76o
It's a PSA.
The comments say "it's never lupus". I feel like I'm missing some stupid joke.
Never watched House, did you?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmVk3YXN76o
It's a PSA.
The comments say "it's never lupus". I feel like I'm missing some stupid joke.
And yeah, I guess I was mistaken about that ban on free samples.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Oh! Is that what the comments section meant?Sure, I've watched House and love Hugh Laurie, but never followed the show regularly enough to get the inside jokes.
Well, that's part and parcel of the bigger ironic picture, I guess. We've become such a media entertained and informed society that even Lupus has blurred boundaries?
Since the PSA used young female actors (who probably watch House religiously and understand the inside joke) to take the show's humor to a reality level.....would that be considered a good or bad thing? I'm probably over-thinking this now.
BTW Khen, free samples are very common in the US. Since my health insurance doesn't have a prescription benefit, I always ask for free samples.
It started years ago when I needed Imitrex injections at the doctor's office. Then they developed a prescription pill and it seemed lovely, until I learned how expensive they were, even with a co-pay. Then I lost my health insurance and had to pay full price OOP. 30 pills cost around $900 when I was needing 2-3 pills per day.
Knock-on-wood I could afford them, and the need only arose every few years. Since then a new variation has come on the market (Treximet), and hopefully it's more affordable.
EDIT. I'll post my "rambling thoughts" this way, to conform to forum rulez.
Say you have a headache. Everyone has headaches from time-to-time. They may even be chronic.
Some people reach for a Tylenol or Advil first. Some will drink water or eat a snack instead. Some take a nap or just wait it out.
What's the difference in behaviors? The ability to self-diagnose, to understand the brain is a sensory and water organ, knowing when stress can cause pain? How do you know the difference---or when to consult a physician?
Where does that knowledge or insight come from, and is the conclusive treatment always right? If it's chronic, then something may be amiss. Would you know that if a marketer sold Alleve instead of Advil? Telling you the only reason you have to pop 2 pills every 4 hours is because you're choosing the wrong medication?
What if the headache is due to allergies. Or a vision/reading problem. Maybe it's sports or heat related. What if recurrence means a disease process, like migraines or something worse. If you would know, how would you know? Are you led to believe that chronic headaches are just part of our normal rat race stressful world, or menstrual cycles, or playing contact sports.....and you should be able to self-diagnose, because after all, they are JUST headaches?
Last edited by GGT; 08-01-2010 at 04:12 AM.
I'd like to point out though that even if purely informational media was given out on specific drugs or devices, no matter how neutral it was, that this would still fall under the advertising category for drug and device companies and would be funded by their marketing budgets. So I'm failing to understand the backlash against drug and device advertising. It has to exist, information needs to be disseminated in some manner, and its going to cost money to do so.
I think the objective aim of medicine and the medical community is to return an improperly or poorly functioning human body to as much of a normal or improved state as can be though. Which is why Viagra exists. Problem: This penis can no longer get hard. Solution: Viagra.
. . .
Sure, but whose money? Go go go in your Hoveround, it won't cost a penny, because Medicare will reimburse? *cough* Medicare is paid for by all of us, but mostly by current workers. $3,000 round-based electronic scooters weren't figured in the equation when the current geezer user was paying into the scheme. But they DO expect to get a round electronic scooter with no OOP costs when they develop arthritis......or simply get fatigued by walking around when they're 80 years old.
They also expect the latest digital blood glucose monitor device on the market, with no shipping costs or OOP costs. It's marketed that way.
Maybe it would be a better thing to have PSAs about type II diabetes, diet and exercise, Signs and Symptoms, ways to avoid or reverse the disease---instead of motorized scooters, oral meds, or home blood tests?
But if the reason a man can't get an erection is because he has untreated hypertension or diabetes, Viagra is just a Band-Aid. You can't re-use Band-Aids, and sometimes they just cover up the real problem.I think the objective aim of medicine and the medical community is to return an improperly or poorly functioning human body to as much of a normal or improved state as can be though. Which is why Viagra exists. Problem: This penis can no longer get hard. Solution: Viagra.
We've touched on this in a couple of threads (not you and I specifically), what should the goal of medicine really be? Anyhoo, I understand the reasoning behind Viagra, certainly.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
I think that what the Europeans in this thread should realise is that we don't get many ads targetting the general public, but a lot of money goes into getting favorable treatment by prescribing physicians and pharmacies.
Congratulations America
That's true, and we also have systems in place that help balance that sort of thing. To some extent. National as well as local guidelines, more power to pharmacists, frequent reviews, etc. But the problems are by no means small
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I know that, my former flatmate works for Pfizer and does exactly that.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
