Direct-to-consumer advertising for psychotropic medications is something that is so common place it is hard to believe that there was a time when we were not being told to ask our doctor about the newest antidepressant on the market. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lifted the ban on DTC advertisement for prescription medication in 1985 (Corrigan, Kosyluk, Konadu,& Park, 2014), but it was not until 1997 that it really took off. In 1997 the FDA made it so that companies could direct individuals to websites or toll-free numbers instead of giving Brief Summary that explained how the drug worked, the benefits, and the possible adverse effects (Lurie, 2009). As pharmaceutical companies pour billions of dollars into advertising every year, the question arises …show more content…
The marketing of psychotropic medications is a science unto itself that relies on push versus pull marketing (Becker, 2015). The push aspect comes from sales representatives going to prescribing doctors to market the drug while the pulls comes DTC advertisements urging consumers to ask their doctor about the medication (Becker, 2015). While there is evidence that listing the potential side effects will lowers the persuasiveness of an advertisement (Kavadas, Prevel Katsanis, & LeBel, 2007) this doesn’t seem to be the case since every dollar spent in advertisement has a return of over four dollars for the company (Becker, 2015). The Seroquel XR advertisement that was run in People Magazine was more than half warnings and possible side effects of the medication. It is hard to judge the effectiveness of this advertisement due to not having either major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder, but to have most of the ad proclaim the risks of the medication would create some concern about taking it. However, the tag line “Say ‘I’m OK’ and mean it!” is eye catching and can resonate with those who have mental illness
In Melody Peterson’s “Our Daily Meds” , the history of marketing and advertising in the pharmaceutical industry is explored. The first chapter of the book, entitled “Creating disease”, focuses on how major pharmaceutical companies successfully create new ailments that members of the public believe exist. According to Peterson, the success that these drug manufacturers have experienced can be attributed to the malleability of disease, the use of influencial people to promote new drugs, the marketing behind pills, and the use of media outlets.
In Japan, drug makers published advertisements in newspapers to “alter the environment in which anti-depressant drugs are or may be used…and promote the idea of depression as a common ailment” (Watters 524). As depression has been believed to be incurable, drug makers argued that this disease was equivalent to a cold of the soul or kokoro no kaze. They also published articles in magazines and included statistics showing how many Japanese suffered from depression. The articles asserted that depression has been ubiquitous just like colds. Sometimes, a medical company may extremely underestimate the effects of a disease that the population would think it does not require medication. This approach, in turn, leads to questioning the legitimacy of their actions and the real motives behind their advertisements. Companies must be aware of what and how they communicate to people, because by frequently exposing the public to a certain idea or concept, it becomes unconsciously ingrained in the public subconscious. The public perception of depression in Japan has led to severe consequences, including an increasing suicide rates, “lost man-hours and decreased productivity” (Watters 526). As suicide rates increased, drug makers embraced a difference approach, modified their advertisements,
From the moment of its existence, car insurance has continued to be a value and necessity in the lives of every driver. With the increasing number of people that are driving, it is something that simply cannot be ignored. And what better way to share various insurance companies than through advertisements and television? Amongst the numerous selections of car insurance, Allstate has proven to withhold a successful and symbolic campaign of television advertisements. Through the use of logical appeals, dry humor, and strategic plot lines, Allstate does an efficient job at drawing its viewers in.
In America today, many people are in need of medical help. In fact,the Federal Trade Commission estimates that 75% of the population complain of physical problems (Federal Trade Commission 9). They complain, for example, of fatigue, colds, headaches, and countless other "ailments." When these symptoms strike, 65% purchase over-the counter, or OTC, drugs. In order to take advantage of this demand, five billion dollars is spent by the pharmaceutical industry on marketing each year . This marketing, usually in the form of advert...
