Powerlines in Pharma Ads-Viagra vs Cialis

Steve Cone makes the case in his new book "Powerlines" that a great slogan is the most important part of any marketing campaign and shows by means of many examples and some instruction how to create one. He says "Powerlines are promises that deliver and never change. They are the voice of the brand." Well that’s sure true. While illustrating his point, Steve tells one of the best stories I've ever heard about pharma advertising.

The "powerline" story goes as follows in Steve's book:

As baby boomers become older they have created a huge new market for drugs to guarantee sexual performance. Those crazy baby boomers, they want everything! Pfizer was the first pharma company to go for it and they launched Viagra.
Viagra was an instant hit. Nothing could bring Viagra down. It captured 75% of the market and held onto it for years, generating billions in annual sales. Competitors were no match. The folks over at Lilly Pharmaceuticals, the makers of Cialis were perplexed. They advertised and advertised and they couldn't move the needle. Why was this so impossible? They could not figure it out.



Then something happened. A great mind, the cleverest copy writer of them all took notice amongst all the legalese that the FDA required the printing of the disclaimer "To avoid long term injury, ff an erection lasts more than four hours, you must seek immediate medical attention". “avoid long term injury”!!! Boomers took the bate! Erectile function that is so powerful that it could last for four hours and cause long term personal injury is any super boomer’s dream. They truly can have everything.


Cialis quickly changed their ads and made this line as prominent as the headline or tagline. On TV they actually voiced over the line and displayed it on the lower third.

Within three months time Cialis gained over 30% of the market and leveled the playing field with Viagra to the point where they have almost equal share of the market.

This has now been a prominent part of Cialis’ advertising for several years. Another point Steve makes in his book is that to often we give up our powerlines for no reason. We used to hold on to them for at least five years. In the last ten years headlines, taglines and “powerlines” have a far shorter life span. With the tenure of CEOs and CMOs shortening every year these lines tend to change on the whim of new administrations within the company stripping away the brand of a recognizable part of its personality.

The moral of the story is that ONE LINE made the difference. Now that' awesome. Cialis, don’t let it go. This is a good one. A true “powerline”. I want to hear the disclaimer that could at the end of your ads for years to come. That way I’ll always know who you are.

Thanks Cialis for showing us how it's done. “If this powerline lasts more than five years, seek the help of a marketing professional immediately”

Is that really Antonio Banderas in the Nasonex ads?

OK, so is that really Antonio Banderas in the Nasonex ads? My husband says that there is no way Antonio would do so, but I say he's Spanish and in Europe celebrities are used to doing bizarre endorsements and commercials.

Take a look for yourself:



We can't agree. I don't think there is anything for Antonio to be ashamed of. The bee is a little dorky, but has survived for a while and has become a recognizable character for Nasonex.

This was the first of what are now many celebrity endorsements for DTC pharma ads. Sally Fields for Boniva comes to mind. Celebrity endorsements are nothing new, but they raise some interesting issues in the DTC pharma space. It's the fact that you need a prescription to consume these drugs that makes it different.

Can't wait to see who's next.

Social Media’s Place in Pharmaceutical Marketing

Social media is “the new thing” in pharmaceutical marketing. Everyone is talking about it—few are engaging it. How do pharmaceutical marketers tap it to it make it make sense for the brand? Are the stakes too high in pharma for the “uncontrolled” nature of social media? What are the best strategies and tactics being employed today? What pharmaceutical brands today are pushing the envelope through social media and marketing innovations? What is the future of this newest of phenomena in pharmaceutical marketing?

• How do pharmaceutical marketers tap it to it make it make sense for the brand?
• Are the stakes too high in pharma for the “uncontrolled” nature of social media?
• What are the best strategies and tactics that you have heard about?
• Can you share with us any examples that tap the power of social media from your own firm?

In my opinion the true potential of social media –especially in pharma has yet to be realized. Still some pharmaceutical brands are leading the charge by example. What pharmaceutical brands today are pushing the envelope through social media and marketing innovations?

Creative that counts in Pharma Advertising

To continue on my soap box why don't we discuss and examine the role of creative in pharmaceutical advertising? Let's dig into the importance of teaming the right creative message with the right end objective and why this might be important in pharma marketing. What are the best strategies and tactics to engage, what are some of the best practices to share, what brands are leading the industry?

Don't be shay and let me know what you think about....

