Pharma Marketing Is Embarrassing

Hey Marc ... If pharma clients and agencies had any interest in creativity, they would hire genuine creatives, and account managers to support them. But they don't!

Read any recruitment ad on the internet these days and there's usually only one criterion that matters ... 150 years of pharma experience. As if a knowledge of ethical or OTC drugs had anything to do with the advertising beyond FDA regulations.

Just remember two things Marc:

1) Consult with your doctor to make sure you are healthy enough for sex, and ...

2) If you have an erection lasting more than four hours, seek immediate medical help to avoid any long-term damage (I personally will get out my little black book and see who else is available that night, LOL). bcrandallnyc@aol.com

Sure, I love healthy food, he said to the interviewer, not wanting to be judged. Then he rode off to McDonald's for his lunch of hamburgers, fries and a shake. It's what people do. They want to be liked and agree to the question. All I watch is PBS and The Science Channel. Sure, ya do.

Marc, I couldn't agree more. In fact, last September 5th, I had a piece in this very magazine ("Finding Your Way in These Dark Days for DTC Ads") which labeled the state of the industry's work, "Pharmageddon" and offered a few suggestions of my own:

1. Make friends with your legal/medical people. Bring them into your projects as early as possible. Give them a sense of ownership. Give them candy. You want to have a relationship with them that goes beyond the black-and-white "yes" and "no." You want them to say, "Well, you can't say it that way, but maybe you could try this ..." A regulatory person at one of our clients found himself in the uncomfortable position of having to speak at a conference on Web 2.0. We helped him get up to speed on the subject. The experience actually turned him into a social-media advocate, and the result was soon reflected in his company's digital work, which became noticeably more robust and unique.

2. Learn from other categories. Years ago, when Snapple introduced a mango-flavored beverage, the company did something brilliant: Realizing that mango lovers are passionate about the fruit, they put little stickers on mangoes in supermarket produce sections that said, "Now available in Snapple." Why not think out of the box like that for pharmaceuticals?

3. Dig for insights. A new concept about your drug or the patient can give you an unexpected, unique foundation on which to build. Dove, for example, took a parity product, soap, and created advertising for it that recognized the universal need of women to feel good in their own skin. Now when people think "Dove," they think "skin care for women with high self-esteem."

4. Rethink digital. Obviously, pharmaceutical companies face regulatory hurdles that most other marketers don't have to deal with. But there are industries that face similar barriers. Liquor companies, for example, have perfected the art of limiting usage of their websites to visitors of the appropriate age. Learn from them.

Those were the four suggestions in my article. But since it was published I've added another:

5. Engage. Don't just tell the patient what you want them to hear. Listen to them. Give them useful tools to improve their situation and demonstrate that you actually care about their well-being. Make it a dialogue. Breed brand advocates.

Great creative work can be done for the pharmaceutical business just as it can for any other. In fact, it should be easier to do for pharma.

After all, what other category has a target so desperate for the product? Patients want to be armed with information to intelligently discuss their problem with their doctor. They want to hear your message. Let them hear it.

Wow!

What a revelation.

Pharma advertising is........bad?

Thank God someone finally said it. It's been too long. If only someone, somewhere would actually try to do good work for a pharma client. Man....if I had a nickel for every high blood pressure medicine client who was pining away for breakthrough creative...well, jeez....'d have a lot of nickels now wouldn't I?.

I mean, everyone knows pharma clients are visual thinkers. They rely on gut instinct and taste. I mean, if you had an MBA and worked in some monolith in Stamford, would you rely on a room full of housewives in Paramus to decide what advertising you aired. Of course you wouldn't. You'd hire a creative agency and let them do their job.

I actually feel for these lost souls. All they ask for is creative brilliance and instead receive piles and piles of foamcore. I mean how much can you ask 17 brand managers of various shapes and sizes to do? They're only 17 humans after all.

Man....if only this business had more creative minds like this columnist who could take one of these simple, easy, legal free, layer light briefs and forge them into gold lions

Now that would be a world worth living in.

