Roche Exec Attacks Consumer Advertising (I Think He Has Some Good Points)
The blogosphere has been buzzing about statements from a Roche executive that direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising was "the single worst decision for the industry."
By on Dec 4, 2008The blogosphere has been buzzing about statements from a Roche executive that direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising was "the single worst decision for the industry."
Reported by Reuters, the story broke after William Burns spoke at a conference in London. Burns heads Roche's pharmaceutical group. A few highlights from his speech include:
>> "When industry says we're spending all the money on R&D but actually it's spending it on TV advertising to preserve margins, it doesn't get much credibility."
>> "You've got two extremes on the planet, where we [pharmaceutical companies]are given access to the public in America, which is too much, and in Europe we're not given access to information."
Bold statements to be certain. But might he be right?
[For the full story as reported by Reuters, visit http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINL247649320081202?rpc=44.]
First, it depends on how one defines "DTC." In its true definition, it means marketing directly to consumers no matter what the channel - print, TV, Web, PR, and so on. But many use it (erroneously) to specifically talk about TV advertising. And this is precisely the problem. While all those side-effect-laden TV ads were permeating primetime and supposedly selling lots of pills, pharmaceutical companies' approval ratings were tanking.
Defining DTC strictly by its high visibility on TV isn't fair to the rest of the channels.
Perhaps TV's (push) shotgun approach of broadcasting messages to the masses has indeed been harmful.
Example: I am a thirty-something female, hardly the target market for Viagra. But I cannott tell you how many times I have seen the "Viva Viagra" commercial on TV here in the U.S., and it gets on my nerves every time.
I do not have erectile dysfunction, but I DO have high cholesterol. So when I go online to learn about it, I am actively seeking information about it (pull). When I am served relevant ads or Web site links, I find those appropriate and even helpful, as opposed to interruptive.
Also, it has been said that all this mass awareness leads to mass medication use. And perhaps mass use is not always appropriate or what's best for consumers. Also, mass use uncovers previously unknown safety issues that lead to Vioxx-like situations. (Vioxx was pulled from the U.S. market following safety issues that didn't surface until it had been on the market for some time). The Vioxx problem was then highly publicized and further painted the bad picture of Big Bad Pharma, etc. You get the picture.
Here is another way of thinking about it: The way DTC is allowed for - but still highly regulated - in the U.S., it does not allow for an open dialogue or relationship with the consumer. Pharma companies continually deliver carefully crafted, laboriously scrutinized one-way consumer messages. But with few exceptions does a conservative pharma company actually speak with consumers in a back-and-forth conversation. With the rise of social media and the power ever-further-shifting to the consumer, this becomes an ever bigger and bigger problem.
I am definitely not saying I agree 100% with Mr. Burns. Based on the small clips I have seen of his speech, I think he has oversimplified things and made some bold assumptions. Consumers do need to be informed and educated about their health and treatment options, but television's short format does not allow for that. I also believe that the way U.S. marketers are forced to restrict consumer conversations today is not the best solution, and most pharma marketers are not even close to using the Web to its full capabilities.
I would like to see the lines of communication open up. I would like to see more personalized, customized, relevant, and contextual consumer marketing. And as I would like to see less TV ads for pharmaceutical products.
Why can't what is best for consumers and what is best for pharma be the same thing?