Direct Advertising In The Pharmaceutical Industry

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.

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

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).”

Bell continued to interview a journalist named Greg Critser, who authored the book “Generation RX,” which is about the relationship between America and pharmaceuticals. He exclaims that drug companies advertise their product so much that it internalizes inside individuals that the drugs they’re selling are good and not poison, then he continued where the drug is somewhat of a poison where it kills another thing off to benefit another. Pharmaceutical companies also lobby the political side of their ambitions to cover up the negative side of their

Commercialized on TV as the only solution to our numerous problems, Big Pharma preys on people who struggle through life. Although seemingly meant to heal, pharmaceutical drugs have destroyed countless American lives instead because gullible patients rush to their doctor demanding prescriptions. Want to lose weight? Give me a pill. Want more intense sexual encounters? I need a pill. Want to grow longer, shinier hair? Hey, I’ll just pop a pill. Although some medical conditions do require medication, not every case of discomfort should be treated with highly addictive prescription meds nor should those drugs be trafficked via commercials that target a hypochondriacal nation of couch potatoes too lazy to put forth the time and effort to prevent disease. Instead, far too many Americans simply find a quick fix at their local pharmacy. These prescriptions lead to addiction and in the end death. Therefore, if I could take away any one invention from mankind it would be the crass commercialization of pharmaceuticals.

Annually, the US spends $300 billion dollars on pharmaceutical drugs. This is due to the over-diagnosing of certain conditions. Everyday, Americans are exposed to an enormous amount of advertisements for medications of all kinds. For example, 1 in 10 Americans are taking

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

In Our Daily Meds: How the Pharmaceutical Companies Transformed Themselves into slick Marketing Machines and Hooked the Nations on Prescription Drugs, Peterson, covers biotechnology for the Los Angeles Times, claims that the Pharmaceutical companies are taking advantage of Americans. Peterson proceeds by using facts that support her claim that Pharmaceutical companies are making profit from Americans, by convincing the people they cannot function without their meds. Peterson goes deeper by making points that America is the biggest Pharmaceutical company, at which they produce unnecessary products. To continue, Peterson also leads into how Pharmaceutical companies advertise to the most profitable target consumers. Peterson uses Secretary 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.

Think about how often you are watching your favorite show on television and all of a sudden you are interrupted by a commercial. The commercial begins with the following words, “Do you suffer with …” and this question follows with the following sentence, “if so, then talk to your doctor about … (the name of the medication that is being advertised)”. These prescription drug advertisements are being shown all over the United States multiple times a day. It is these advertisements that are used for publicity and marketing that are affecting Americans. The majority of Americans engage in watching television. The prescription drug advertisements do have a positive impact on Americans but, these advertisements do more harm than good.

Yes, there is an impact on the pharmaceutical company, like those in the US as a result of differential prices between that country and other nations.

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