I have an idea. How about the greedy pharma clients stop being so greedy!?

How about they stop putting pressure on doctors by asking consumers to ask for particular drugs. And then greasing the palms of the ones who go along with it. That's a probably a good start.

And I don't know about you, but I'm not smart enough to be recommending to my doctor drugs he should be prescribing to me based on a (really bad) 30 second commercial.

The only thing I know for sure is that my father-in-law used to be a scientist for the FDA and the stuff he told me about these drugs scares the crap out of me -- what can I take for that?

Mark has got it right in his 4th point. Digital. I'll write that again, bigger. DIGITAL. The big space where pharma is failing itself and its stakeholders (medical professionals, patients, health organizations) is online engagement.

Social media and digital communications are open, transparent, honest, free-flowing, viral and they engage in CONVERSATION with audiences.

When did you last see a pharma advert that did that?
Pharma is not the only industry in a rut (here's what we wrote about it http://bit.ly/1653mn) but it certainly is one of the slowest to realise it and to do something about it.
Read Sally Church's Pharma Strategy Blog or Marc Monseau's JNJBTW blog. They are pathfinders.

Rebecca Caroe, Thinking Pharma

I think you don't understand the limitations that the government has placed on pharmaceutical agencies. They require companies to list the possible side effects, or what you consider "the gory details about America's bodily malfunctions."

Compare the Dulculax French print ad to the TV spots currently running here in the States.
http://www.ibelieveinadv.com/2009/05/dulcolax-manhole/

I have to agree with AEttinger here. The comments above sound like they are coming from people that don't have had any experience working on pharma accounts. I spent some time at an agency with many pharma accounts and you would not believe the legal restrictions. It's very difficult to show aspirational advertising, when the legal requirement is that the phrase "may cause suicidal thoughts" has to be given equal weight in the ad. Many agencies do the very best they can within an incredibly restrictive environment.

Onto social networking... also very tricky. Agencies and brands can become liable in use of these technologies. For example, if a company publicly endorses a specific social network, and the company does not monitor what every single person on the network asset says about the drug and then someone on that social site talks about the drug or influences another person and then that person kills or hurts themselves... the companies can become easily liable. That's just one example of the possible liability. There is more on the line for them than in many other industries and therefore adoption, I think, is slower.

Additionally, time-lines are excruciatingly long due to legal reviews and approval. Longer than anything I have ever seen. That can take the steam out of anyone.

Look, I am not saying the industry is not flawed or challenging. It's definitely nice not to be in it anymore, but I am saying it's not ALL the fault of the agencies. I have seen some extremely talented designs and concepts get canned due to legal restrictions. There are great creative people in that industry, with tied hands, working as hard as anyone else... maybe harder!

http://twitter.com/getdonovan

My hope is that DTC agencies and their brand managers start doing creative that reflects our nation's true public health issues. See below reference.

Health Disparities: A Case for Closing the Gap | Healthreform.GOV

Racial and ethnic minorities have high rates of debilitating disease such as obesity, cancer, diabetes, and AIDS. One of the most glaring disparities is apparent in the African American community, where 48% of adults suffer from a chronic disease compared to 39% of the general population.

Obesity
Obesity is debilitating and is often a catalyst to chronic disease. Seven out of 10 African Americans ages 18 to 64 are obese or overweight, and African Americans are 15% more likely to suffer from obesity than Whites.

Cancer
African Americans are more likely to develop and die from cancer than any other racial or ethnic group.4
African American men are 50% more likely than Whites to have prostate cancer and are more likely than any other racial group to suffer from colorectal cancer.5 Hispanic6 and Vietnamese7 women have disproportionate rates of cervical cancer, which they contract at twice the rate of White women.
African Americans experience new HIV infections at SEVEN TIMES the rate of Whites, and Hispanics experience new HIV infections at TWO AND A HALF TIMES the rate of Whites.

