Marketing Prescription Drugs, American-Style

by Camila Perez Gabilondo

Advertisement is different in every country and a powerful force in today's society. A particular type of advertisement struck me the most after moving to the U.S. and consuming American television, newspapers and magazines. In my mind, medicine was never before trying to break its way into the consumer's mind in such an aggressive way, but in this country, prescription medicine is sold to us every day through the media as if it were a new kind of soda or a tasteful snack.

The array of prescription drugs with dangerous side effects that we are urged to consume day by day when getting our news or watching our favorite show is abundant and diverse. From sleeping pills and birth control to cervical cancer immunization, medical treatments which must be recommended and prescribed by a doctor are directly advertised to the consumer, as if we could make such decisions on our own.

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising of prescription drugs is very common in the U.S. and audiences are therefore accustomed to making important decisions about their health on their own, which some argue leads to an abuse of prescriptions drugs and a preference for expensive treatments, which, of course, benefits drug companies. Drugs are advertised as if they were as soft a remedy as Vic's vapor rub when they are indeed medical treatments that should not be administered without the control of a doctor.

The dangerous risks of these drugs have to be mentioned in advertisements, but this is done in a way that barely leaves an impression on the consumer: the possibility of suffering from such conditions as blood clots and heart attacks is briefly narrated at the end of the commercial in a light-hearted way. However, for a viewer who is not used to this, such as me, the side effects are what resonates the most and what deters me from paying attention to the product.

This leads us to wonder whether the American audience is subject to danger from the media. The success of these products shows that perhaps the audience is too gullible. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates these kinds of commercials, but it may not be enough. In a January 2003 survey report, the FDA estimated that 88 percent of patients who ask their doctors for a prescription drug by brand name don't actually have the symptoms that the drug treats. With more and more products out on the market and more money invested by drug companies in commercials, this number could go down. Therefore, the far-reaching power of advertisement should be controlled when it comes to such a serious matter as the consumer's health.

(Photo by Adamos Maximus of Mesa, AZ via Flickr, using a Creative Commons license. To see a satire from Saturday Night Live about such ads, especially those dealing with birth control, please check the video below.)



advertising
drug advertising
drug companies
Food and Drug Administration
fda
marketing
Add to Technorati Favorites

A Conscious Consumer: An Oxymoron?

by Melissa the Marinade Maker

From a tender age, we all have been told we are unique; we are individuals possessing special characteristics and skills not common to others in society. Although many refuse to define themselves as based upon consumer products, it is extremely difficult to enact a complete separation between products and who an individual "is." The blatant question is this: Is the individual simply a product? Many would argue no, as any human being with even a moderately functioning brain is able to distinguish themselves from the products they consume for the sake of daily life, yet others assert that society is very uncritical and lacks the proper analytical skills to create such a separation between the being and the product.

The media have employed techniques, efficacious techniques, that have created a "consumer frenzy" in every possible venue of life. Newspapers, magazines, the radio, and lo and behold, television itself, have all been extremely effective and extremely profitable modes of consumer-mania. Debate has raged about the quantity of advertisements each individual is exposed to on a daily basis, some claim roughly 1,500, while others claim figures in the hundreds. The actual figure is irrelevant in that the bottom line remains that commercials have invaded every crevice of life, with commercials assertively advocating products ranging from savory, delectable chocolate to shampoo that renders impassioned screams in the shower. It is unarguable that the very function of a corporation is to generate revenue, utilizing the means necessary to ensure a sustainable market demographic. However, what is bothersome is that the individual is unable to venture for themselves and find a suitable product without it being portrayed as an absolute "must-have." The psychological implications of such advertising are ostensible: consumers passively expect to have everything presented to them, as opposed to being an informed and pro-active consumer. Rather than unconsciously absorbing all the advertisements being propelled, the consumer ought to make purchase decisions based upon individual discretion, as opposed to simply what the commercials tell them. Thus, the lack of personal opinion has resulted in commercials hindering a conscientious consumer.

