I have spent many hours the past few weeks reviewing DTC advertising. We are in the final stages of judging award winners in many media categories to be presented at the?DTC National?in April. I have been impressed overall with the quality of the ads. While DTC ads are the butt of many jokes, parodies and serious criticism, I think they mostly do a great job.
?Advertising agencies have done a strong job overall...? - Bob Ehrlich
DTC ads on television and print have the job of convincing consumers to ask their doctor for more information. They are not meant to tell the whole story, just to gain consumer interest enough to mention the brand or condition to their doctor. Overall I would give the industry a B grade based on the mass media awareness building ads.
Most ads are clear about the product benefit and possible use for consumers having the condition advertised. Some ads try to do too much and use a shotgun approach to their benefit story. Most ads, however, focus on the main benefit. I think more ads can be differentiated better from competitors. In a past column I said Viagra and Cialis do a brilliant job in staking out a unique creative identity. More categories need to do this to improve my creative assessment.
There is no doubt that it is very hard to make DTC ads interesting given the fair balance requirements. Clearly it is easier for drugs with fewer side effects and warnings. I think a 2 minute commercial is very hard to do, when the majority of time is spent on warnings. Most consumers will judge the ad very quickly so those first 10 seconds are the key. Ads with a strong creative device are really critical to grab attention. If you have a new cure for cancer you need not worry how you tell the audience. For most products, which have less miraculous benefits, grabbing attention is important.
I like a number of DTC ads with good creative hooks. The giant man in Tamiflu, the little porcupine in Fluzone, the elephant in Spiriva, the bath tub in Cialis, the cartoon animation in Abilify, the big purple pill in Nexium are just a few I like. There are very few bad ads out there. Most companies do quantitative testing to get ads that at least are average. The problem is that in the real word of television viewing behavior average is not good enough.
What I think very important is to start creative development very far in advance of launch. Too many drug companies see advertising development as a last step in launch preparation. You really need at least 18 months to do a launch ad justice. Every visual and word is important in that 30 seconds of sell copy, assuming a 60 second ad with half devoted to side effects and warnings.
I find many of the weaker ads in print media. Too many are copy heavy, as if every benefit needs to be in the first paragraph. Many visuals are small and will not have stopping power. Too many ads are hard to read because type is too stylized or in a color hard to read against the background. I have to give print a C+ grade while television gets a B+. It was a lot harder to find outstanding print ads than it was for television. I suggest all brand managers look at the Starch scores for drug ads as there are clear guidelines for what makes good ads.
Given all the limitations drug ads have, however, the advertising agencies have a done a strong job overall and should be congratulated. There is room for improvement, particularly in competitive differentiation and in print ads. A creative grade of B is not bad but not quite Dean?s list.
Comments are closed.