?Drug companies love finding new indications…?
-Bob Ehrlich
One of the reasons for the rise of DTC spending in 2014 is the advertising done by brands adding new indications. We see several brands with three indications. Humira is a good example of a drug that started advertising for rheumatoid arthritis, then for plaque psoriasis and lately for Crohn’s Disease.
Botox, which started advertising to remove facial lines, has recently added migraine and urinary incontinence. Lyrica, has extended its advertising to pain from shingles, fibromyalgia and diabetic neuropathy. When a new indication has been added most brands choose to start a new campaign singularly focused on the new claim. As we all know DTC ads are so long as it is, so adding an indication to an existing ad would be hard to do in 60 seconds.
We also have the issue of claim compatibility. By that I mean the connection between the indications to consumers. Botox helping to hide wrinkles has little connection to the benefit of helping headaches in a consumer?s mind. Rheumatoid Arthritis would not immediately be connected with Crohn’s. While the science can be explained as to why the drug works in both, the consumer would not get the connection easily if advertised in one ad.
Cialis is one of the drugs trying to combine indications. Known for helping erectile dysfunction, it has recently added BPH, which is an enlarged prostate condition causing urinary urgency. I have mixed feelings about the combo here. While both benefits relate to the male organ, getting a good erection and peeing less seem disconnected to me as a consumer in the target age.
Cialis has a nice, long term used story line in its regular ads for erectile dysfunction, using playful encounters leading to romance. Trying to add peeing less frequently to the erectile dysfunction claim concerns me in terms of synergy. I assume the brand team debated this and felt okay about adding the new claim to erectile dysfunction. They are currently running a distinct ad from their traditional campaign to introduce the dual claim. My feeling is it is still advisable to run a single benefit ad for this important new claim.
There is a lot of good from drug marketing in creating awareness of treatment options. Mostly, it provides the financial incentive to develop products that can solve patient problems. Yes, drug companies make money off solving those problems. I am sorry if that offends those who want to take profit out of medicine.
?
Drug companies love finding new indications for an existing compound. It can create a blockbuster extension for years. For the cost of a clinical study costing millions the reward can be billions. The advertising decision on how to announce a new claim is critical. We see most companies conduct an entirely new campaign, but Cialis shows adding to an existing claim is also an option.
No comments yet.