By: intoallthat

intoallthat — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 21:08:46 +0000

There’s a whole separate rant for advertising pharmaceutical directly to hypochondiacs I’ll maybe take a couple of cheap jabs at (namely, the fact that it’s difficult to get FDA approval for new drugs, yet relatively easy to make up new diseases for drugs that already have approval and convince people that they’ve got them (restless leg syndrome, anyone?)), and then shelve for a later date. The point here is that the commercial skips all the formalities other disclaimer-heavy commercials observe and gets right to damage control. There’s no late-middle-aged man mixing things up by coming home on a motorcycle like Viagra. Or sad puppy owner trapped inside by allergens on a beautiful Spring afternoon like Zyrtec. Or restless sleeper with big day planned tomorrow with Ambien. It’s sort of like coming home to find your spouse/roommate/teenager standing in the hallway and greeting you with, “Now, before you go into the kitchen, I just want to tell you that that I’ve been telling you to replace the battery in the smoke detector for months now, and that tatty, old wallpaper totally needed to be replaced anyway.”

By: David

David — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:34:16 +0000

Isn’t one of the problems with advertising medications that the FCC places all sorts of restrictions on what can actually be broadcast? Print ads for meds have all sorts of fine print detailing a vast number of side effects, and a 30 second TV spot won’t be able to do that. As a result, most of a TV spot is going to be faced with the last two of your bullet points at the top, distraction and misdirection. There just isn’t time in the spot to go over a laundry list of benefits and side effects. It’ll be a highly successful ad then if it causes you to remember the drug’s name when you go to the doctor’s office; who cares what it actually does or doesn’t do.

Comments on: So it may cause death. I’ve had worse.

By: intoallthat

By: David