Direct To Consumer Advertising Effects

Every day, companies present the people with advertisements everywhere they go. Advertisements have become very prevalent in today’s society nowadays focusing in on a negative connotation. Advertisement has become an effective way for producers to display their new products. In present day, they come in forms of billboards, flyers, e-mails, and even text messages. It is widely known that companies create advertisements to persuade people to buy specific products or goods; however, it is not widely known that advertisements can make a negative impact on today’s society. The companies manipulate people’s mind and emotions, swaying people by new promotions and therefore generating a strong desire to fit into the society, that causes them to make inessential expenditures. Advertisements pose a critical impact on the American culture.

The FDA has Real Cost campaign advertisements that are used through a variety of different media vehicles such as “TV, radio, print, digital, and out of home states.” (FDA 2016) These advertisements are displayed through every media possible and it would be hard not to encounter it in form for the few years it has been present for the public to see. Throughout my essay, I will discuss how these advertisements are used and whether they are effective or not towards the audience in preventing smoking.

Ads for pharmaceutical drugs are everywhere. They are in magazines, on television and radio, on billboards, and on the little bags that you get from the pharmacist. These days it is difficult to get away from all the drug advertising. All these ads are for products that require a doctor's prescription. The goal of advertising is to increase profits. By advertising so heavily for drugs that the majority of the population does not need, pharmaceutical companies attempt to create as large a consumer base as they can. In advertising directly to the consumer, the drug companies accomplish two objectives. First, they get information directly to the consumer. Second, they promote the product and

Despite this, the industry did not alter its ways, maintaining that its ad campaigns were "educational," and that people were able to make their own decisions about what they purchased (Payer 66). However, it is evident that the advertisements produced by the pharmaceutical industry are designed for the very purpose of making it difficult for people to make these decisions independently. This marketing produces a large number of often deceptive, misleading tactics which have a large influence on both consumers and medical practitioners. The chief beneficiaries of this marketing are not the consumers but the pharmaceutical companies themselves.

There are proponents of DTC prescription drug ads. They argue that “the ads inform patients about diseases and possible treatments, encourage people to seek medical advice, help remove stigma associated with medical conditions, and provide needed sales revenue to fund costly research and development (R&D) of new drugs (Drug Ads ProCon.org).” On the flip side opponents argue “that DTC drug ads misinform patients, promote drugs before long-term safety-profiles can be known, medicalize and stigmatize normal conditions and bodily functions like wrinkles and low testosterone, waste valuable medical appointment time, and have led to our society’s overuse of prescription drugs (Drug Ads ProCon.org).”

In 2015, the pharmaceutical industry spent over 27 billion dollars on advertising. The two greatest components of this effort were promotional advertising and free medication sampling, which the pharmaceuticals invested 15.5 and 5.7 billion dollars respectively (“Persuading the Prescribers”). Promotional advertising involves direct contact with health professionals, the most common being extravagant lunch conferences held for physicians and their staff. On the other hand, sampling involves distributing free sample of medications to physicians, who then have a choice of providing these samples to patients. As a result of these methods, the industry has seen revenue around $400 billion with 90% of physicians having a relationship with a drug company (Campbell 2007). Moreover, the prices of prescriptions continue to rise; a copay of a generic drug is $11.72, preferred brand drug is $36.37 and a specialty drug is $58.37 (Coleman and Geneson 2014). Although the profits are immense in the numbers demonstrated above, it is no surprise when pharmaceutical drug companies elevate their prices even more. For instance, recently Turing Pharmaceuticals raised the price of their medication Daraprim from $13.50 to $750. Keep in mind, this medication is used for threatening parasitic infections, aids, and cancer with alternative options currently found to be inefficient (Pollack 2015). Another example of this practice involves cycloserine, a drug used to

New Zealand is the only other developed nation in the world where prescription drugs are advertised directly to consumers. The American pharmaceutical industry used to abide by a term “ethical marketing,” meaning that drug companies could only market to physicians. On the other hand, there is a valid argument for allowing direct-to-consumer drug advertisements as the flow of information and transparency are beneficial. However, there obviously needs to be some checks and balances. This experiment began with a print advertisement in 1981 in Reader’s Digest and the first TV ad took place in 1983. At that time, the FDA had several rules in place requiring companies to offer a fair and balanced presentation. In sum, this was a responsible era of advertising.

