Pharmaceutical Ads – Why?
It’s not the news content that is depressing these days but the commercials that fund the news. Think of every possible life threatening and lifestyle disrupting disease you could possibly acquire and you will be reminded of it in between the murder, mayhem and natural disasters you tuned in to learn about.
For the most part, the news is impersonal, in that most of us can sit there and say: “Those poor people.” “Isn’t it a shame what happened to them.” Of course the news people today are encouraged to get the viewer engaged; make it more personal: “Four hundred die in torrential rains and flooding – could it happen here – ten ways to protect yourself – at eleven.”
Excuse me, this is the desert. The last torrential rain was a few million years ago but now you have me worried. You have successfully transferred the feeling of sadness and dread for the unfortunate thousands of miles away to my own back yard and have me worrying if it will drain properly if we get more than an inch of rain in the next 24 hours.
The pharmaceutical ads use the same tactic: they personalize the danger and the threat. “Do you have this symptom?” Well, the way it’s described, of course we do – doesn’t everyone? “Are you at risk?” Of course you are.
While watching the commercial you switch from “those” poor people to “I could have that disease.” The networks are concerned that people aren’t watching the news on television as much as they did previously. Could it be they find it too distressing? Not the news but being bombarded by every ailment known to mankind. I’ve counted up to eight separate pharmaceutical ads during one news program. All those people just like us (slim, young, smiling, happy, people) who are so pleased they took those drugs and look forward to taking that pill once a day or week for the rest of their lives, with no fear whatsoever of the side effects, which are listed so quickly and are most likely more damaging than the ailment itself.
On occasion, the ads suddenly disappear only to find out that someone at the understaffed and under funded Food and Drug Administration (FDA) managed to find the time to read an article in a medical journal that indicated the drug in question being touted by the pharmaceutical company doesn’t do what the ad claimed it does and the side effects are more prevalent than the company claimed. We also subsequently learn that the “independent” reports and analysis used to promote the products were actually funded, at least in part, by the company and the doctors writing the favorable “independent” analysis were paid by the company.
Recently, one of the network newscasts contained a brief report (are there any other kind these days) on the problems with pharmaceutical advertising which truly surprised me. It was not the report itself but the advertising content supporting that newscast: the usual prescription pharmaceutical ads were missing that day. I suppose it could be a coincidence. Then again, those prone to conspiracy theories might infer that someone at the network provided advance notice to an individual with control over which ads would be airing that day and gave them the opportunity to replace the pharmaceutical ads that would normally have aired with something more gentile and thereby avoid any form of embarrassment. That certainly wouldn’t happen though would it? The pharmaceutical industry doesn’t really have that much power does it?
Does pharmaceutical advertising directly to the consumer
actually work? It must or the companies
wouldn’t be spending so much money on it.
A recent report showed that the
It is probably also not a coincidence that the cost of the
same drug is less around the world than in the
Lobbying by the pharmaceutical industry has proved to be extremely successful for them with both the legislative and executive branches of government. Of late, since the Republican Party is in power, most of the funds have gone in that direction. However, smelling carrion in the wind, the money flow has shifted of late with the majority of it now going to the Democrats. The global pharmaceutical industry maintains no loyalty to any political party or, for that matter, any particular county; that is not the reason they exist.
Global corporations are in business to create profits for
their shareholders and management and there is nothing wrong with that. That is their mission; that is why they
exist. However, it was recognized during
the early part of the last century that democratically elected governments are created
for the benefit and protection of the governed and thereby have a
responsibility to make sure the public is not being abused, mislead and
otherwise taken advantage of unreasonably.
It would be nice to see the
© 2008 Timothy Holland First
Published:
Note:
This opinion/essay is the property of the author. It is offered for use by individuals who are also free to copy and make it available to other individuals as they wish. Anyone wishing to make use of the material for commercial purposes must seek permission of the author, who can be reached at Impressions@Tim-Holland.com. Such permission will not be unreasonably refused.