Plugging Drugs, Pharmaceuticals Sink Big Bucks in TV Ads
March 8, 1999
Memphis Busines Journal
Leigh Ann Roman
It's bigger than beer.
If you watch television at all, you've seen the commercials: this
one to fight hair loss, that one for weight loss. You've also heard
the side effects: Don't touch this if you might be pregnant, or this
could cause dry mouth and constipation.
It is called direct-to-consumer advertising for prescription
drugs, and it has been steadily increasing since the Food and
Drug Administration changed its regulations for this type of
advertising in August 1997. Armed with more information,
patients now can approach their doctor about using drugs for
certain conditions, rather than waiting for the physician to
suggest a drug.
The regulation change has fueled the growth of prescription drug
advertising, which has since outstripped advertising for beer,
cereals, long-distance phone service or banks, according to
Competitive Media Reporting. Industries such as fast food,
motion pictures and cell phones still spend more than the drug
industry.
"What we've had is a paradigm change," says John Kamp,
senior vice president for the American Association of
Advertising Agencies. "Dr. Kildare is dead, and we're moving
to this different paradigm where we see our doctors as partners
in the development of our own health care. Direct-to-consumer
advertising feeds the demand by the consumers to know more."
Since the regulations changed, spending on drug advertising has
doubled to $1.45 billion, according to Competitive Media
Reporting.
Of the big spenders, some are companies with major Memphis
operations.
Pfizer, Inc., which has a distribution center in Bartlett that
employs 245, jumped from no TV ads for prescription drugs in
1996 to dumping 45.4% of its advertising budget for
presecription drugs into TV during 1998 through November,
according to Competitive Media Reporting.
And Schering-Plough Corp., which employs 600 in Memphis in
manufacturing pharmaceutical and health care products,
increased its investment to 59.4% for 1998 through November.
That compares to 42.8% in television ads for prescription drugs
in 1996.
Ability to Say More
The regulation change basically offered more specific guidance
to advertisers about how to include detailed information on the
drug. This is usually done by referring them to a Web site, a
toll-free number or a print advertisement, according to the
American Medical Association.
Before the regulation change, advertisers interpreted the FDA
guidelines in this way: The ad could contain the name of the drug
or its use, but not both, Kamp says.
Ads now identify the drug, its use, a major statement of
dangerous side effects and a way to access more information,
such as the Web site.
University of Memphis advertising professor Sandy Utt believes
the side effects should be listed as required, but says the
television ads are "a real turnoff to me as a consumer. There's
one that says, not that you would shrivel up and die, but it's
pretty close to that. This could cause major problems. It just
sounds like the side effects are so bad that it's a total turnoff to a
possible consumer."
As someone who knows the advertising world, Utt says, "I
think magazines are a better way to go. I think you can get more
information in a magazine, and that it is less chilling in terms of
the problems you might get. You don't hear that it could cause
you to vomit or have diarrhea or your hair would fall out."
No Shortage of Drugs Ads
Statistics gathered by Competitive Media Reporting show that
the investment in these ads by drug companies is only
increasing, however.
In the year before the rule change, 17.8% of drug companies'
prescription drug advertising budget went into television. But
from August 1997-July 1998, 41% did.
And the medium that has suffered the most is magazine
advertising. It fell to 44.4% for the year August 1997-July
1998, compared to 66.1% of the prescription drug budget in
the year, August 1994-July 1995.
Kamp contends that "advertising is in many cases the one best
way to inform the public about options that it has available."
Out of the Closet of Secrecy
And he mentions the Bob Dole infomercial on erectile
dysfunction as an example.
"Here we have a medical issue that until a few years ago
virtually nobody talked about, particularly middle-aged and old
men," Kamp says. "(Dole) essentially did for impotence what
Betty Ford did both for alcoholism and breast cancer a couple
of decades ago. He got it out of the closet and into the public
discourse where it belongs . . . These are issues that we need
more information about and less giggling."
The American Medical Association has concerns about
direct-to-consumer advertising, citing studies that show
pharmaceutical companies do not meet their standards for FDA
compliance in other forms of advertising.
A study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine reviewed
such advertisements in leading medical journals. The assessment
revealed that, in 44% of cases, the advertisements would lead
to improper prescribing, and 57% were considered by
reviewers to have little or no educational value, according to the
AMA.
Another AMA study found that, in promotional materials
handed out by drug salespeople to health care professionals,
42% failed to comply with one or more FDA regulations and
35% of the materials lacked fair balance between the drug's
benefits and risks.
Although the AMA says direct-to-consumer advertising has
some merit, the organization encourages physicians to take an
active role in making sure guidelines are enforced and that
patient care is not compromised.
Pfizer's Role with Physicians
Vanessa McGowan, manager of pharmaceutical
communications for Pfizer, says her company tries to work
closely with physicians to make sure Pfizer meets physician
standards.
She adds that the advertisements have led to an increase in sales
of Pfizer products. "If it wasn't, we wouldn't continue to do
them."
Pfizer advertises Zyrtec for allergies and Viagra for erectile
dysfunction.
Clay Wilemon, president of Health Communications, Inc., in
Memphis, says the advertising method is effective because
physicians will respond to patient questions about certain drugs
and speed their learning curve on the pharmaceutical product.
"If you go out and create demand on the part of the consumer,
in many cases it forces the physician to get educated about your
product in a much more rapid manner than (he or she) would
otherwise. There's a push-pull effect there," he says.
He compares selling drugs to selling potato chips.
"Take a potato chip company. If it is creating demand for a new
potato chip, at the same time, they should be selling the potato
chips to the supermarkets so they will be on the shelf for the
consumer to make the purchase," Wilemon says.
"The bottom line is that the company has to have a two-phased
approach: creating demand on the consumer side and creating a
supply line with the physician."
(Staff writer Leigh Ann Roman can be reached at 259-1730, or
by e-mail at lannroman@amcity.com)
amcity.com |
