In an outraged letter sent yesterday to the US Federal Trade Commission, nearly a dozen consumer advocacy groups are demanding the agency investigate Merck for using cartoon characters from the latest Madagascar animated film in an "inherently unfair," "deceptive" and "dangerous" way to promote its grape-flavored Children’s Claritin allergy medicine. The tie-in pertains to both tablet and syrup forms of the over-the-counter medication.
"This campaign is in violation of longstanding FTC precedent to protect children from child-directed marketing of OTC supplements and, by extension, OTC drugs," wrote the Public Health Advocacy Institute at Northeastern University School of Law in Boston, which was joined by Berkeley Media Studies Group; Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood; Center for Digital Democracy; Corporate Accountability International; Eat Drink Politics and Public Citizen, among others.
By using the animated characters from 'Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted,' they claim that children may confuse the medicine with candy and food that are also part of a promotional campaign undertaken by the Dreamworks film studio. These products include fruit-flavored gummy snacks, Airhead candy, Blue Bunny ice cream bars, McDonald's Happy Meals and Lance sandwich crackers. The advocacy groups worry the combined campaigns may induce children to "over-consume" Claritin.
In arguing their case, the groups maintain the Merck effort violates an FTC precedent that was set in 1977 regarding marketing to children (here it is). At the time, the agency ruled that Spiderman could not be used in television and print ads to market vitamins directly to children and, therefore, this decision should be used as the basis for preventing Merck from using Madagascar characters to sell its over-the-counter allergy medicine.
"The commission clearly stated that 'children are unqualified by age or experience to decide for themselves whether or not they need or should use vitamin supplements in general or an advertised brand in particular, thus the directing of advertisements of...vitamin supplements to children is in itself an unfair practice," the groups wrote, adding that the earlier case "contains a limited exception for using licensed characters on product packaging, but the Merck "extends well beyond product packaging."
The groups then write that Merck tie-ins include customized Madagascar 3 packaging for both types of Claritin; a “Free Movie Ticket Offer” promotion with a Claritin purchase at Walgreens; the Claritin Facebook page offers a free, downloadable Madagascar Inspired Circus Activity Guide and a Madagascar themed “Circus Stackers” game; eight activity guides for free download from Facebook, and product packaging that included “5 Free Stickers” of Madagascar characters.
Merck also initiated “Children’s Claritin Mom Crew” members to hold Madagascar-themed viewing parties. Mom Crew members are bloggers who have been selected by Merck to be product endorsers, the letter states. PHAI, in fact, says it ran a Google search using the terms “Claritin mom crew Madagascar.” Of the first 40 search results, 31 were unique accounts of Children’s Claritin Madagascar viewing parties held by Claritin Mom Crew members from across the country.
"I...decided to host our Madagascar Viewing Party and at my two youngest children’s preschool... There are about 6 kids in their class so this was a perfect number to watch the movie and have some fun! I decided to make the party fun and Imade popcorn (organic, of course) and we had Madagascar coloring pages AND I gave out a TON of Claritin Samples for my parents," one Claritin Mom wrote on her blog called 'Bossy Girl in the City." She disclosed that she was provided with the movies. popcorn containers, stickers and LOTS of sample of Claritin to host the party (read here).
"The Madagascar campaign for Children’s Claritin may induce children to request Merck’s brand-name OTC drug, describe symptoms in order to get a sticker or to get medicine perceived to be candy (and) the inclusion of stickers with Children’s Claritin is an invitation for children to seek out the drug on their own," the groups write. "Children’s descriptions of allergy symptoms or requests for OTC allergy medication should be based solely on how they are feeling and not on sophisticated child-directed marketing campaigns" (HERE IS THE LETTER SENT TO THE FTC).
Instead, the groups maintain that "adult caregivers are the appropriate audience for information about such products." A Merck spokeswoman tells us that the drugmaker is doing just. The drugmaker is "reviewing the letter," she says, "but we advertise in appropriate venues to reach parents of children who may benefit from the use of children's claritin and not to the children themselves."
Is This Madagascar Promotion For Claritin Problematic?
- Yes (83%, 199 Votes)
- No (17%, 43 Votes)
Total Voters: 241
19 Comments
What is the difference between this campaign and the gummy princess vitamins consumed by young girls every day?
To single Merck out is ridiculous. This debate should be elevated to these types of promotions regardless of product and industry.
I think the thing speaks for itself -- if your argument is that FDA registered drugs are eqaul to foods -- especially for children -- I think there's no point in discussing the issue with you two.
We are too far apart. Drus are not candy. Full stop. Sure parents have responsibilities, here -- but what to make of the so-called mommy-bloggers who are being paid (with free movie tickets, no less!) to hype this at parties for their children???
Namaste, just the same.
Perhaps we should be more concerned with the pharmacy and/or parents that would somehow allow this to get into the hands of an otherwise healthy kid.
Then again, fair to say we send mixed signals as it is... since I'm pretty sure my kids think of the pharmacy as "the place where daddy gets his Raisinets".
