They all seem to involve seemingly normal people going about their day, with smiles on their faces, doing interesting things; well, interesting to them but not usually anything I would ever do.
Sure I get it: these people have medical conditions, but are still happy because of this drug.
But are there no other advertising strategies that work? Why do they all have to be the same? And why is it not always obvious which condition(s) the drug treats?
It’s not always obvious what the drug is treating because it has alleviated the symptoms, allowing the user to live a normal, happy life.
As for other approaches, do you really want to see desperately ill people grasping for a bottle of pills and trying to choke down a life-saving dose?
My guess is that they’re heavily focus grouped, and the best approaches are always the same.
Speaking as an advertising strategist and researcher – this is undoubtedly it.
Pharma companies throw a lot of money at making sure that their ads are optimized – that they stand out, and make people interested in (and feel good about) their drugs; as a result, there winds up being a similarity to them.
Take a look at the Medicare plan advertising from the big insurance companies (Aetna, Humana, UnitedHealthcare, etc.) – they are all nearly identical, because the ad agencies have figured out the formula that works. (No, I’m not talking about the sleazier Medicare ads, the ones with Joe Namath, Jimmie Walker, or Bill Shatner; those are from a different kind of company, though those, too, tend to be similar to each other within their genre.)
More like happy despite the effects of the drug in question:
Stranger
This is what I don’t get. If they’re all so similar, how does one stand out?
In terms of why the condition is not always obvious, it’s because pharmaceutical ads are vetted by the FDA. In order to claim that the drug treats a particular condition, the company must obtain “FDA approval” for that condition, which is a lengthy and expensive process, involving, among other things, doing large-scale clinical trials that demonstrate the drug is effective for that condition.
ETA: the long list of side effects is also required by the FDA. Not trying to be a shill for pharmaceutical companies, but every single word In those ads is there either because the FDA requires it, or the FDA specifically approved it.
And if it’s for a drug helping people with mild to moderate plaque psoriasis, in the second half of the commercial they’ll be doing all those things wearing clothing and utilizing camera angles that specifically show off their elbows.
It’s easy to mock side effect disclosures (I’ve done it myself) but listing these effects doesn’t signify that they’re likely to occur. What’s more important is what the ads are not required to tell you:
da.gov/drugs/prescription-drug-advertising/prescription-drug-advertising-questions-and-answers
I suspect we’d see a lot fewer TV ads for prescription drugs if most or all of the above information had to be disclosed.
It doesn’t have to, because no one is a potential customer for all of them. But if you have Condition X, and the ad starts out, “Do you have Condition X,” chances are you’re going to pay attention. Then you see people doing fun, active things, things Condition X may be preventing you from doing.
It won’t matter that the drug for Condition Y looks very similar, because you won’t be paying as much attention to that ad, just as Condition Y sufferers won’t be looking closely at the Condition X ad.
And each ad will be prominently featuring the kinds of activities that its respective disease inhibits.
I’m sure we’ve all had the experience of being ill, or temporarily incapacitated, and looking enviously at people who are well and able to easily do things we can’t. As someone with occasional vertigo, I certainly have been feeling this a lot lately.
Drug ads play into this nearly universal experience.
Catchy name, different colors, different 1970s pop songs which have been licensed as the drug’s “theme song.”
And this. Most of the drugs featured in these ads aren’t competing with each other, as they’re for different conditions or diseases.
Is Claridryl right for you?
And the very few that do complete against one another, like Cialis and Viagra, each have an identifiable hook.
If they state what condition is being treated, they have to state a lot of other things. This is both boring and bothersome. Arouse curiosity or target likely people elsewhere and reminded them to ask their doctor about Fershlugginer.
Since many medical conditions are associated with age or specific populations, the commercials naturally target this. Most people like the sports and sports teams they liked when they were ten and the music they liked when they were twenty. Activities are chosen with the target audience in mind. You might not care for them.
My favourite two commercials are an old guy playing the drums singing “I am more than my condition” - an unlikely anthem. And an empathetic, nurturing looking woman bragging “I know what Ferschlugginer is for! Do you? “.
I’m not disputing the general gist of your post, but on these two specific points:
Cost is ridiculously complex what with the involvement of third-party payors, the system of insurance tiers, variation among pharmacies, and prescription discount programs. There’d be no way to provide even a ballpark: it could be $250 for a month’s supply for one person, and $10 for another.
I don’t believe pharmaceutical companies show ads for compounds which have gone off-patent. It’s not financially worth it for them to do so. If you’re seeing a current ad, you know ipso facto there’s no generic.
Now that sounds like Peyronie’s Disease.
I have been fortunate to work with or be taught by two different people who know a lot about relative therapeutics and wrote very good books about them. I have not seen recent editions of these books, which are decidedly unenthusiastic about me-too drugs with higher costs and fewer benefits.
Therapeutic Choices and Drugs for the Canadian Emergency Physician may be outdated - I wish they would update them. A surprising number of drugs have very modest benefits. The favourite saying of one of these doctors was “that never should have been approved”. Emergency doctors need drugs that work. These tend to be very old and cheap, or occasionally very new and expensive. You don’t get a lot of drug reps at Emergency conferences.
Yeah, like how romantic it is to be on a beach holding hands with your girlfriend/wife/SO in two separate clawfoot tubs!
WTF?!? How the fuck did those tubs get on that beach? Do you know how heavy those suckers are? Who’s going to haul them away?
And why two?
And yet you’ll never forget it.
Every company in the world would sacrifice a dozen interns to a volcano for that success.
We nearly had a requirement for TV drug ads to provide this information back in 2019 (a judge blocked it at the last minute).
Pharmaceutical pricing is complex under the current model. But it might be illuminating for consumers to know what drug companies are charging major insurers and Medicare, as this has a considerable impact on what patients end up paying.
Mostly true, but there are exceptions. Enbrel, a biologic marketed for rheumatoid arthritis, was one of the drugs most advertised on TV in 2021, and there have been biosimilars (essentially generic versions) for several years.
Rather than tinker with what drug companies have to disclose in ads to consumers*, I’d prefer a ban on marketing of any product consumers are not allowed to buy directly.
*on the other hand, a simple voice-over disclosure of what the drug company spends per year on TV ads would be educational.