One of the hottest DTC categories is atrial fibrillation. Pradaxa, Xarelto, and Eliquis are fighting for share in this new category. These drugs are fighting to replace warfarin, a drug that thins blood but requires frequent monitoring to make sure the levels are correct. For elderly people, going to the doctor frequently to get a blood test is a pain, literally.
?They are well done, but...using typical DTC style creative.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? -Bob Ehrlich
These new drugs do not require this routine testing, making it an enormous convenience for the patient and for physicians who do not have to tweak the levels prescribed. These three drugs were introduced in the past three years and since they are all relatively new, an ad blitz has been launched.
Pradaxa was first with a good campaign educating patients on this new drug and category. Xarelto followed and then Eliquis, both with heavy DTC spending. The issue for all three drugs is trying to distinguish their point of difference with consumers. All three commercials use actor-portrayed consumers in their current campaigns. They are somewhat similar in the main theme.
Pradaxa is a bit different from the others in that the daughter of a senior citizen is the one to introduce the product to the dad. The ad says Pradaxa is proven more effective than warfarin in reducing stroke and does not require regular blood monitoring and no dietary restrictions. Xarelto focuses on once a day dosing and no routine monitoring using an active senior male actor who ?stays on the go.” Eliquis has a male actor spokesperson telling us the story of why he switched from warfarin. He wanted to see if he could ?up his game? and asked his doctor about Eliquis. He says Eliquis is more effective than warfarin at preventing strokes, reduces risks of bleeding, and does not require routine blood monitoring. To see all these ads, check out?ispot.tv?which a new site that has every drug ad easily found for playback.
Is a consumer going to distinguish between these three ads? Or, does it even matter since they all help build the category awareness of warfarin alternatives? My take is it will be hard for consumers to tell the difference between brands based on the ads. All three have similar claims about benefits. They say they reduce stroke and avoid blood monitoring. Xarelto is once a day versus twice a day dosing. Eliquis says it is more effective against bleeding versus warfarin which is not said by the others.
The consumer reality is that warfarin is a pain to use and all three brands make the same claim about no more monitoring. All three say their drug will reduce strokes. So what is a consumer left with to tell the difference? Once a day dosing is a good claim from Xarelto but is it enough to stand out? Pradaxa has the benefit of being first and had about a year lead time on advertising. Eliquis adds a claim about reducing bleeding risk versus warfarin.
My conclusion is no one branded ad stands out as better creatively. They all do the job of communicating category benefits and Xarelto makes a strong claim about once a day dosing which might give it a slight edge. I would be very interested to know if after seeing all three ads in a commercial pod; would consumers accurately recall anything that is unique to a brand? These ads fit into my meat and potatoes category. They are well done, but are ads using typical DTC style creative.
Each tries a creative nuance to make it different but a nuance may not be enough to give consumers a reason to ask for a particular brand name. Pradaxa uses the caregiver route using the daughter, Xarelto shows an active guy on the go, and Eliquis has the actor give us the fair balance seated at his kitchen table. None of these creative devices would probably get great scores for uniqueness in the DTC world. Of course, each company has their internal test scores and I am sure they all did well in pre-launch quantitative testing. I am not sure if they are testing against each other in the real world, however, and that is critical to getting an effective result.
Whatever the consumers? ability to tell the difference, there is no doubt that the media tonnage of the three brands is succeeding in building awareness of warfarin alternatives. For that reason I expect continued high media spending by each brand.
Comments are closed.