I've realized for quite a while now that the true function of pharmaceutical advertising on TV is not to sell drugs, but to buy influence over the media. But lately, I've begun to wonder just how clear big pharma wants to make this fact.
Case in point - this past weekend, I began to see TV ads for Insulin! OH YEAH!... I gotta catch me some of that cool diabetes, so's _I_ can get my doctor to give ME a taste that Insulin stuff!
Seriously, friends - is there a person in this nation who KNOWS s/he is diabetic, but doesn't at least KNOW about Insulin? Does ANYONE expect to see a spike in Insulin use because of this ad, which does NOT, by the way, discuss any of the warning signs of diabetes? (That, at least, could be considered a half-hearted attempt at public service.)
At least we're not seeing the ads for herpes meds anymore. Hmmm - maybe I should get to work on a campaign for HIV meds ... get a jump on the industry.
Comments
And, of course, the advertising drives up the cost of drugs.
An amusing short music video ...a parody on TV advertising. "The Drugs I Need"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgoB2h_Wkco
Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"
We used to have laws prohibiting such advertisements.
Gee, what else started going wrong about the same time that rule changed?
Due to the "cost-plus" argument (which is not a valid entrepreneurial one, but rather a sense-of-entitlement one) the more they spend the more they can charge.
If we can't get away from "cost-plus" agreements, we should at least clearly state what is proper to include as a "cost" and what isn't.
Only Direct Costs, which no-matter-how-much-contrived-the-books, can never include advertising, bonuses, etc.