Television Defense-The Sequel
? |
|
?Mr. LaMattina?s column will only inflame critics.? |
I feel like Michael Corleone. I just thought I finished my defense of DTC television and now I am forced to get back in. This week(2/15) Forbes website ran a column from ex-Pfizer R&D chief John LaMattina titled ?Maybe it?s Time for Drug Companies to Drop TV Ads.? Now we must admit that when a former senior executive insider calls for the end of DTC, the critics will embrace his call as gospel.
Mr. LaMattina gives several reasons for his call. First he says many consumers find drug ads offensive. He cites the erectile dysfunction ads as examples. He says he is not sure this is the image drug companies want to have. I must disagree. Erectile dysfunction ads have greatly expanded the use of these pills and have made the condition something men more openly talk about. The drug industry need not apologize for helping millions of men regain a sex life.
He then goes on to say the Jarvick ads from Lipitor caused controversy. So what! He wonders whether the benefits of the Lipitor ads outweighed the negative publicity. What is his point? Pfizer changed the ads and Lipitor is still running television. Obviously Pfizer thinks the ads are getting people to stay on Lipitor and that is the point of the ads. Does he want drug companies to be afraid to sell their products?
He then cites the inclusion of side-effects as a negative of television. He says that the long list recited in ads will discourage use. There is no evidence of that. Consumers know drugs have side-effects and they appreciate knowing what could happen in rare instances. While no marketer likes to say the negative in ads, research shows that there is no harm to most drug brands by giving side-effects.
His fourth reason is that critics have convinced consumers that drug companies spend more on ads then on R&D. He says this is not true but he feels the wide presence of DTC ads have created this false impression. So is he saying that when faced with incorrect facts, the solution is to cave to the falsehoods and withdraw a useful form of communication? I remind him that before 1997, drug companies faced numerous criticisms on price, detailing, clinical trials, sampling, and drug safety withdrawals. Pre-1997 was not a halcyon period free of image problems. The drug companies need to make clear what they spend in DTC versus R&D and share that with the public. PhRMA can and should be doing that. Giving in is not the solution. Does anyone think Henry Waxman and Ralph Nader will stop attacking drug companies if DTC is ended?
He concludes his piece saying that if the drug industry stopped DTC on television, the public response would be overwhelmingly positive. He has no basis for that prediction. Consumers find DTC a net positive from the studies published to date. They learn from DTC, albeit with a buyer beware attitude. The only things the public wants are safer and cheaper drugs. Ending DTC will not make them cheaper or safer.
My fear is his piece will get much play despite it being anecdotal and not supported by any facts. Mr. LaMattina?s column will only inflame critics. His call will not be heeded by drug companies who know DTC works in increasing sales. Ending DTC would only make it easier for managed care and government agencies to push cheaper and often less effective drugs. The drug industry makes great products and should proudly market them and that includes television. I am sure every drug marketer has dealt with overly scared legal and regulatory people who, like Mr. LaMattina, seem to be overly sensitive to critics. DTC is not perfect, but ending it would be a huge mistake. What is next, ending sampling and detailing? Calling for an end to DTC is a slippery slope on the road to end most drug promotion.
Bob Ehrlich, Chairman
DTC Perspectives, Inc
Comments are closed.