Historically, commercials have played a vital role in the U.S. consumer market. The early to mid-20th century consisted of commercials that revolved around the suburban lifestyle, catered specifically for women to purchase the newest, most desirable kitchen and cleaning appliances. With the onset of the 1980s, commercials reached a newfound peak and horizontally diffused into all possible marketable venues, developing even further demographic specializations on a global scale. Specific examples are not needed because advertisements ranging for any possible product, be it peanut butter to car models, all create a must-have frenzy for that particular product.

For those of you still reading, this blogger asks that you be a conscious, analytical consumer, for the sake of your wallet and for the sake of your mental welfare. Yes the latest model of this or that may seem alluring and highly appealing. However, think for a moment if it is necessary, and if so, if you are making an evaluated decision. After all, a conscious consumer can make for a less manipulative market. Thank you.

(Graphic from radicalgraphics.org, which offers its material for free.)

media
consumer culture
television
culture
advertising
Add to Technorati Favorites


Subscribe in a reader

The Media & Body Image

by Anna Waterfield

The phenomenon of the media has always held a strong power over society since the beginning of its existence. From newspapers to television to advertisements to movies to radio to magazines to the internet, in today's world it has become virtually impossible to stray from the mainstream. While the mass media can be used for advocacy, enrichment, education, information, and entertainment, they are also capable of influencing the way we think in a negative fashion.

Thanks to the media, we are constantly bombarded with a series of images, most of which portray beautiful, happy, thin people. Seeing these people on a daily basis has the effect of pounding a standard body image into one's head.

Even though obesity is a growing problem in America, with the percentage of people who are considered overweight or obese due to their body mass index rising from 28% in 1980 to 64% in 2000, the models and actors we see every day do not reflect this progression. In fact, twenty-five years ago the average model weighed 8% less than the average American woman; now, the average model weighs almost 25% less than the average American woman. Basically, the average woman is getting fatter as the average model is getting skinnier, all while women and men across the country are being told to love themselves and their bodies as they are. These contradictory messages only serve to increase instances of things like low self-esteem and eating disorders.

So why do the media buy into this idea of a standard body image? The answer is largely economical. When consumers are convinced that they have to wear a certain size of clothes or have certain facial features in order to be at the so-called "normal," then they are more likely to purchase diet aids or cosmetic products in order to attain these goals. Therefore, cosmetic and diet industries are more likely to thrive.

Advertisements for these and other products also employ a standard body image in order to appeal to consumers. Ads on television and the internet, in magazines, or even on billboards frequently feature a thin, beautiful model wearing or using a certain product. When consumers see these people, they get tricked into thinking that if they wear the right clothes or eat the right foods then they too will be thin and desirable like the model in the ad.

There have been attempts to reform the perception of thin being beautiful. Unfortunately, many have failed. At Milan's Fashion Week, models were required to maintain a Body Mass Index within the healthy range (18+) to participate, but this spawned an outcry from models who said that their "natural" body weight could not be helped and designers who felt that their artistic creativity was being imposed upon.

n 2004, Dove launched its more successful "Campaign for Real Beauty," choosing to feature everyday women in their ads as opposed to models in an effort to widen the definition and discussion of beauty and thus make women feel more beautiful every day.

n terms of their weight, Americans need to find the right balance (no pun intended): not striving to be unhealthily thin, but not allowing for high rates of obesity either. In order for the image of health to become the new ideal body image, the media need to begin to promote it. Encouraging the media to follow the Dove company's example and present a greater variety of body types, with depictions of real people and more positive messages about self-image, will not completely eliminate the potential for eating disorders in the United States; however, the pressure individuals feel to conform to a certain body type will surely be decreased. If healthy men and women who celebrate their differences are portrayed more frequently in the media, then we will have a healthier country both physically and mentally.

(Photo by Christi Nielsen of Los Angeles, CA via Flickr, using a Creative Commons license.)

media
body image
body mass index
models
Dove
Campaign for Real Beauty
advertising
Add to Technorati Favorites


 Subscribe in a reader

Are Newspapers Headed to Extinction?

by Chef LC

Every morning my father wakes up, puts on his robe, makes himself a cup of coffee, and goes to our front porch (depending on the aim of the newspaper boy) to retrieve the morning paper. He sits down at the kitchen table and begins reading the daily news. The crumpling and turning of the large and sprawling paper is a comforting sound during breakfast time. It's hard to imagine his morning routine any differently but as online newspapers are gaining popularity, the old paper alternative may be on its way to extinction.