• What is “the state” of creative in pharma marketing? Good or bad—why is it the way that it is?
• Relevancy is a term that comes up a great deal these days? What does it really mean when we are talking about “relevant” creative?
• What are the best strategies and tactics to engage when it comes to teaming the right creative with the right objective and target audience?
• Can you share with us, from your own experience, what brands are leading the way for us all to follow? In short, who “gets it” today in pharma advertising?
• Can you share with us your thoughts on what the future holds for creativity in pharma advertising?

Show me something good!!! in Pharma marketing

A discipline long known to consumer goods merchants like P&G is now playing a mayor role in Pharama marketing. Regardless of this market's recent innovations, relevant innovation must be consumer led. You must develop an appreciation for your who your consumers are and how they live to know their needs and also their aspirations. This is the only way to produce relevant content that sway opinions, peak interest and entice.

Just a thought. Not to get too preachy today, but I'm tired of seeing ads that have nothing to do with me even though I am in the market for those products. Feel free to chime in and let me know if you've seen anything good today. If I see one more senior citizen kayaking or sky diving, I'm going to have a fit. No more breathing freely in a meadows, no more 60 year old couples romping around for a nooner and please no more pipe and water balloon imagery for incontinence drugs. Show me something good!

Interview with a Pharma Marketer, Emilio Vera, Part 2

Interview with a Marketer, Part 2

6. What do you think of the backlash against DTC advertising? Sites like prescriptionforchange.com target the concept quite vehemently.
I think that DTC advertising is a direction—not a trend. More countries will begin to follow the US lead. The backlash is understandable. Change causes friction. But I don’t think anything can change the direction of consumer empowerment (maybe a dictator?)

7. How much change those the future of pharma marketing hold?
I belive we will see tremendous change in the future still in pharma marketing. Much of the change will be formed around the concept of relevancy. If I (or someone I know) do not have diabetes—I am not interested in the least. However, if someone I love is diagnosed with the disease—I can’t learn enough. Relevancy in marketing is the next great tool in pharma marketing. It will arrive. When? is the only question.

8. Nothing could be more personal than healthcare (well personal finance is a close second, even equal to some). How do you navigate such delicate matters without overstepping personal boundaries. When does the marketing stop and the conversation with your Dr. begin?
Personal is the operative word in your question. It really does depend on personal circumstances. What should be noted however is that delicate matters are sometimes easier for patients to handle in the abstract. And getting personal through impersonal means can be a fruitful endeavor. There is no right or wrong way to answer this question. Other than “it really does depend.”
9. Does blogging play a role for you in staying current on pharma marketing?

Absolutely, I expect that this area of “conversation” will become extremely more utilized in the near future. Who knows better about a drug than a person who has actually tried it. Who can offer a more frank answer that someone who does not know you. The big fear with blogging is commercial predators. How can we separate the real people from the paid mercenaries?

10. The consumer blogs tend to have a more critical voice when addressing issues in pharma marketing. Do you think you can hone in that consumer generated content to have a positive discussion?

You’re right. There are so many conversations that are negative about pharma marketing—even though the end beneficiary tends to be the little guy. Simply put, the industry in my opinion is not mature enough at this point to sanction the fact that selling drugs is a good thing. For some reason, consumers have it in their minds that all drugs should not cost a thing—paying no attention to the fact that R&D teams spend decades perfecting the drugs that make us well. These teams must be paid! Transparency is needed in the pharma industry. What really happens and who really profits is still a mystery that needs demystification. Trust will trickle down from frank conversations. Only time will fix this.

Interview with a Pharma Marketer, Emilio Vera, Part 1

I interviewed Emilio Vera, a seasoned marketer who entered the Pharma marketing scene 15 years ago after a career in packaged goods, way before there was a DTC conversation. In this 2 part interview he shares with us the state of the industry, what the future holds and the why of his choices.

Interview with a Pharma Marketer, part 1.

1. Why have you chosen pharma marketing as an industry to focus on?
Frankly, I feel that Pharma has chosen me. Our company corals business networks within the marketing industry. There are several determinants that make it right for an industry to need us. 1) there must be common questions among the industry that are going unanswered, 2) there must be a level of complexity in the issue that will need some degree of “explanation” from a central source, 3) there must be enough advertising and marketing dollars spent in the category to warrant media properties backing our network, financially and 4) there must not be a lot of other organizations in the particular industry. 5) There must be demand for bringing the people of an industry together face to face. We had demand before we had a product to sell.