More than ONE IN THREE Hispanics and American Indians - and just under ONE IN FIVE African Americans - are uninsured. In comparison, only about ONE IN EIGHT Whites lacks health insurance.

Diabetes
Fifteen percent of African Americans, 14% of Hispanics,and 18% of American Indians suffer from adult onset diabetes. American Indians suffer from diabetes at more than twice the rate of the White population, which develops the disease at a rate of only 8%.

HIV/AIDS
HIV bears witness to the most extreme disparity in chronic disease. African Americans experience new HIV infections at seven times the rate of Whites, and Hispanics experience new HIV infections at two and a half times the rate of Whites.

Marc, I usually like what you say. But in this case, you're just plain wrong.

I don't work in pharma. My background is the easy world of consumer work. Golf clubs, shoes, that sort of thing. Fun stuff, generally. But for the past five years, I've been at an agency that specializes in medical devices and dianostics.

While not as restrictive as pharma, it's still a huge challenge. Legal, regulatory; there are huge hurdles every step of the way.

I've won Lions at Cannes, pencils at the One Show, cubes at Art Directors, statues at Clio. But perhaps my proudest win was a Merit at Boston's Hatch Awards.

For a blood recyclying machine.

You have every right to hate pharama advertising. But not until you've walked a mile in their shoes.

I just wish the pharmaceutical advertising was not embarrassing to watch with my kids in the room. Why can't we at least get to that point?

I think everyone is missing the forest for the trees. Pharma advertising is not lacking creativity. MOST advertising is lacking creativity. And by creativity, I mean "advertising creativity" which is creativity used for a business purpose. Someone once said creativity is the last available legal means to gain an unfair advantage over the competition. That's the kind of creativity I am talking about. More importantly, for anyone out there currently working in pharma niche, I would advise that there is no quicker and more sure path to "retirement before 40" riches than becoming an expert in a niche, using that expertise to start your own "below the radar" small agency and literally make millions. Let all the pundits and critics blow hard all they want about what they supposedly know about the industry. Focus on making money by doing work your clients will continually buy. And trust me, they won't continually buy it if it is not working. And if it is working, it is by definition good. (And perhaps by David Ogilvy's definition, is therefore creative.) And guess what, blowhards? You can have your own niche agency doing highly lucrative work that may not win any awards, AND STILL do work for other clients outside your niche that satisfy the irrational desire to be recognized by your "blind leading the blind" peers. I think lastly, before casting aspersions upon the work of other agencies, one might consider whether an ad featuring a photo of a baseball jersey with a tired and cliche quotation from a professional athlete is lacking a concept and -- Just as Bad -- lacking in creativity

I agree that viewers of the average nightly news are subjected to an endless montage of ads for a litany of chief medical complaints and their pharmaceutical solutions.

Should these spots be more watchable? Sure they should. Many of them are essentially generic footage of the post-treatment target audience painting watercolors, walking on beaches or doing tai chi under the Brooklyn Bridge. How about the Ambien rooster campaign? Pretty terrific, right.

Look, if you're youngish, and lucky enough to be healthy, these maladies add up to one enormous, ironic punchline.

But if you're one of the 13 million people suffering from overactive bladder, for example, you might be very eager to hear about a medication that could let you enjoy a more normal existence.

Why do we keep pointing out what's wrong with our industry, instead of what's RIGHT? Deutsch did some groundbreaking Pharma work with Zoloft (Dot) and Zyrtec for Pfizer (I need to admit I was the account guy on the Zoloft work, from pitch to end). Let's look to the models of what was groundbreaking and follow them. And, not point to the easy targets of what is bad and complain about why can't we do better. We have and we can.
Adam / New York NY
Twitter - AdamLevineNYC

If you're going to call out the entire pharma marketing industry for lacking creativity and innovation you should at least take the time to understand the basics of the industry.

All drug ads need to adhere to intricate legal and regulatory guidelines imposed by the FDA. These rules impact and govern all aspects of campaign...including the creative and overall concept. Any misrepresentations of treatment or efficacy (whether literal or figurative) have massive regulatory ramifications. This is why lengthy information on side effects is always part of the spot. The FDA requires it.