It is clear that most DTC advertisements in the pharmaceutical industry easily approach consumers and inject distorted information about drugs into them. DTC advertisements provide clarity in product performance claims, with less reliance on implied benefits (Beltramini 574). Furthermore, DTC advertisements have made a huge impact on public consciousness with constant exposure to their consumers and sell less effective drugs (Lurie 445). Consumers do not recognize the danger of ineffective drugs due to the embellishment of the marketing strategy. Zelnorm, a drug for women with irritable bowel syndrome, is an example of how a highly visible television advertising campaign makes this less effective drug popular. From a pharmaceutical company’s analysis, while 0.1 percent of patients treated with the drug had a heart attack, chest pain, or a stroke and one died, patients taking a placebo had 0.01 percent of these symptoms and none died. Despite inefficiency of the drug, it became a popular treatment for irritable bowel syndrome because of television advertisement campaign; it displays attractive young women whose bellies are inscribed with the catchphrase, "I feel better" (Shuchman 2239). The reason that ineffective drugs, such as Zelnorm, became popular is because most people who have not enough knowledge to evaluate drugs
These ads misinform patients, encourage over-medication, and pressure doctors and medical providers. The counter side states that prescription drug ads educate patients, encourage the correct usage of drugs, and cause patients to ask their doctors about possible treatments. Both sides have examples and evidence, but the cons of prescription drug ads are stronger. The pros explain how some lives can be improved. However, the cons focus on the dangerous effect these ads have on the viewers. Although these drugs are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, DTC prescription drug ads can be manipulated to have catastrophic effects on the
since the FDA allowed companies to advertise directly to consumers we saw an increase in
Kaphingst, K. A. (2004). A Content Analysis of Direct-to-ConsumerTelevision Prescription Drug Advertisements. Journal of Health Communication,Volume 9: , 515–528,.
This paper will analyze an ATT commercial according to audience, purpose, context, ethics, and stance. The focus will emphasize the audience which the aid is trying to reach and how they do so.
Alcohol is a product that tends to be advertised by sex appeal and social class, although these specific ads factor these components in, they mainly focus on one gender and its superiority over the other. In this day and age, advertisement takes more than a simple "leave it Beaver" appeal; it takes something that will catch your eyes while flipping through the pages of a magazine or through channels on TV. The whole point of ads is to get you to identify with the characters or their actions, either by having the same characteristics or wanting to. Advertisement has actually gone a step further, now it is okay to be chauvinist and arrogant, even worse, it is accepted and found humorous among society. However, it gets the job done, and that's all that matters. Sadly, I too found it appealing, and it stuck to my brain like tree molasses. How did a simple ad affect me so? By using the sick, yet truthful mental thinking of men and women. One ad I chose came from a women's magazine, and it was strictly directed towards women, the other ad was from a men's magazine and, again, was strictly directed towards men. I chose these two similar alcohol ads to compare and contrast simply because they use the same methods, but at the same time, they are on a totally different level. The layout is different, the targeted audience is opposite from the other, yet the appeal is similar.
Ad campaigns that blanketed the airwaves aimed at the end consumer are no longer as effective as they once were. Citing the strategy of Sepracor in marketing their new insomnia drug, they noted that they spent nearly $70M on the initial campaign. However, a rival maker was committing no money to TV ads. Their market research had determined that the market wasn’t growing and the money would be better spent targeting the doctors who prescribe the drugs. While a pitch to the individual may result in a request at the doctor’s office for a particular drug, the doctor has final say in the process, so this new strategy on the surface appears to make sense. Only time will tell if it is effective.
An analysis of the signs and symbols used in Patek Philippe Geneve's "Begin your own tradition" advert.
Television commercials are television programming produced by any organisation to provide message in the market about their product or services. It is one of the most popular methods to attract customer and provide them information about their products or services.
“This is your Brain on Drugs” was a public service announcement created in 1987 by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America foundation. The ad was later re-imaged in 1998 under the same title, and much of the same premise. The arguments of both advertisements were the caustic effects of drugs on your brain. The PFDA formed in the mid eighties with the simple idea of using ads to advocate the dangers of drugs use. They believed the persuasive nature of advertisements could denounce a product as effectively as they could promote them. Their first real success came with the original “This is your Brain on Drugs” advertisement. As a result, many of today’s public service announcements mirror the same techniques. These techniques greatly oversimplify drug use by using common logical fallacies. The 1998 version is no different. The ad greatly oversimplifies through the use of begging the question, slippery slope, and dogmatic appeals. To better understand this, it is necessary to set the scene beforehand.
“If the maxim passes all three tests, it is moral, but if it fails any one of the three then it is immoral” (DeGeorge 67). Even though I do not feel that the practice passes the universal test, I will continue by looking at the last two aspects of the categorical imperative. To have good will according to Kant’s belief, one must perform the duty for the sake of the duty with no other reasons in mind. In this case, drug companies claim they are providing medical information and treatment knowledge to inform the public, but their main reason for advertising is to sell their product to increase profits. “It would be disingenuous to claim that TV ads achieved these returns without exerting any influence on prescribing patterns” (Lo). The second