2. I often ask "what of the contributions of marketing to the world?" Sometimes I have better luck than others. How do you believe pharma marketing contributes to the benefit of the consumer?
I presume you are referring to DTC advertising in the pharma industry. The value of business marketing in the pharma industry speaks for itself and I would be happy to elaborate on what value it delivers to society. But in keeping my answer to the DTC side of the equation, I can tell you that it adds a great deal to society.

You see, there are two forces constantly at odds in commerce: 1) “The Value of specialization” and 2) “The power of Self interest.” These two forces always have—and always will--characterize capitalistic commerce.

In response to the first item, division of labor is good for an economy. It allows people to focus on what they are good at, and affords them the opportunity to deliver this “good” to society in exchange for tokens of value (usually money).

The other force is that the more information the consumer has, the better equipped he is to make his own decisions.

So, if you take these two concepts “professional specialization” and “individual empowerment” you can understand why I feel that DTC advertising in the pharma category is a “good thing” for society. It taps our inherent drive for self interest to gather as much information that we can about certain pharmaceutical needs and ideas and combines it with a Doctor’s ultimate specialized authority to ultimately prescribe these medicines (or veto their prescription). The net result is that the patient is taken care of more fully, more accurately and by investigating all avenues possible.


3. What is the greatest challenge in Pharma marketing today?
The greatest challenge is educating the industry on itself. This is not just any kind of marketing. Pharma marketing has its own lexicon, its own jargon, its own standards of acceptability, its own culture. In one sense I feel that the industry does not know that it is an industry at all. Guess what? It’s the last to know. I think that any organization that can help bring focus and structure to the people and players in this field is doing the pharma industry a very big favor. This is why we have thrown our hat in ring.


4. What do you think must change in pharma marketing?
Good question. Because there is a lot that must change for this industry to grow into itself to its fullest potential. However, if I see one obstacle, it's that I see a large degree of animosity between the regulatory arms of the industry and with the marketing arms of the industry. In short, the two areas have got to learn to each play nice in the same sand box—or nothing will get done. Walls need to be torn down. Minds need to be opened within this industry.



5. What would you say is the greatest innovation in pharma marketing so far and what do you hope to see in the near future?
The use of the Internet. Think about it. The Internet is a lean forward research tool used best to peel back layers of information before making an informed purchase. Branding on TV with sight sound an motion will keep a brand top of mind. But it won’t really matter if its not a right fit. The first thing that either patients or doctors do when exposed to a new pharma TV ad is to check it out online. Do you want to know what will be the biggest innovation in the future—tapping the Internet as more than a pharma marketing research tool. The company that figures out to convert the Internet to a transactional sales channel is the company that will lead this industry for decades. It will take a lot of work—far deeper than merely technological work. But someone will do it…and change the industry of pharma marketing for ever.

The Online Migration of Pharma Marketers

What a difference five years can make! It is hard to believe how far online marketing has come in the past five year. In these five years, the way we research and purchase goods and services in the United States has dramatically changed.

Smart marketers have stepped to the plate and capitalized. eMarketer reported that the there was $7.2 Billion spent in online marketing and advertising in 2003. In 2008, this number will likely climb to 3-fold to topple the $23.8 Billion mark. Again, what a difference five short years can make.

Have pharma marketers climbed on board and benefited? In 2003, $291Million was spent in the US in pharma and healthcare advertising and marketing, online. Today, this number has increased 4-fold to $1.2 Billion.

In "Will Pharma's Big Ad Spend Move Online?"
eMarketer claims pharmnaceutical marketers plan to increase their online marketing spending this year and decrease spending on traditional media.

The internet is both a research tool as well as a sales tool—and it is a particularly fertile space for pharmaceutical marketers. I am not surprised by the growth we’ve seen in online marketing, in general (3X) and I am certainly not surprised at the (4X) growth in online pharmaceutical/healthcare marketing, online.

Will the pharma industry’s tapping of the online medium/channel continue to grow at this rate? Time will tell.

Doctors Share their opinions on DTC pharma marketing

"Stop sending pharma sales people into my office." "I don't have the time to see them anymore so save the gas" said one Dr. when asked about his feedback on how pharma companies market to Doctors. Read more at worldofmarketing.com

The goal of research conducted was to determine how physicians felt about medical information on health websites. You'd think they would been supportive but they mostly voiced concerns about tools that often patients use to diagnose themselves and what they thought of misinformation online.

Doctors it seems don't have time to spend with pharma company reps. They don't see the value in being sold to that way. Maybe the reps need to provide more than just free samples when they visit with the doctors. That is, of course, if they get in. Doctors are the gatekeepers of which of the competing drugs a patient may be prescribed and therefore their alliance is coveted.

