The good old days of drug advertising
Does this seem like a ridiculous waste of time to anyone else?
Federal regulators plan to study whether relaxing, upbeat images featured in TV drug ads distract consumers from warnings about the drugs’ risks.
Of course they do. That’s the point. The good news is, consumers — distracted by that cute little Zoloft bubble or those evergreen hills that represent the vitality of the old couple’s newly viagra’d sex life – can’t just ignore the risk warnings completely and then run out and buy the drug. They have to go to a doctor. The doctor will tell them the risks. The doctor will refuse to prescribe the drug if the risks are too great. Rendering the question of whether or not the TV ads are distractingly upbeat just about moot.
[We should really start keeping a tally on which agency spends more time and money investigating banal/ridiculous things, the FDA or the FCC?]
Too Distracting
One ad for Eli Lilly & Co.’s impotence drug Cialis features a middle-age couple returning from shopping while smooth jazz plays in the background. Toward the ad’s end, a male voice lists common side effects, including headache, back pain and muscle aches.
“If advertisers were really interested in getting information about drug risks out, they’d show pictures of those problems, but you almost never see that,” said Sidney Wolfe of the advocacy group Public Citizen, which frequently criticizes drug-industry marketing.
Sigh. This is kind of like the people who insist that if junk food companies are going to advertise to kids they should also tell kids to eat broccoli or something like that (Eat Fruity Pebbles – but it may rot your teeth and has no nutritional value and make sure to get 7 servings of fruits and vegetables in per day as well!). Do these people completely fail to grasp the point of marketing? You can’t compel companies to advertise in ways that betray their own interests; if so, they’ll simply stop advertising. And advertising is an essential part of our economy. Sure, we have a compelling national interest, I’d say, to make sure ads are factually accurate and not overwhelming misleading, especially when we’re dealing with drugs or food or other things that affect people’s health. But it’s kind of silly to expect advertisers to actively dissuade people from purchasing or using their product.
Of course, maybe I'm just writing this because I'm a secret operative for the pharmaceutical companies. And you are too distracted by all the aweseome illustrations I've peppered throughout this post to even notice that risk.
as long as the g-men don’t investigate my use of barry white when the ladies visit.
This reminds me of “Who Killed the Electric Car?” when GM put out ads for the car that didn’t even picture the car, then called up the 5,000 people on the waiting list for the car and said, “Do you really want this car? Do you know it only goes 60 miles before you have recharge it? You know you have to plug it in every night, right? Do you know it doesn’t have a lot of trunk space? Do you know it will eat your firstborn?” and then was like, “Gee, suddenly no one wants to buy our car. Guess this proves there’s no reason to invest in alternative technology…”