Direct to consumer drug advertising is money wasted

How effective is direct to consumer drug advertising?

Some think that drug ads should be banned altogether, saying that it encourages patients to ask their doctors for expensive, brand name prescription drugs.

It turns out, their fears may be overblown.

NPR’s Shots blogs about a recent study looking at the effectiveness of these ads. The numbers, for the pharmaceutical companies anyways, are not encouraging:

Overall, about 8 percent of the people who were exposed to ads say they influenced them to ask doctors for specific drugs.

And did their doctors give them what they wanted? Not usually. Only a little more than a third of the time — or 36 percent — did people get prescriptions for the drugs they wanted.

When it comes to drug ads “at least one-third of people aren’t hearing them or tune them out,” says Dr. Ray Fabius, chief medical officer for Thomson Reuters’ health care and science business unit. After that, he says, the data show doctors serve as a significant filter on those ad-driven requests.

That’s good news. It goes against the conventional wisdom that physicians simply rollover when specifically asked for a branded drug.

I still think that drug ads should be banned on television and in newspapers and magazines, but there’s good evidence that the $1.2 billion spent on consumer marketing is simply wasted. That, perhaps, may be enough impetus for the pharmaceutical industry to rein in advertising on their own.

 is an internal medicine physician and on the Board of Contributors at USA Today.  He is founder and editor of KevinMD.com, also on FacebookTwitterGoogle+, and LinkedIn.

email

  • http://www.clear-voice.com Lygeia Ricciardi

    Hi Kevin —

    This is an interesting post. I wonder, though, if perhaps these drug ads are still worth the investment by pharma. You would expect only a fraction of the viewer population to be interested in or potentially eligible for a particular drug. And if 1/3 of the time consumers get the prescription they ask for, that actually seems pretty high to me. Even if only a very small fraction of viewers request and receive a drug they learned about through advertising, presumably they use the drug for a long period, so each new customer is worth a lot of $. Also in general it seems advertising and other cultural factors have contributed to an expectation that if something is wrong you should take a pill to “fix” it. That general perception has to benefit pharma greatly, even if there isn’t an obvious direct connection between $1 spent on advertising and $1 they earn immediately on a particular product.

  • madoc

    Actually the most intrusive drug ads are found in the doctors’ waiting rooms. The special TV is on and the drug ads are blarng and you can’t turn it off. Meanwhile you are waiting while the drug reps come piling in. They see your doc before you do. Not very nice.

  • http://www.medicalsalesmagic.com Benjamin Atkinson

    A 3% response rate isn’t bad for broadcast. We’d need some sales numbers to get an idea of the ROI.

    However, I think this type of advertising is deplorable. It seeks to drive a wedge between the patient and the only healthcare professional who has vowed to do the patient no harm.

  • Hersh

    For the longest time I thought that it was a *smart* idea (although not always good) for big pharma to ask the patients about their medicine when they see their doctor. I am relieved to find out that people are taking the advice of their doctors instead of the commercial advertisements they see on television.

  • KP Internist

    It think a bigger deterent to getting the medication advertised is the pharmacy formularies than the pcp agreeing to write it. Who wants to fill out a TAR and which patient would rather pay a branded copayment instead of a generic one. Pharma should just stop doing these commercials. They are cheesy and I don’t know how you are supposed to make a memorable commercial about irritable bowel.

  • http://leonardof.med.br/ Leonardo Fontenelle

    This issue is funny for me. In Brazil there can’t be ads for prescription drugs. But sometimes I wonder where did the Brazilian Cardiology Society got the money to make an ad to tell people to get to know their cholesterol level.

  • Marc Gorayeb, MD

    Let’s make a deal. I will agree that direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical ads should be outlawed if you will agree that plaintiff lawyers trolling for victims of mesothelioma or medical malpractice should be barred from advertising as well. In each situation, individuals who may benefit from the advertising are being targeted. Let’s keep our first amendment principles consistent.

    • http://www.medicalsalesmagic.com Benjamin Atkinson

      It’s a deal, Dr. Gorayeb. Tort reform and a ban on pharma DTC. I think we’re on our way to better healthcare. Now, if we could just figure out the financing part of this mess.

  • rezmed09

    So, big pharma is wasting their money with direct to consumer ads? Yet they keep spending big bucks on those expensive TV ads night after night?

    I don’t buy it. Advertising works more than we usually give it credit for, and I don’t think the drug companies are stupid enough to be wasting their money on advertising if it really does not work.

  • http://www.bostonclinicalresearch.com/blog Candida Fratazzi, MD

    An interesting post. As others mentioned, 3% response rate doesn’t seem to be that bad, if patients make repeat purchases for a long period of time.

  • PharmaVet

    Pharma is stuck doing DTC ads because the FDA really won’t allow any other form of engagement.

    I attended an academic presentation on the history of DTC advertising recently. Unfortunately, the speaker, a PhD at a local university didn’t really have his facts straight which just perpetuates this animosity.

    FDA only began allowing DTC advertising in 1986 and has stringent requirements on fair balance. Look on their website for warning letters issues where the FDA believes fair balance has been compromised.

    Even though anti-pharma (an apparently popular sentiment here), he said that FDA requires pharmaceutical DTC to be one of the most honest forms of advertising unlike almost all other consumer goods. Cars, for example, don’t require the probability of user-induced accidents or death. Fast food restaurants don’t have to disclose the likelihood of developing CV disease or diabetes when advertising like pharmaceutical companies are required to do.

    When I was diagnosed with cancer 2 years ago, I didn’t care that pharmaceutical companies were making money off my treatment. I wanted to be healed so I could be a mother to my infant daughter and 2 year-old son. Greed may spark innovation, but it also has given me a new lease on life.

    And, the products I represented that had DTC campaigns all failed miserably.

Trending