Seeing Through Big Pharma’s Slick Marketing Tactics

by Kim Sarros

The marketing of prescription drugs is prevalent on television and in print with advertisements featuring the familiar face of a celebrity spokesperson or actors depicting the vibrant, happy results of using the latest wonder drug.  Direct to consumer pharmaceutical marketing, currently permitted only in the United States and New Zealand, is a lucrative proposition for makers of prescription drugs, with an estimated $1.6 billion in advertising dollars spent by the pharmaceutical industry in the first half of 2007 alone.  The return on investment for these efforts is staggering, with a Kaiser Foundation study revealing that for every dollar spent on pharmaceutical ads, drug makers received a $4.20 increase in sales revenue (Rosch, 2008).   In one example, sleeping pill prescriptions increased 60% from 2004 to 2005 as a result of $345 million in advertising spent by two drug makers (Graydon, 2008).

Celebrities are often not aware of the dangers of the drugs they endorse. In 2004, Dorothy Hamill received criticism after Vioxx was withdrawn from the market but claimed she was never warned of the drug’s risks.

Direct to consumer marketing of prescription drugs is a practice bordering on unethical behavior by pharmaceutical companies who have placed a higher priority on profit than on the overall well being of the patient.  Pharmaceutical companies aggressively promote their newest drugs, and consumer perception is that these newer drugs are better than older, generic, or less expensive options.  One issue is that long-term negative side effects of newer medications are not yet known (Rosch, 2008), unwittingly putting many users of these prescriptions at risk of injury or death.  Even though pharmaceutical companies are required to the list side effects of their medications in advertising, these are usually downplayed while the benefits of the drug are highlighted or exaggerated.

The propensity of some pharmaceutical manufacturers to contribute to “the medicalization of normal life” (Graydon, 2008, p. 111) by developing prescription solutions to issues such as PMS and shyness is another concern.  In her book Our Daily Meds, Melody Petersen highlights this practice with the case of the drug Detrol, originally developed for incontinence.  This condition represented a fairly small market for the manufacturer so the company extended their reach to a larger market of people who were bothered by frequent urination, an issue formerly managed by means other than medication.  By creating a new condition requiring medication, the manufacturer, Pharmacia was able to broaden their audience for Detrol and boost their profits at the same time (Petersen, 2009).

Pharmaceutical ads generate consumer demand for prescription medications through marketing the illusion that there is a solution in pill format for whatever ails us.  Some of the more insidious ads tout the name of the drug yet fail to mention the ailment it is designed to treat, instead ending their ad with a statement such as “Ask your doctor if ‘New Med’ is right for you.”  These ads drive consumers to visit their physicians seeking information about the latest prescription solution.  In one study, actors in the guise of patients visited doctors’ offices requesting a specific medication.  Those who asked for the medication by name were usually prescribed the drug, even though they didn’t show symptoms of the condition the drug was intended to treat (Graydon, 2008).

This type of marketing contributes to a medical culture where patients seek a fast, convenient fix in the form of prescription drug remedies.  Additionally, doctors faced with patient requests for prescriptions based on advertising usually don’t discuss alternative solutions (Graydon, 2008).  Dr. Len Saputo succinctly sums this idea up in his book A Return to Healing: “Patients and physicians alike have been taught to reflexively turn to pharmaceutical drugs to manage most health issues.” (Saputo, 2009, p. 119).

The pharmaceutical marketing approach encourages neglect of the best interest of the patient from a holistic perspective.  While there’s no doubt that many people must take medication to manage life-threatening or chronic illnesses, and that no one should stop their medications “cold turkey,” there are many who needlessly take prescription medications under the influence of slick pharmaceutical ad campaigns.  When doctors write prescriptions as a response to advertising-driven demand, they miss the big picture of health.  In response to patient requests for prescription medications, physicians often neglect to address underlying issues that have led to the condition.  Many times, once the root issue is uncovered, there are steps that can be taken before relying on prescription medications.  Sometimes a simple lifestyle change can lead to marked improvement of a health issue.

Reducing the influence of pharmaceutical advertising involves patient education, which starts with educating health care professionals about alternative means to treat illness – a challenging proposition considering the prescription drug industry is entrenched in many medical schools.  In addition, pharmaceutical companies often supply lucrative perks and product samples to physicians, and advertise in medical journals, essentially surrounding physicians with a pharmaceutical healing model.  In today’s managed care environment, many physicians are also time-challenged, and have highlighted lack of time as an impediment to health promotion in their practices (Calderón, Balagué, Cortada, & Sánchez, 2011).  The ability to discern issues that have led to the patient’s condition, and providing education on alternatives to pharmaceutical fixes takes more time than simply writing a prescription, yet allowing time for physicians to interact with their patients is an important component of promoting lifestyle change and healthy alternatives to pharmaceuticals.

In a perfect world, direct to consumer advertising of prescription drugs would be banned, as it is in most other countries.  Because pharma is an influential industry in America, I don’t foresee any change in the near future.  Alternately, I would propose to decrease the impact of direct to consumer pharmaceutical ads with a three-pronged approach:

1. Ads should either feature an up-front disclaimer for television advertising or disclose in bold print for print media, how much a celebrity or physician endorser is being paid by the pharmaceutical company to promote the drug in question, particularly since these individuals create a sense of trustworthiness on behalf of the drug being marketed.
2. Side effects should feature prominently in ads.  Warnings should be bold and visibly placed as a precursor to text in print ads.  In radio or television format, the ad should begin with an announcer following a script to the effect of “The following product may cause x, y, and z side effects, including death.”
3. Doctors should be allowed time to interact with patients and should receive training in methods to seek out underlying issues from a perspective that addresses mind, body, emotion and community, with a focus on alternatives to pharmaceuticals.  I realize this last point means a huge shift in the way we do medicine, including completely changing the way the insurance industry reimburses physicians, as well as retooling the content of physician education at the medical school level.  It will take time and a strong grass-roots effort to make this shift.

As health educators and champions of honesty in marketing, it falls to us to push for reforms in how the pharmaceutical industry markets their products.  We also must lead the drive to educate our clients on the dangers of prescribing unnecessary medications, while promoting healthy alternatives to prescription pharmaceuticals, including diet and lifestyle change as the first line of defense from disease.  Education is the most powerful tool at our disposal for creating awareness and impacting change on the pharmaceutical industry’s marketing tactics.

References Used
Calderón, C., Balagué, L., Cortada, J., & Sánchez, L.. (2011).  Health promotion in primary care: How should we intervene? A qualitative study involving both physicians and patients. BMC Health Services Research, 11(1), 62.  Retrieved February 8, 2012, from ProQuest Health and Medical Complete. (Document ID: 2503388871).

Graydon, S. (2008). Pushing prescriptions: Direct to consumer drug advertising.  Alive: Canada’s Natural Health & Wellness Magazine, (304), 108-113.

Rosch, P. (2008), Stress from deceptive drug ads and corruption.  (2008). Health & Stress, (5), 2-13. Retrieved February 6, 2012, from ProQuest Health and Medical Complete.

Saputo, L.(2009).  A return to healing: Radical health care reform and the future of medicine.  San Rafael, CA: Origin Press.