Believe me; we in the industry do not consider this to be "hot copy". To put it simply, pharma marketers are basically given a complex and daunting template by FDA - I'm sure you can imagine how this can impact the creative process.

Also, you need to consider the audience. Drug ads are targeted at people suffering from debilitating, often life-threatening diseases. Novel and incongruous ad concepts aren't really "on message" for our audiences. You're correct - we do need to be as blunt as possible. I think you'd appreciate that if you suffered from heart disease, depression or irritable bowel syndrome.

One last point...(and believe it or not) many of us in pharma/healthcare marketing truly do care about the end results of our work. While our campaigns may not win Gold Lions, the products we market truly do help people and can even save lives. Can those of us pitching cheeseburgers and Mountain Dew really say that same?

-Viva Viagra

I've worked both client and agency side in biopharma, as well as in health systems and managed care. Some pharma brand managers are ready to join you in the pool, and know how to make it happen. Some are so far away from "creativity" and/or why anyone would want to write/use/reimburse their therapy that you'll be scoring just to move them off lime green.

Since the FDA criteria for adverse event reporting (identifiable patient and reporter, therapy involved, nature of event) are poorly understood, they are often used as an excuse for avoiding digital. Moreover, the FDA's lack of regs on digital/social media, coupled with recent warning letters re same, makes some nervous.

DTC and DTP ads and other communiques do save and destroy lives. These stakes create a tremendous opportunity to "do good" with even a slightly more compelling, more pointed, less cliched message, which is in fact often possible within the US regulatory framework.

Adherence to lifestyle modification recos, prudent self care and prescribed dosing regimen are all improved by optimal targeting, messaging and creative.

When we are able to partner with clients and seize these opportunities, we fulfill the unprecedented responsibility that medicine confers. I write about this also from the payor perspective at mcolblog.com

Marc: I've enjoyed your column and blogged/linked to it in the past. But you've definitely stepped in a big one here by dissing something you clearly know little about. getdonovan's comments above are dead-on. So I, too, suggest two things:

1) Don't want to hear about side effects? Direct your issue to the U.S. Food & Drug Adminstration, which heavily regulates pharma advertising and in fact requires, by law, that those side effects be mentioned.

2) Turn off the TV. Send your kids outside to play instead. The digital channel is where pharma marketers should be spending their budgets anyway.

It is VERY clear from your article that you know nothing about working in Pharma, neither do many of the people who commented. The FDA requires listing of side effects and entirely limits what messages can be presented.

The person in the comments who linked to the French Dulcolax ad - that's European and "over the counter" -- hence regulated by entirely different regulations. The French don't allow prescription advertising.

Before throwing stones at pharma marketers, try wading in our waters: http://tr.im/pDuT (PDF) Read the recent guidance from the FDA on what can and can't be done and then talk.

(end snit)

Yes, regulatory restrictions make it harder to do great pharma creative on TV and in print.

But from time to time something very good or even great does get through. Not often enough, but it does happen and every creative who works in this sector should make it his or her business to push for something new, different and breakthrough. You don't go into a battle waving a white flag.

But the real opportunity for creativity lies in the still unchartered waters of social media for pharma. (And there are indeed ways to use it to its full potential while still adhering to all the proper guidelines. That's part of the creativity.)

This is where we can really connect with people desperate to be connected with. People actively seeking information, caring and support that they may not be finding anywhere else.

If we provide these people with compassion, honesty, integrity and tools of empowerment, they themselves will start spreading the word for us with even more conviction and authenticity.

And so on and so on.

It's about doing good for others, rather than selling to them or impressing our peers with clever headlines.

To me, this is where pharma should be putting its collective creative mind.

The prospects are very exciting.

mark@extrovertic.com

The point of marketing: providing a solution to a problem.

Pharma ads are not meant to entertain the masses; they are aimed to promote a specific product to a specific target with a specific condition.

