And if so, is that going to affect the kinds of shows we see?
Will older-skewing not be poison?
Will the advertising market have about as many side effects as most of those advertised drugs?
Just wondering out loud here -- I have zero data and I don't really know.
Any ad buyers or account types wanna weigh in?
10 comments:
Prescription drug manufacturers can't legally buy tv ads in Canada ... when you see them on tv, you are watching them stateside. Over the counter stuff is ok, though. But they can sponsor stuff. And online is fair game because there are no real standards and practices for online content.
They are probably what is keeping magazines afloat right now.
I should clarify my post. The USA and New Zealand are actually the only countries I know of that allow direct to consumer advertising for pharmaceuticals on TV. Other countries ban it for good reason, I think.
It comes down to an ethics question ... some feel that a person's inner hypochondriac will send them to their GPs asking for meds they don't need if they know too much about them and their symptoms.
Good case study on this issue is Paxil, which is made by GlaxoSmithKline. They were forced to pull their TV ads because a judge in California ruled against them over the use of the words "non habit forming" in their commercials and several people became badly addicted and had brutal withdrawal.
There is also some debate on whether they created a previously unused term for an illness, "social anxiety order", to market Paxil, which at the time of the lawsuit, was GlaxoSmithKline's most successful and profitable product worldwide. This is not a new practice but by far the most successful instance of it.
According to Harvard Medical School, in 2006, pharmaceutical companies spent approximately $5 billion on direct to consumer marketing campaigns, approximately 14 percent of their total promotional budget.
Industry experts have assumed that direct to consumer TV advertising works despite evidence for or against. I am inclined to agree that it does and am glad it is not allowed here.
Canadian TV stations and magazines ARE allowed to advertise drugs though as long as they don't mention the name of the drug or what it does. This is why there ares tonnes of ads with a packet of teeny tiny little pills...28 of them to be exact and young smiling women packing suitcases and enjoying their lives. Whatever could they be advertising?? or ads of sad forlorn people and a message at the end that simply says "talk to your doctor"...
I've researched the CMA and Big Pharma and for years they have been fighting to loosen the regulations more and more. I guess it depends in the end with the aging population who wins:)
Granted the BC pill ads are targeting a very different age group- but their product is so easy to identify the "you can't identify what you're selling" clause becomes laughable...
Yes. Amanda's right on the difference between the regs in the USA and Canada with Pharma. And yup, the co's are pushing hard to get the regs changed in Canada.
Can you say, "relief?"
If Prescription drugs can't be advertised in Canada or can but only if you don't name them, how come the NHL playoffs on both TSN and CBC are almost wall-to-wall with Viagara commercials that speak the V word?
Or do they make an exception when they know a lot of people who definitely need the product will be watching?
Do the Canadian Viagara ads actually physically say what they do - or just have happy men abandoning their lawnmowers? I believe and I could be totally wrong that you can name the product brand but you can't say what it does exactly. If that's changed and it may very well have it's because of CONSTANT lobbying on the part of big pharma. The law a few years back was that only ambiguous (debatable obviously) ads were allowed. But with all the simulcast ads we get from the states the whole thing seems moot anyway. I will say that I wasn't overly impressed with the CMA's stance when I dealt with them while researching a drug doc as a wee student. It seems that despite constant opposition from health professionals- they became more and more lax.
Maybe now you're allowed to say what the drug is, it's brand name, what it does and access a toll free line of doctors who'll prescribe it with few questions;)
A great pharma/Health Canada critic on the subject is Dr.Joel Lexchin- who I believe is still fighting the good fight.
Sorry for going on- it's something I've been passionate about for years:S
Amanda is right. The erectile drugs skate through because you'll notice the Canadian ones actually don't say what they *do* wink wink.
Talk to your doctor indeed.
Jim, I think you're supposed to infer that what the men in the ad are doing is what your pals the Harperites are doing to the country.
Oh snap.
So -- if all you have to do to get around the rules is "imply" what a drug does, what good are any regulations?
See a really unhappy guy. Somebody says "Prozac" and he's the life of the party. The point gets made and the drugs get sold despite the rules.
And if there were a Canadian medical drama -- and say a doctor on that show prescribed a real drug you can't advertise and it was shown to work:
a) would that be allowed?
b) how would anybody know product placement didn't pay for it?
And -- great to know you're going to the Rock, DMc. I'm sure Danny Williams is waiting with open arms ;)
I agree- the regs are totally useless Jim!
And can I say the Alesse ads that say "How do I look? Fl-alesse" make me hate being a girl;)
I once tracked the number of drug ads on the average 6:30 newscast on ABC. As I recall, it worked out to something like 4 out of 5, mostly for prescription drugs.
Gods save us.
Post a Comment