“Disease Awareness” ads are, by definition, advertisements for prescription drugs that discuss a disease, but not a specific medicine. They educate the consumer about important health issues such as … how to quit smoking.
But here’s how Alicia Mundy, in today’s Wall Street Journal, begins her story about a disease awareness campaign on just this public health issue:
“Pfizer Inc. has found a way to encourage the use of its antismoking drug Chantix without detailing serious potential side effects through a commercial that doesn't mention Chantix at all.”
Okay class, is this going to be a story that praises Pfizer (the world’s largest pharmaceutical company) for educating people about how to quit smoking? Or is it a story about how Big Pharma is trying to hide the fact that (gasp!) drugs have risks?
Ms. Mundy continues:
“Under Food and Drug Administration rules, if an ad doesn't directly name the drug, it doesn't have to include the reading of possible side effects that can chew up expensive television time.”
True. But consider the phrasing. For Ms. Mundy, “disease awareness” is just another clever ploy to avoid fair balance/adequate provision.
And she lumps all disease awareness ads together:
“This unbranded approach has been used in the past to promote disease awareness and build markets for treatments for those disease. Bob Ehrlich of DTC Perspectives, which monitors direct to consumer advertising by drug makers, says the Ambien and Chantix promotions may be clever, but ‘There's a risk they could rouse congressional ire over cute commercials that don't emphasize medicine.’ “
Bob, there’s a difference between these two campaigns. Check them out and judge for yourself. One has to assume that Ms. Mundy did – and that she’s decided that all disease awareness ads are the same – meaning that they are equally devious.
But, in fairness, she gives Pfizer the chance to comment:
“Pfizer says it isn't pushing Chantix in its ads, or trying to circumvent FDA rules. "The goal of the My Time to Quit campaign is to encourage people to quit smoking," said company spokeswoman Sally Beatty. "My Time to Quit is designed to encourage people who are thinking about quitting to speak to their healthcare provider about the benefits of quitting smoking and available treatment options," she said.”
Isn't it refreshing when Big Pharma stands up for itself?
Perhaps the most astounding and important paragraph in the article is the following:
"With unbranded ads, you don't have the 'fair balance' requirement," said Rich Gagnon of the ad agency DraftFCB, part of Interpublic Group of Companies Inc., in New York. "Imagine paying millions to run that ad campaign, and having to use up 30 seconds to list all the problems," said Mr. Gagnon, who has several pharmaceutical clients.”
“Imagine” paying millions to talk about risk? I should say its money well spent. Does Mr. Gagnon really believe that disease awareness ads are just a slick way to sidestep providing fair balance? If he was misquoted or if his comment was taken out of context, he should strive to correct the record a pleine vitesse.
Ms. Mundy also goes to Ruth Day – with whom we often disagree on DTC issues:
“Ruth Day of Duke University, a frequent critic of direct to consumer ads, gave the commercial and website high marks for useful information. An expert in how medical ads work on consumers, Dr. Day said mytimetoquit.com is relatively easy and gets to lists of side effects quickly.”
And we’ll leave it at that.
But here’s how Alicia Mundy, in today’s Wall Street Journal, begins her story about a disease awareness campaign on just this public health issue:
“Pfizer Inc. has found a way to encourage the use of its antismoking drug Chantix without detailing serious potential side effects through a commercial that doesn't mention Chantix at all.”
Okay class, is this going to be a story that praises Pfizer (the world’s largest pharmaceutical company) for educating people about how to quit smoking? Or is it a story about how Big Pharma is trying to hide the fact that (gasp!) drugs have risks?
Ms. Mundy continues:
“Under Food and Drug Administration rules, if an ad doesn't directly name the drug, it doesn't have to include the reading of possible side effects that can chew up expensive television time.”
True. But consider the phrasing. For Ms. Mundy, “disease awareness” is just another clever ploy to avoid fair balance/adequate provision.
And she lumps all disease awareness ads together:
“This unbranded approach has been used in the past to promote disease awareness and build markets for treatments for those disease. Bob Ehrlich of DTC Perspectives, which monitors direct to consumer advertising by drug makers, says the Ambien and Chantix promotions may be clever, but ‘There's a risk they could rouse congressional ire over cute commercials that don't emphasize medicine.’ “
Bob, there’s a difference between these two campaigns. Check them out and judge for yourself. One has to assume that Ms. Mundy did – and that she’s decided that all disease awareness ads are the same – meaning that they are equally devious.
But, in fairness, she gives Pfizer the chance to comment:
“Pfizer says it isn't pushing Chantix in its ads, or trying to circumvent FDA rules. "The goal of the My Time to Quit campaign is to encourage people to quit smoking," said company spokeswoman Sally Beatty. "My Time to Quit is designed to encourage people who are thinking about quitting to speak to their healthcare provider about the benefits of quitting smoking and available treatment options," she said.”
Isn't it refreshing when Big Pharma stands up for itself?
Perhaps the most astounding and important paragraph in the article is the following:
"With unbranded ads, you don't have the 'fair balance' requirement," said Rich Gagnon of the ad agency DraftFCB, part of Interpublic Group of Companies Inc., in New York. "Imagine paying millions to run that ad campaign, and having to use up 30 seconds to list all the problems," said Mr. Gagnon, who has several pharmaceutical clients.”
“Imagine” paying millions to talk about risk? I should say its money well spent. Does Mr. Gagnon really believe that disease awareness ads are just a slick way to sidestep providing fair balance? If he was misquoted or if his comment was taken out of context, he should strive to correct the record a pleine vitesse.
Ms. Mundy also goes to Ruth Day – with whom we often disagree on DTC issues:
“Ruth Day of Duke University, a frequent critic of direct to consumer ads, gave the commercial and website high marks for useful information. An expert in how medical ads work on consumers, Dr. Day said mytimetoquit.com is relatively easy and gets to lists of side effects quickly.”
And we’ll leave it at that.
