Advertising Trickery In Commercials On Medicine

[SlowwHand]

I brought this up once, long ago. How if you listen to/read the disclaimers for some medicines, the potential side effects are worse than what you're trying to cure.
Some that are in advertising, I won't mention any names, but one of their initials were M.I.N.G., tried explaining it away.
Explain this away. Have you noticed yet that ads on the television jack up the volume of the music while the spokesman is talking about possible side effects?
I'm not just talking stroke, heart seizing up, and death. There's other stuff, but I can't hear it over the lulling music.

[-Jrabbit]

I love the soothing, friendly, offhand tone they use as they inform you that this medicine may induce suicidal thoughts, damage your fetus, cause liver damage, dissolve your bones and/or cause a virgin mary-shaped growth on your nose.

Then say you should ask your doctor to prescribe it.

What really bothers me is that they are often very stealthy on the topic of exactly what medical problems this miracle drug fixes. They don't want to tell you you're depressed, or should stop eating red meat, or need help to pee, or can't get it up, or whatever. Let's just focus on these lovely images of attractive people looking smugly satisfied.

The side effects cautions are required by law when advertising prescription drugs (which used to be illegal, back when we actually paid for the cost of medicine and not the marketing campaign). The production elements you mention (haven't noticed since I mute most commercials) are AFAIK totally legal. But I would consider it borderline unethical if they really make it hard to hear the required side effects announcment.

[SlowwHand]

I'll cite some examples tomorrow night. I started to write them down one day. I've been wanting to bring this up.

[-Jrabbit]

The masking effect is a new one on me. The use of production tricks like ducking and compression are usually designed to do the opposite -- to make the commercial sound louder than the other program material, especially at lower volume settings.

FWIW, this issue of uneven loudness across various program sources (read: obnoxiously loud ads) is being addressed within the broadcast industry. Slowly, unevenly, and with limited effectiveness.

[Kuciwalker]

The side effects cautions are required by law when advertising prescription drugs (which used to be illegal, back when we actually paid for the cost of medicine and not the marketing campaign).

I suspect advertising is a small fraction of the total cost of development.

[-Jrabbit]

Well, duh. But the pharma firms have turned these meds into consumer products. And they are not.

These are, by and large, dangerous drugs. That's why you need a prescription. That marketing money should be spent on educating doctors, not drumming up demand among the public.

MHO

[SlowwHand]

We're all aware that commercials are louder than the program, but this was something I've only recently noticed. I know I see a lot of Plavix commercials, but...I would notice those. I don't know for sure yet about the music.

[ricketyclik]

Prescription medicine advertising is banned in Australia

[FrostyBoy]

This is the only time I will do this and I will do it in a very generic way:

Great Southern Land

[ricketyclik]

Great Southern Land

[Kuciwalker]

Well, duh.

So your complaint was silly, as formulated

[-Jrabbit]

My observation was factually correct and, literally, a parenthetical comment. It said nothing about marketing dollars vs. research dollars. That was you, making assumptions and refuting them by stating the obvious. Do you think that makes you appear smart?

[Wezil]

Prescription medicine advertising is banned in Australia

For the most part it is here as well.

The idea you would get a particular drug based upon a catchy advertising campaign is insane.

[Dr Strangelove]

I'd love to see it banned in the US as well. Time and time again I have people come in asking for a drug that has utterly no pertenance whatsoever to their problem. If you examine those commercials closely they often also suggest that if you have symptom "A" you have disease "B" and so you need drug "X". many people don't understand that if you have symptom "X" you might have disease "B", or disease "C", or disease "D" or even no disease at all. After having watched the commercial though they're convinced they absolutely need drug "X", and if you disagree you must be some quack.

It's also generally true that the drugs being advertised are usually new and expensive. Most new drugs being introduced today are derivatives of pre-existing drugs and often no more effective than the other, older, cheaper drugs in their class. Of course, you're not going to here that in a commercial.

Even more worrisome than commercial advertising by drug companies is the degree of influence over medical research they're acquiring. There is probably not one medical academic department conducting research atany American medical school or medical research institute that doesn't receive income from the companies.

[duke o' york]

http://www.badscience.net/

This is a fantastic site for the abuse of medical advertising, patents, the ignorance of science of the mass media, and all kinds of fun things. All right, it's better than my brief description, honest.