Freedom to elect has finally come to pharma marketing

It is election season and voters across the US are being asked their opinions. Who will you vote for? The politicians are doing their best to see to it that we have the facts (all versions).

After all, this is America. The fundamental assumption is that we are (for the most part) all born intelligent human beings and we are (again, for the most part) each capable of making intelligent and informed decisions. This is not only the American way--this is what makes us American. “Man is basically good” as British philosopher John Lock (1632-1704) wrote about the tenants of democracy. In short, man is capable of self-governance, self determination—and in making his own decisions.

Let’s fast-forward a few hundred years and focus on pharmaceutical marketing for a moment. “DTC”—direct to consumer pharma marketing. That’s what we call our newly evolved form of pharmaceutical marketing. The sector alone is responsible for tens of thousands jobs—and they have all been born in the last decade. It used to be that a doctor was only qualified to interpret what might be suitable for drug consumers to learn. This being the case, pharmaceutical marketers would only market to this small group of “deciders.” Today, the FDA has allowed these marketers to market “DTC.” The decision now is directed one step beyond—to the end consumer.

At last! What I do not understand is what took us so long to break this barrier? What took the FDA so long to tell us that we are safe to learn about the drugs that are being prescribed to us?

This is not a free for all. Checks and balances have been created to maintain order. Now the FDA provides detailed regulations and guidance for advertising efforts aimed directly at consumers. Pharmaceutical companies are required to follow these directives when preparing such direct-to-consumer ad campaigns. In general, such ads must include information about the medication's side effects (we know all about that), contraindications (situations in which it should not be taken), and its effectiveness. Companies are required to submit their direct-to-consumer advertising materials to the Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications (DDMAC) at the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). However, DDMAC does not provide approval for each and every advertising effort. Sometimes, companies will submit materials to the FDA before they implement certain marketing campaigns. This gives the FDA the opportunity to offer helpful feedback and suggestions.

True freedom can only happen with laws, rules and regulations. The freedom to elect has finally come to pharma marketing.

Not quite a pharma ad

In my zeal for finding those hidden pharma gems I came across a gem of a different genre. Technically I believe this ad is for the "sexual health care" industry. Regardless of the nomenclature it is hysterical and an effective example of how staying true to relevant and poignant cause and effect is all you need for effective communication's of a product's benefits.



It's an ad for Zazoo Condoms. Zazoo, based in Antwerp, Belgium, has produced a real winner. The ad shows a moment in the life of a young father, who may not be in such a pickle had he only remembered to use a condom.



Aside from it being funny, what I like the most about this ad is that it is engaging and it describes, without using words, one of the consequences of not using the product it's trying to sell. The features not being as important as the benefits int this ad really drives the point home.

Zazoo also has their current campaign on their site.


My favorite part of the site is the 12 reasons to pick a zazoo section.

Very staright forward and very effective. Everything should be this clear.

On the flipside of pharma marketing disclaimers

I was looking for a good example to illustrate my last post regarding excessive disclaimers on pharma ads and came across this video.



It's produced by Prescriptionforchange.com a site dedicated to the safe, affordable and effective consumer drugs. They focus a great deal on critiquing marketing efforts by pharma companies. Much of what they're striving for is needed reform in our country's health care system--a larger role for government in unbiased research, FDA reform, affordable medicine. One noteworthy focus I noticed on their blog is adding more disclaimers (and to be fair in some instances more accurate disclaimers)to the already hyper-long list of disclaimers at the end of pharma ads. What I find troubling about this is that more information isn't always best. I would not presume for an investment company to give me all the details of their available investments and expect me to come up with a valuable investment plan, likewise with any other professional advice. Advocates act as if the DTC conversation happens in a vacuum. The truth is that none of these drugs may be consumed without a Dr.'s prescription. I haven't met a Dr. yet who will take my list of desired drugs and just write out prescriptions without a conversation.

At the end of my visit the Dr. will prescribe the medications the Dr. considers to be appropriate and necessary for my illness. I have very little negotiation power on this and I can be pretty persuasive. All I'm saying is that we can't ignore that consumers have no access to prescription drugs without a prescription and we can't ignore the conversation between a Dr and the patient.

There is much to fix in our industry, but adding more disclaimers to a blur of words at the end of a TV commercial or flip side of a magazine ad is not the solution. Pharma ad disclaimers have become the punchline of many a joke and have lost the impact they are meant to have in a see of legalese.

Still, this is a funny video especially the part on the pharma ad disclaimers.