The internet has 24-hour coverage that is easily accessible through a computer, not to mention that many online newspapers are free. These sites have provided a new breeding ground for advertisers. The switch from newspaper ads to online ads is causing a large plunge in profits for several companies. Advertisers are reducing the number of their print ads because it's costly compared to the rather cheap online advertisements. Although this transition is good for advertisers it unfortunately aids in newspaper's revenue downfall. The newspaper industry is resorting to lay-offs and spending reductions. Time Inc., the home of TIME magazine, People, Fortune, and Sports Illustrated cut 600 jobs and began to reorganize its staff. Gannett, the biggest newspaper publisher in America, announced that it would lay off 10 percent of its work force (about 3,000 people.) The Tribune Company said that it would lower the number of workers in the Los Angeles Times newsroom by about 75 people. And that's just to name a few.

With new and younger generations more inclined to go online for their news sources, paper news may begin to fade quickly. The online news has a greater audience already because it's free and easily accessible. But sadly, most of newspaper's revenues come from the print production, a base that continues shrinking every day. These revenues help pay for the news that we are able to read. What will happen if newspapers cannot afford to pay reporters? The country may not be informed about world events; that's a scary thought.

Now every morning I wake up, make myself some tea, open my computer and click on my home page, The New York Times, where I read the daily news. Yes, my father's classic way of reading the newspaper and my millennial generation's routine do differ, but in the end we are both informing ourselves about the world — but this may not continue. This online, free convenience may not last long as papers have to cut back on reporters and spending because of the downfall in newspaper sales. Something has to be fixed. The news is a key way for people to inform themselves about world situations and events. If journalists can no longer work for pay, then America will become less and less knowledgeable about the news. The original newspapers need to figure out how to re-work and re-vamp their paper sales and make them appealing again to younger audiences. And besides, just imagine all those poor, jobless newspaper boys!

(Editor's Note: This piece is also cross-posted on the iVoryTowerz blog.)

(The photo is by Cultural Savage of Portland, OR via Flickr, using a Creative Commons license.)

newspapers
internet
advertising
New York Times
Time
Time Warner
Tribune Company
Gannett
Los Angeles Times
media economics
Add to Technorati Favorites

Post-Election Analysis: What About Those Negative Ads?

by Logan Ruppel

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Mysterious phone calls at 3 a.m. A little girl picking daisies who gets nuked. We are all only too familiar with the mudslinging negative campaign ads that gained popularity during the 1960's and have become ubiquitous on television during the past several presidential elections. Negative advertisements involve attacking a political opponent's policies, past voting record, or personal character to garner support instead of focusing on one's own policies and personal qualities. Sometimes the ads are used to impose opinions on the candidate's "good" policies compared with the opponent's "bad" policies, rather than allowing people to decide for themselves.

Negative ads that focus on policy tend to only promote the benefits of a candidate's platform, while ignoring any possible negative consequences. Not surprisingly, these ads present to the viewer only negative aspects of the opponent's policies and fail to mention any benefits. In order to make an effective, legitimate argument, ads need to accurately represent both sides of an issue, laying down credible facts and figures to prove one side while disproving the other. Unfortunately, it probably isn't possible to address all of these proposals in the small space of a 30 or 60 second advertisement. The only campaign-funded TV spot that came remotely close to achieving this during the 2008 campaign was President-elect Barack Obama's half-hour infomercial that presented his message in a clear, concise way.

Many attack ads venture into the realm of logical fallacy, in this case ad hominem. Political advertisements based on this fallacy, which literally means "argument against the man," ignore the real issues and policies at stake. These ads use personal criticisms of an opponent as evidence to disprove his own arguments. This type of reasoning is flawed because there is no connection between personality and stances on issues. One of Senator John McCain's advertisements in the 2008 presidential campaign compared Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, saying "He's the biggest celebrity in the world, but is he ready to lead?" and "Higher taxes, more foreign oil." This ad characterized Obama as nothing more than a famous face with no substance just because he has become wildly popular in America and the world. Also, saying that Obama is for higher taxes was misleading, as he intends to lower taxes on everyone except the very wealthy and wants to lessen dependence on foreign oil, not increase it.

