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.