Pharma Marketing Disclaimer Overload

Disclaimer Overload

Please note: this blog post is not intended to be right, wrong or indifferent. Never read this blog while operating heavy equipment or machinery. Do not drive while reading this blog. If you ever read this blog for more than four hours, please call your physician immediately!

Do those rambling creative disclaimers do us any good? Or are they all systematically drowned out of consumer attention as being irrelevant?

I have one of those questions that (I think) most consumers have had in the back on their minds for the past few years and no one has really asked of the pharma marketing industry. Here goes:

The essential value of direct to consumer advertising in the pharma category is that each individual patient is more focused (if not riveted) on his own ailment of situation and pharmaceutical needs than a doctor can be. The simple reason is not that a doctor is any less qualified than the patient on the subject—its simply that the patient is more attuned to his own situation than his doctor.

Have you ever noticed that once you buy a new car—suddenly you see the same brand and model cars all over the highway? This isn’t because there are suddenly more of them out there—its simply because you are more attuned, more focused on this brand of car—because you just bought one. Call it self interest if you will. It’s human nature to focus on those things that are or immediate interest to you.

This is why DTC marketing in the pharma category works. The patient becomes the eyes and ears of the doctor--the funnel if you will. The doctor still decides, recommends, advises, and rules out the ideas that are not suitable for the patient. Still, what does it hurt to have a well informed patient throwing ideas at a busy physician?

Here’s my question: If the doctor is the decider and if the patient is simply bringing up ideas, why do we, as consumers of both pharmaceuticals (and of media), need the bombardment of disclaimers thrown at us at the end of every ad? Consumers can’t run out and buy these drugs—they still need to be prescribed by a physician.

Add to this the fact that no one listens to the disclaimers anyway—I can’t seem to figure out why all these disclaimers are needed.

(Disclaimer: Respond to this at your own risk)

Quo Vadis? What does an economic slowdown mean for pharma marketing?

I would like to know what does a slowdown in the US economy mean for the pharmaceutical marketing community? Are pharma marketing jobs secure? Many in the industry don’t seem to think so. I hear of the nervous rumblings at lunch or after meetings in which staff has been informed of budget cuts. Agencies are starting to brace themselves for accounts going dark or a sharp reduction in spending.

Pharma media spending—a bell weather for our job security—seems uncertain (at best).

In a statement announcing its revised outlook, WebMD pointed to "a recent shift toward shorter-term buying commitments in certain of its customers' consumer advertising purchases which the Company believes is driven by increased caution in the current business climate."

Specifically, the company lowered its 2008 revenue forecast from a range of $395 to $415 million to $380 to $395 million. "The biggest question is whether the slower trends are WebMD-specific or industry-wide," Goldman Sachs analyst Jennifer Watson wrote in a client note Wednesday.

Quo Vadis (where are you going to those who skipped high school Latin). This is a fair question that members of any industry must ask one another. Where is our industry going?

Technically, to define the term recession, it means that our economy has had two consecutive quarters of receding GDP. President Bush admits that we have had a “significant slowdown” in our economy—but stops short at calling it a recession. From a definitional point of view, it really is a matter of semantics.

I’m more than curious. I just want to know if I should be worried.

The answer to this, hangs on the answer to a bigger question--could somebody please offer an answer to a much more straightforward question: Are we in a recession yet? Economists, politicos and pundits alike seem to be unsure if the US economy has slipped into a recession. It sure feels like it. But what does this even mean?

Where are we heading in the pharmaceutical marketing industry? Are we sensing a broad-based spending slowdown? If so, do you feel it will lead to a scaling back in pharma marketing hiring? Could lay-offs be on the horizon across our industry? Pharma stocks are soaring or at least maintaining their value. Why the does this paradox present itself? Where is this caution coming from? Is there a presumption that there will be a further decline in America's ability to purchase the medication they need? If it's going to come to that, the future may really be bleak.

At the same time pharma industry is one of those sectors on which you can count to always have demand and call for attention. Along with agriculture and energy there will always be a need for pharmaceutical products. In times of recession the need for basic care will not disappear.

The defining factor of the vulnerability of the pharma industry will be determined by the difference between what is being consumed now vs. what is absolutely necessary. I say there barely there should be no difference. We can't be consuming unnecessary medication. the day Americans will be ill because they can't afford the medication they need (that is already happening to some extent) is a sad day in the history of this country and something that has not been in the mainstream since the 1930s. How far we haven't come.

As far as our marketing jobs...who knows.

