Ask your doctor if dancing drug ads are right for you
Shouldn’t drug companies be spending more money on research — and cheaper drugs — than advertising?By Tom Burke / Herald Columnist
I know man is a fragile creature; not as strong as the great apes; not as sharp-eyed as the eagle, as thick-skinned as the rhino, or as agile as the monkey.
And if anyone needs proof of our fragility, tune into Fox or MSNBC or most any TV channel and tally up all the advertising describing, in grim detail, how vulnerable we are to a plethora of maladies; as Big Pharma unleashes huge, all-pervasive, overwhelming volumes of “disease” advertising, running incessantly it seems, across the bandwidth.
Now I’m not trying to minimize the pain or tragedy suffered by anyone or the relief these medicines affect. But my propriety has been stretched thin by the huge budgets (way north of $6 billion) spent on direct-to-consumer ads trying to convince patients … to convince their doctors …to prescribe this or that treatment.
And I am more than mystified why Big Pharma has targeted so many [to me at least] relatively-obscure ailments with what Harvard Medical School identifies as basically second-rate drugs. I’m sure all the maladies are real, but until the advertising began I’d never heard of many of them (and I lived with a health care-professional for 52 years).
https://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/burke-ask-your-doctor-if-dancing-drug-ads-are-right-for-you/
= new reply since forum marked as read
... and their only job was to visit doctors' offices and try to get doctors to prescribe their company's products. Usually these sales people were lucky if they got 5 minutes of the doctor's time, and there was never a promise the doctor would actually prescribe the drug. This was the one-on-one advertising they were allowed to do back in the 1950's and 60's and it cost $ millions.
Then the Big Pharmas figured out how to do direct mail and suddenly advertising agencies were making profits with mailed brochures and magazines, all addressed to doctors. Mostly the doctors were too busy to read the mailers, but this didn't stop the Pharmas from spending $ millions. They bought ads in medical journals with spotty results, because they had no way to know if the doctors even looked at their ads. These methods were all costly, and the results were spotty and hard to measure.
Finally the Pharmas hit on the idea to skip the doctors and advertise on national media (mostly TV and glossy magazines). I think it was pushed by the advertising agencies who made the national big-ticket (cars, liquor, etc.) tv spots. It was already happening in the 1990's, but by the 00's the Pharmas couldn't say no to TV advertising. The results were obviously successful. The doctors couldn't say "no" when their patients walked in the door and asked for a name-brand prescription. Where did they get that brand name? Well on TV of course. The doctor could say "no" but the patient would just shop around for another doctor. The success of TV advertising - especially for senior citizens - was undeniable and very profitable.
We know we're paying for all this advertising because the drug prices WE pay are much higher in the US than any other country. But the horses are out of the barn, and now Pharmas will never go back to the old way of sending salespeople out to gently beg doctors for 5 minutes of their time.
But that's beside the point because the Big Pharmas are no longer hiring and investing in these people so much. Now-a-days they're spending the big money on TV advertising, like I explained above. Back in the 80's I worked for a NYC advertising agency and I saw all these changes take place. As I said earlier, the first evolution was to direct mail, and that's where I was. I worked for an agency that specialized in direct mail for pharmaceuticals. The next evolution went to TV advertising, and it shut down most of the direct-mail shops.
