linked in facebook twitter rss

  • Interbrand
  • Brandchannel

your chance!
your chance!
also of interest...
 
 
 
 

  The Big Three in ED: Pharma Brands Get in the Mood
 
 I can't imagine media companies being thrilled with losing $4 billion in advertising sales, should something change in the regulation of pharma advertising. 
- January 26, 2009
 
 There is one thing I am OUTRAGED about when it comes to these kind of Ads. The Pharmacutical Companies do not seem to care who sees their ads for Prescription Drugs dealing with Sex and other "Bodily Functions". Many times thse Ads are shown at times, such as Afternoon Sporting Events, when CHILDREN are watching! I even saw an ad for an "ED" Product during a Children's Show! Complaining to the Station, Network or Cable Company is an act of Futility. They will either tell you they have no control over what is Advertised, and/or they will cite "Constititutional Rights". I am sure many Parents will not let their Children see any show on TV unless they record it first. As it is I SYRONGLY feel these Ads need to be restricted to times when Children ARE NOT WATCHING. 
- January 26, 2009
 
 I get a kick out of pharma tv ads and recently posted a video blog about the actors. I have always been a believer in real patients telling their stories, which I facilitate on the web. I believe what pharma should do is support education of patients in a variety of venues. It's about patients taken responsibility for their health and health condition, not about asking for a drug they saw on TV. See my video blog poking fun at the ads at:http://www.patientpower.info/p2tv.asp?video=2901201 
Andrew Schorr, Founder and Host, Patient Power, LLC - January 26, 2009
 
 It's not just the TV ads - I'm not sure about the States, but in New Zealand there are the ED radio ads and massive billboards. Now they're really surprising as you are driving your kids to school! The sheer number of spots these ads get makes it look like Kiwi men have a serious problem! And I'm sure boys will grow up here thinking they have an erectile problem even if they don't! I'm not sure about anything else, but the laws should be a lot stiffer! 
- January 26, 2009
 
 You raise some interesting issues Barry.

However, the essential perspectives, in my view are:
If drug companies want to advertise products that only a doctor can give them access to, let them. It's their Indaba.
I suspect tho' that a high profile drug (i.e. in the public domain) may also favourably pre-dispose some doctors to prescribing it - they are only human, after all. Maybe it's that advertising that persuaded a client to seek an appointment in the first place - for which the client pays whether he/she gets prescibed the drug.)

Finally, your argument that undifferentiated (pharma) products should not be allowed to advertise surely holds no water. If that were so, at least 75 of all products 
Bob Lewis, RLA Brand Consulting - January 27, 2009
 
 You asked the following: " Consider such popular drug brand names as Celebrex (arthritis), Lunesta (sleep aid) and Vytorin (cholesterol). What do these names say about what the drugs accomplish?"The problem with creating a name that suggests the disease is that each time that name appeared, it would need to also include "fair balance" (i.e., the fine print on side effects, etc.). Something like "Cholesterolator" would be an example. Clearly, this drug has something to do with cholesterol and the FDA would mandate that, since the drug's name and usage is listed, that fair balance is given. Because of this, it would be impossible for your brand name ever to appear by itself in signage or other promotional material, for example.That's the reason. 
Jonathan Richman - January 27, 2009
 
 I'm confused, who uses the picture of the couple in separate bathtubes? Say goodbye to differentiation for this catagory. 
Ray Baird, President, RiechesBaird - January 27, 2009
 
 
     
  back to article  

RSS | Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | FAQ
Copyright © 2001-2013 brandchannel. All rights reserved.