Healthy Skepticism Library item: 2726

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: news

FDA To Consider Use of Celebrity Spokespeople in DTC Prescription Drug Ads
kaisernetwork.org ( The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation) 2005 Oct 31
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=33423

Keywords:
FDA

Notes:

Ralph Faggotter’s Comments:

No-one really understands the weird psychology behind the modern phenomenon of the ‘cult of celebrity’, but lots of advertising agencies have learned how to use it as a tool nevertheless.

In this article,Billy Tauzin of the PhRMA, says- “I don’t think the messenger is what potentially presents a ‘good’ or ‘misleading’ message. It’s the message. That’s what you’ve got to focus on.”

which rather begs the question
“Why then Mr Tauzin, do the companies you represent, go to all the trouble and expense of hiring ‘celebrities’ when it would be much cheaper to hire ordinary actors to spruik their products?”

The strange truth is that ‘celebrities’, no matter what their actual qualifications, have achieved such a god-like status in the minds of a large section of the pill-popping public, that their every banal utterance is regarded as a pearl of the profoundest wisdom.

The use of a celebrity in an advertisement enables the advertiser to achieve a rational-skeptical bypass in the mind of the viewer and tap directly into the undiscriminating primitive emotional part of the mind which wants to be controlled and told what to believe.

This, of course, is a dream come true to the advertising industry and has been used successfuly since advertising began.

It may not seem so dangerous when a celebrity actress is promoting the imaginary qualities of a new brand of shampoo, but what if the same actress is promoting a potentially lethal new drug which has not been properly studied and which is so new that most doctors are not yet familiar with its benfits and disadvantages?

Full text:

Daily Health Policy Report
Prescription Drugs | FDA To Consider Use of Celebrity Spokespeople in DTC Prescription Drug Ads
[Oct 31, 2005]

FDA on Tuesday and Wednesday will hold meetings to consider issues related to direct-to-consumer advertising for prescription drugs, including the use of paid celebrities to promote products, the Boston Globe reports. According to the Globe, the meetings come after “months of criticism” from some members of Congress and other groups who worry that the use of celebrities in drug advertisements can mislead patients about the drugs’ safety and efficacy. “It’s hard to imagine a setting in which a celebrity endorsement of a drug conveys any meaningful information to patients in terms of either efficacy or side effects,” Alastair Wood, associate dean of Vanderbilt Medical Center, said. However, Billy Tauzin, president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said, “I don’t think the messenger is what potentially presents a ‘good’ or ‘misleading’ message. It’s the message. That’s what you’ve got to focus on.” Officials for Bristol-Myers Squibb, which uses cancer survivor and seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong as a spokesperson, said they hope the FDA differentiates between older celebrity ads — in which celebrities promoted a product often without revealing that they were being compensated for their time — and current advertisements that use celebrities to raise awareness about health conditions.

Advertising Delay?
FDA also will consider whether to delay all consumer advertising for new prescription drugs for two or three years after approval to collect additional data. BMS in June said it would postpone consumer advertising for at least one year after the FDA gives approval for its drugs. In addition, a voluntary industry code developed by the drug industry recommends that companies educate doctors before they advertise to patients for most drugs; however, the code does not suggest a time frame. Andrew McDonald, a Think Equity Partners analyst, estimated that the drug industry could lose between $7 billion to $9 billion with a two-year ban. Tauzin said a three-year ban would be “excessive” but noted that a delay for drugs such as cold medicines “might not be unreasonable.” He added, “If it’s a medicine that makes a difference in whether you’re going to get cancer or not, you probably ought to get it out a little quicker” (Henderson, Boston Globe, 10/30).