Call me old school but somehow, seeing drugs advertised on television is a bit strange for me. Unlike a bar of soap or shampoo, the effects that a medicinal product is supposed to yield are something that are of immense consequence to the person who would use it. It’s a bit strange that the efficacy and the dependability of a drug would be somehow linked to the popularity of a celebrity endorser or the merits of a catchy jingle or novel television advertisement. Medical science was never really this glitzy – the science was all about black and white findings that show which treatment works and which treatments. Somehow, modern society has changed this and has made advertising and PR a necessity. There is nothing wrong with this and for better or for worse, the status quo will probably not change. Even in the olden days, panaceas and other products were billed to the high heavens just to make them seem like a lot of impressive that they are. Ethical checks weren’t around then, and it seems like nothing is stopping people from pulling out the stops nowadays.
One particular advertisement that caught my attention recently has been one that is being run by a well-known anti cough and colds medication that is already one of the more popular brands in the market. The drug has invested heavily in the product’s advertisements by employing two of the nation’s most bankable movie actors. A short spiel on radio was quite interesting since it was a very direct and blunt attack against another emerging brand.
It was quite a crude word play driven monologue delivered by (arguably) the country’s heir apparent to the Comedy King himself. The feature brand was being exalted as being the one while a new brand that was championing the use of a medicinal leaf for relief from the common cold was being dismissed as mere dahon (or leaf, when translated).
The leaf in question is one of the few medicinal plants that Department of Health is actually pushing. There seems to be malicious intent on the part of the bigger drug company by even suggesting that the use of the competing brand would cause an allergic reaction. It was a very underhanded tactic that is surely borderline unethical. It’s like they were trying to make a blind item – but in the process, they identified the person and the only thing they didn’t do was state the name of the character involved. It may have been legal, but certainly; ethical lines of decency have been crossed there.
This has also spilled over to new media. Graphics artists have now had a new line to deal with as social networking sites that could be used for viral marketing have increased the impetus to create striking e-posters, e-flyers and short movies. Seeing medicine brands campaign using social media certainly nothing new now. Just like traditional media however, it is very difficult to quantify the actual result of the advertising push. It should just be taken it good faith that an effort is worth the trouble and the bucks that would be required to roll it out the production line.
There has to be more variety with the way the products have been pushed though – it seems like tricks that have worked from some non-drug items have been used to push medical goods. It may work for now but since the social networking sites are pretty good conductors of information, it would be easy for them to catch any trend or repetition. This would surely cause some sort of fatigue on the target market.
Photo: “Pill tablet” by Doug Wheller, c/o Flickr. Some Rights Reserved
Viewed 13868 times by 2393 viewers