It seems this conversation is about the style of the creative versus the effectiveness of the campaign.

Furthermore, I love when people talk about "sales reps greasing their palms", as if getting the word out about one's products is only permissible in certain industries.

I, for one, am glad some sales rep greased his palms by selling my doctor on carrying Nexium.

Cheers and happy marketing.

Wouldn't it be interesting if the so called sexy and desirable campaigns of the ad world had to be held as accountable to their consumers as the pharmaceutical world is to theirs. That legalese that so many of you balk about is there for a reason. It may not roll off the tongue quite as well as a catchy jingle, but it IS required to be there. Throwing that in the face of pharma creatives is a joke.

Its not so cut and dry as throwing a big breasted twenty something on the screen to to make someone salivate enough to buy fowl smelling antiperspirant.

Here's your homework folks, next time you are sitting at your desk admiring your lovely industry awards and feeling so proud of the creativity you have helped produce, try writing an Important Safety Information statement for the product your hawking.

Ex: Mountain Dew ISI: This product may lead to increased weight gain, severe mood swings, obesity, and has been linked to increased tooth decay or what has been commonly known as "Mountain Dew Mouth". Consuming this product acknowledges that you have read and consented to known consumption of this product of your own free will.

Most embarrassing drug advertising campaign ever!

"Rozerem Ads Dis Lincoln, Show Beaver": http://tinyurl.com/ml2h9v

Actually, I just finished authoring a very comprehensive White paper entitled; the RE-Engineering of Pharma Marketing and Sales-
They have way more problems then just bad creative (that doesn't even begin to deliver ROI)-67% of drug sales are now generic
The good news is there are solutions and a means to build their brands now and post the patient protection period but they, like traditional marketers, have to stop accepting this mundane work and utilizing old and tired traditional plaforms and models that were created in the 50's
They also have to get "over themselves"-I just actually had a guy at a major Phara company tell me he wasn't interested in learning anything new-if he worked for me...he'd be gone when that last word left his lips
Their industry reminds me of when Tobacco advertising became restricted- best thing ever happened to them as it forced them to create outside the box and own their own platforms-which is sorely missing today for most marketers overall-we did great marketing for Philip Morris for ten years...because they let us

Paul-

We're in the same camp. Where can we find your paper?

mark@extrovertic.com

In Quebec and Canada, many pharma ads are highly creative. Laws prevent saying much besides "Ask your doctor about..." so agencies use innuendo or play on a product's existing awareness to get their message across.

A brilliant example for Viagra below, where Viagra is shown as a great remedy to an antiquing, strolling or TV problem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQHq7zdF2s0

- Jean
www.kre.ca/blog_en

To clarify, I know there are many talented people working on pharma advertising in our industry. And it is encouraging to see some recent breakthroughs in the work. No doubt it is tough trying to be imaginative with the heavy regulations and copy mandates. But I still believe that the work should be better, so that families don't have to squirm in their chairs watching the commercials, or reach for the remote control.

I don't disagree that pharma work should be better. So should every other category of work. Including yours, and mine.

I guess my only point is, until you have to work on FDA-approved work in the U.S., you have no idea what the limitations are. Not only does the FDAand other agencies have a say, so does the client's legal team. Which can actualy be worse.

BTW, I kind of liked the Frankenstein gardening spot. And the Lincoln-beaver spot wasn't terrible. Better than the horrible talking VW campaign.

Unfortunately, the conditions that many drugs treat are what they are, grotesque or not. It's definitely a challenge advertising them. Although I am not sure pharma ads are any more disturbing for families to view than some of the horror movie trailers that I have seen recently, and thus had to scoot my kids out of the room. Anyway, there is room to grow in all facets of advertising, don't you think?

Bob, I agree that the legal teams are worse than clients. To that point, and in order to be more accurate, I would rephrase Marc Brownstein's original statement in this story of:

"Push back on your clients, and let them know you're making consumers nauseated instead of better."