Most candidates who use negative campaigning are in a last ditch effort during the final weeks of an election to make up for falling behind in the polls and fundraising. Public reactions to excessive negative campaigning have been largely negative themselves. While the base of support for the attacker most likely will be rallied to support him or her, the more moderate or swing voters may be disgusted with the tone of the campaign. Negative ads force an emotional response in viewers, possibly prompting them to forgo intellectual opinions of candidates and reject them out of fear. By going too far or too personal with attack ads, candidates can actually provide a boost for their opponent's campaigns by turning people off to the aggressive and seemingly loathing candidate. Negative ads overall contribute to polarized politics by driving a wedge of animosity between already opposed voters and lessen voter turnout due to alienation of the centrist electorate.

(Photo by larilari of Goiania, Brazil via stock.xchng; photo discovered through everystockphoto.com. To see the classic "Daisy" ad from 1964, please check below.)



politics
2008 campaign
advertising
negative advertising
Barack Obama
John McCain
McCain
Obama
Add to Technorati Favorites

California's Proposition 8 TV Ads

by Alissa Scheller

On May 15, 2008, California became the second state (after Massachusetts) to legalize same-sex marriage. So called “activist” judges, ruled that statutes limiting marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution, which prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. Since June 17, same-sex marriages have been recognized by the state of California. Proposition 8 is a ballot initiative that would introduce an amendment to the California Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Both the Yes on 8 and No on 8 campaigns have used media outlets, such as television ads, to promote their viewpoints. One television ad sponsored by Let California Ring features a woman going to through various obstacles to reach her wedding, and concludes with the statement: “What if you couldn’t marry the person you love?” Other No on 8 television ads parody the Mac vs. PC ads, and focus on how leaving the state constitution as it is would have no effect on traditional families.

Interestingly enough, few of the No on 8 ads actually depict gay people — the very people the campaign is fighting for. The ads mainly feature heterosexual couples with gay children, friends, or family members urging voters to ensure that all people are treated equally. One ad has two women (who are very clearly not a lesbian couple) talking about the issue. Another has Superintendent of Schools, Jack O’Connell, telling voters that Prop. 8 has “nothing to do with schools or kids” (after a Yes on 8 ad asserted — falsely — that if the proposition failed, schools would be required to teach children about same-sex marriage). The entire ad does not mention the words “gay,” “lesbian” or “same-sex.”

One Yes on 8 ad features a child telling her mother that she learned about same-sex marriage in school (the impossible circumstance to which the No on 8 ad with Superintendent O’Connell was referring). Another shows San Francisco mayor, Gavin Newsom, proclaiming to a celebratory crowd (after same-sex marriage was legalized in May) that “It’s going to happen whether you like it or not,” and later — again, falsely — claiming that if Prop. 8 fails, its supporters will be sued for their personal beliefs. Again, there are no depictions of actual gay people.

I think that this exclusion of gay couples from the television ads is because it could easily backfire — use words like “discrimination” or “exclusion” and people are more willing to be on your side. Use words like “gay marriage” and, well, a lot of people will disagree with you. However, by not showing gay people in their ads about gay people, it seems to me as if the campaigns don’t want gay people to become the focus of an issue about gay people.

To be quite honest, as a Californian, I fervently hope that Prop. 8 fails, but I think both campaigns have made mistakes in their television ads. I understand the reasoning behind the exclusions of gays from television ads on both sides — to make the ads more appealing to heterosexual voters — but I find it interesting that in the ads, Californians rarely get to hear from the main benefactors of same-sex marriage.

(The photo of demonstrators in favor of gay rights and gay marriage was taken in San Francisco; the photo is by crichton91 via Flickr, using a Creative Commons license. For more on the gay rights debate, please see: "The Story, the Truth and Fred Phelps." Also, please see the iVoryTowerz blog's "Isn't Love All You Need?")

media
television
advertising
television ads
gay rights
elections
California
Proposition 8
same sex marriage
Add to Technorati Favorites