We in America tend to take medications for almost any problem we have, from headaches to gastrointestinal pain, to more serious chronic disorders such as depression and attention deficit disorder. While many of the uses of such medications may be necessary and legitimate, many are not, and due to this fact, many people become dependent on medications, mentally, and or physically. This problem is not simply the fault of the individual; in fact, the blame can also be placed upon the medical community, and the pharmaceutical companies who produce the drugs. How often can one turn on the television to see advertisements for Claritin, Aspirin, Pepto-Bismol, or even Zoloft or Ritalin? The pharmaceutical industry is motivated by monetary

Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs has attracted several controversies, especially from people opposed to it. Some of the major arguments that have been raised include the possibility of the advertising to be a blatant manipulation of the public, the huge potential benefits to pharmaceutical companies and significant damages to the health care system. However, direct-to-consumer advertising of prescriptions drugs should be carried out properly because the advantages of this measure outweigh its disadvantages. One of the major reasons for the advertisement of

There are many direct to consumer advertising for prescription drugs. On television, magazines, radio etc, you see the most recent advertisements for prescription drugs. After some people see the advertisements they soon rush over to their doctor and their illness and life would be perfectly pain and stress free. Making the public conscious of options for treatment is not a bad thing. But these false advertisements are misleading consumers onto unnecessary treatment.

Direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising (DTCPA), defined as “an effort (usually via popular media) made by a pharmaceutical company to promote ... prescription products directly to patients,” is a common practice and an important issue that impacts the health of U.S. citizens, the prices of prescription drugs and health care, and doctor-patient relationships (Ventola). This paper will discuss the historical and political lens of DTCPA: how and why changes to DTCPA were made in the past, how current politics suggests a possible change to decrease or limit future DTCPA could be accomplished, and specific regulatory aspects that require more attention. This is important because in order to propose reasonable changes, we need to understand which would likely succeed in the near future and which are most needed.

In the articles “Prescription Drug Ads Should Be Better Regulated” and “Prescription Drug Advertising Empowers Patients”, the authors discuss the impact of prescription drug advertising on drug costs, consumer behaviors and consumers and Doctors’ relationship. While pharmaceutical companies support prescription drug advertising because they think that its effects are positive, Naomi Freundlich claims that prescription drug advertise should be more controlled. Because “Administration is underfunded and lacks the resources to enforce many of the regulations that are already in place” “big pharmaceutical companies must do a better job with self-regulation” (Naomi) in order to reduce the negative consequences of prescription drugs ads.

“American television viewers see as many as 16 hours of prescription drug advertisement each year,” (Frosch). Marketing done by pharmaceutical companies has been widely debated on whether it is ethical or not. The marketing done by pharmaceutical companies is unethical because of the negative effects it has on both consumers and medical professionals. The increased use of advertising by pharmaceutical companies has lead to the normalization of the use of prescription drugs.

Prescription drug advertisements have a negative impact on Americans by causing them to become hypochondriacs in a certain way. A hypochondriac is someone who believes and becomes obsessed with the idea that they have a serious condition that was and is undiagnosed. This problem continues to have a negative affect because it can lead to unnecessarily prescribing. Patients are going into their doctors and they are requesting to be put on these drugs because of the great affects that they have heard that they do for them. In the article, Direct-to-Consumer Pharmaceutical Advertising, the author states that in a study done over this and the results were that, when these request were made at about 40 percent of doctor visits and during this time more

Pharmaceutical companies should attempt to be as transparent as possible when marketing prescription drugs to the public. Their marketing efforts should not only convey the benefits of the prescription drug, but also easily convey the possible risks associated with the prescription drugs. Many patients may tend to think the benefits outweigh the potential risks of prescription drugs and may pressure their physician to prescribe it. Due to the way the prescription drug is marketed, the consumer may believe the