As:

"Push back on your [client's legal teams who really control the situation because billions of dollars are on the line], and let them know you're making consumers nauseated instead of better [to which they will laugh and say 'that's nice...now change the freakin' ad'."

That's a little more accurate, anyway.

http://twitter.com/getdonovan

A heated topic, for sure. Made me laugh to see the defenses start and wonder if Marc anticipated or planned the onslaught. But, regardless of the government regulations, there's a ton of really awful work, especially in pharma. Even if you take the required legalese out of the ads, too many are cookie-cutter, formula-based copies of each others attempt to create some meaningless visual metaphor to the product or its name...hot air balloons, ribbons, couples in empty bathtubs, etc. And while we're at it, how about somebody develop a pharma logo that DOESN'T include an arcing line that connects the first letter to a dot or something.

Marc, let's not throw the baby out with the Cialis bathtubs. (Which happens to be one of the most highly recalled icons in pharmaceutical marketing.)

The FDA is not an excuse for creating poor advertising. Creativity starts with restrictions. Any good pharmaceutical marketer understands the box of regulations they play in and can effectively work within it to produce great creative work—and many have. I would challenge anyone to look at the "Depression Hurts" campaign by Cymbalta and not hail it as great advertising that empathetically reflects the consumer, clearly and succinctly states the problem and provides a clear product benefit. Even with :30+ of fair balance. Ambien's recent "Silence Your Rooster" campaign was also fresh, unique--while being totally on message.

I have found that pharmaceutical marketing is held to a higher standard for delivering actual results than other industries I have worked in. Our products also require the facilitation of several intermediaries (physicians, pharmacists) to result in an Rx, which means sometimes the focus is on the functional design and integration of the campaign vs. the creative concept. With increasing restrictions on DTC advertising, I think more pharmaceutical companies will look to richer engagement channels such as digital, social media, out-of-home and in-office materials to educate and connect with consumers. This approach may not win as many awards, but it affects far more lives—and that is its own reward.

Amber Benson
Vice President, Strategy
imc2 health and wellness
@pharmachameleon

Download our POV: Is social media right for your healthcare brand?
http://newsroom.imc2.com/pr/imc2/blog-post.aspx?id=1688

"I'm no pharma marketing expert."

This article was used on a speech I've been to, so I decided to comment on it.

I perfectly understand when you mean pharma advertising is crap. I've been in this market for the last 5 years, and it has good and bad things, such as any market.

Still, before straightly criticizing, I invite you to reflect a little bit more before saying something. Think of the last car ad you've seen; was it really creative? How about the last real-state one? And plumbing systems, what they have been telling you?

Pharma advertising is not easy to be done, I guarantee you. Maybe crappy pharma ad is. And that's because, apart from the regulations, our target audience is made of scientific people, the doctors. I know a doctor also choses his airline company or his sneackers, but when it comes to a life that is on his hands, you can be sure things will be down to a more rational level. That's why, most of time, advertising - this all emotional manifestation of our age - goes so rational in pharma instead of opting for creativity.

And personally, believe me, I think that's good. Would you appreciate having your doctor prescribing you or your mother a less effective medication just because he likes their slogan better?

Another aspect is - and sure this will cause polemics to rise here - in a general manner, as far as I could experience (and everything I can say to ease what i'll say), pharma executives are old fashioned when it comes to advertising medicines. I'd go even further, and say that they probably have never had experience with mass-consume products, so it's really really hardfor them to accept anything that has never been tried before in pharma. That's why it's so repetitive.

In the end of the day, every medicine that I know is supposed to delivers you back your life-quality, your "true state" or anything alike. So don't tell me that is "even easier to do pharma advertising", because that seems to be a not-thought over opinion.

In the US the scenario is really great when compared to any south american country, or even Europe.

So, next time you see a pharma ad, compare it to your last car ad. You'll be surprised to see that the pharma one is probably making its product much more unique, despite of not being able to creative-fly at all. Maybe that's because ad's are out of fashion; the new trend is social networks and brand experience, something pharma definetly don't realy on.

all the best,

D.