On the lighter side of Cialis

In my search of all things pharma marketing I found this spoof on a Cialis (Erectile Disfunction Drug) TV ad featuring Cuba Gooding Jr. It has to be him! I'm not sure but judge for yourself.



The questions is whether this type of material is damaging to the brand or if it actually perpetuates it's staying power in our minds? Pun is fully intended. Let's just say, I probably won't forget this or which drug makes it possible.

Restless Leg Syndrome...really?

The first time I saw an ad on RLS (Restless Leg Syndrome) I thought, "you've got to be kidding me!" With all due respect to the 3% of American folks who suffer through this, I thought "this is not a disease." Well the makers of Requip (Glaxo) and Mirapex (Boehringer Ingelheim) have remarketed a drug that was originally developed for the treatment of Parkinson's disease and now is being marketed to treat RLS. Some would say that the medicines (side effects) are worse than the cure. Consumer Reports has started a monthly campaign to debunk pharma ads and the latest recipients of this treatment are the RLS drugs. If you haven't seen the spot here it is
What kind of effect will this type of backlash on pharma ads have on drug sales? What type of response does this warrant from drug marketers? Who will be next?

Pharma-Controls: Good, Bad….or Ugly?

Producer/director, Michael Moore has been (fairly or unfairly) faulted that his documentaries play judge, jury and executioner for his own (self-confessed) liberal agenda. But you know something—they sure do work. The arguments that Moore builds in film are so darn convincing that he’ll have the most ultra right winger at least second-thinking any conservative positions. His most recent film, “Sicko”, questions the US healthcare and pharmaceutical systems by comparing them to those in Canada, Cuba, the UK and other more laisez faire systems. Here’s my question: if the price of certain pharmaceuticals in the US were controlled the way they are in certain (ala Moore) other economies—what would happen to Pharma R&D? Who would reward the breakthroughs? And (gasp!) what would happen to the newest of all product marketing categories in the US: pharmaceutical marketing! What would happen to the media business? Would Michael Moore focus his next documentary on the plight of the unemployed ad man? What’s your opinion?

DTC bad for consumers?

Could DTC marketing be a bad thing for the consumer/ public at large? If products that can address mass diseases are mass marketed, diseases which cannot be marketed may end up not addressed by pharmaceutical companies.

I'm a big believer in self-regulation for markets. I believe that any industry well end up correcting itself. Much like the extra caution taken by lenders and borrowers today after our country's sub prime loan debacle, compared to the years it will take our government to impose regulations to prevent another high risk credit bomb like the one that exploded last year. But pharma seems different. We can't afford the time and health is far more than money. Not to be sappy, but we can always make more money...can't make more health if you loose it.

Will R&D on lesser prevalent diseases be nipped in the bud because they are not viable (profitable) on the mass scale? If so, should government intervene?

DTC pharma marketing and the media. Old news to consumers?

Pharmaceutical comanies spend upwards of $30 billion dollars a year in marketing (according to Pharma Marketing Blog http://pharmamkting.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_archive.html.) That is about the same as the auto industry.$15 billion of that goes to free samples and Busines to Busniess marketing to doctors and $6billion of that goes to DTC marketing.

What has the emergence of consumer pharma advertising meant to the media companies?...Aside from a growth sector in ad revenues. Is this a new area of advertising for “large audience” media (i.e. newpapers, TV) or will spending in pharma advertising deteriorate as marketers become more savvy in the degree of granularity that they can target?

Is DTC pharma marketing the lesser of two evils? Were doctors better informed when pharma companies would only marketer to them? If doctors aren’t being courted with big marketing budgets any more, are they more apt to prescribe lower cost substitutes?

Is more information good information?

I grew up to believe that for the consumer, more information is good information. Yet, what have we learned from the credit crisis? The government is already taking responsibility for allowing mortgage marketers to sell too hard to consumers. Too much information without the analysis that paints the whole picture can be dangerous. This made many easy prey.

When it comes to pharma can too much information actually be a bad thing?

What about all those disclaimers?

Blah, blah, blah…..DTC Pharma marketing is famous for its lengthy disclaimers (you know all the pages of stuff you are required to put in after the print ad or the whole 30 seconds of disclaimers on tv and radio)…. “if you take this, you will experience discomfort while seated, pain while standing, dry tongue, wet mouth, dizziness, nausea, eating while unconscious and possibly death”

If doctors still need to prescribe these drugs, are these costly ad pages and air time really necessary, especially since doctors still need to prescribe them?