My understanding is that Flintstones (if over consumed) were largely harmless (except for potentially causing some constipation).
If however Claritin is over consumed (despite the ads to the contrary), the drug can cause extreme drowsiness -- a coma would not be impossible.
I can't see your analogy. And, seriously -- how many of these mommy bloggers (shillers, really) have kids with severe enough allergies that they would feed them descloratadine? Really?
C'mon -- this was a bad idea. Was it unlawful? I don't know. But it was a bad idea.
Namaste
But still....setting up situations where children associate a pharmaceutical product with happy times and treats raises two questions:
How quickly do you want children to learn that "party", used as a verb, can mean using assorted legal and illegal substances to get high?
How will they know what the difference is between how you feel after a useful dose of Claritin [which, granted, means taking more than the recommended dose] and being high?
That Agency Guy, and the first two commenters on this thread make a fundamental rhetorical error.
Each of them equates this (do click the image of descloratadine's chemical structure) with a foodstuff.
Foodstuffs (popcorn; Coke) are G.R.A.S. -- or generally reconized as safe, in FDA-speak.
Descloratadine? Not. So. Much. [Especially not so, for toddlers WITHOUT allergies!]
The question isn't whether parents should keep medicine out of the hands of children -- of course they should (and I might agree that parents should keep excessive amounts of sugary drinks out of the reach of children, too!).
No, the question is whether drugs should be treated differently than popcorn.
Of course they should.
Is it appropriate to market a potentially coma inducing medicine to toddlers, via cute furry animated characters -- especially where only a small subset of all toddlers are even candidates for the drug?
That is the question.
And -- in a related piece of viral-marketing "genius" -- should "mommy bloggers" get free swag (check those toddlers' pics -- of swag from Merck and the movie studios!) to promote "drug parties" for their kids -- and the neighbors' kids -- even where none of them are severely allergic to pollen and ragwweed and hay-fever?
C'mon, man! -- let sanity make a come-back folks!
Namaste
2. MERCK did not market this to kids.
They did not market to kids; lets be clear about that; they marketed to the kids parents. You may not like the way they marketed to the kids parents (BTW I did not like it nor do I like ANYTHING most 'Mommy Bloggers' have to say or do); but that does not make it illegal. If the Zebra in the film put a Claritin Reditab on his tongue as he walked into a ragweed field and said 'wow that is fizzy and fun' that would be marketing to kids. If you made a product that was made of mostly sugar and you put ads against cartoons that are on after school and NOT watching the program with the kids that is marketing to kids.
PS Clartin is OTC now, so don't use the usual 'Pharma Hater' threats against implied Rx promotional violations when its a OTC product. Better threats (aka the OTC versions) would be pull of all of the shelf's; or put behind the pharmacist counter (think how Plan B has been restricted for the definitive playbook on screwing over a OTC drug)
Thank you for the clarification. Not to be condescending, but if it were so easy to demonstrate that Horseman and John are half-wits and lunatics, why would it take more space than Ed’s original article? But let's not get distracted from the article.
When I read Horseman and Dan's right winger comments, I was under the impression they were using (potentially) hyperbole to spark dialogue as to where the line should be drawn.
I mean, all facts and reasoning aside, if we eliminate cartoon characters from drug promotion on the premise that it will promote unsafe use of the drug (i.e. take more than prescribed) then why not eliminate the same from sugary foods so that the use of cartoons doesn't promote unsafe use of the food (i.e., over consumption?)
The answer to this begs one to ask the next question: If cartoons aren't eliminated from sugary food promotion because we believe parents will "parent" their children and only allow moderate consumption of these products, why would we not expect parents to do the same with respect to drug products?
It is difficult to be credible when you are incapable of respecting a difference of opinion. This is the problem with liberals. For them it is always a "my way or the highway" approach to life.
To be clear, I am not supporting this campaign. I am not supporting the use of movie characters for promotion reasons. I am saying the more important debate is whether these types of promotions are appropriate regardless of the product. I think it is silly to just single out Merck. Overconsumption of happy meals is also dangerous.
The Agency Guy is absolutely correct and I appreciate his level headed responses.
Being liberal, to me, is just that. Viewing from all angles with no preconceived bias. Somewhere along the line, Consevatives painted this picture of liberals blindly opposing the establishment solely for the sake of it. Kind of like pitting pro-life vs pro-choice; they are not opposites of the spectrum (that would be pro death), just different spectrums! But that's an argument for another day.
Swinging left and being overwhelmed by your ideology to the point of name calling are two different things.
I never claimed to be conserative, but I'm not going to get into ideology - as the term liberal actually means different things based on how it is being used. Liberal was probably a poor choice of words on my part. In fact, most economist liberals are conservatives in the U.S. political system. Just pointing out the hypocrasy of those on the left, like Reggie, who have no tolerance for dissent. This is the same criticism they use against those on the far right.
How much did Merck pay you to post damage-control comments?
See: xkcd.com/1019/
So are the opponents mentioned in the article of the mind that kids are going to rush to the drugstore, bypass the candy section and find the Claritin liquid, pay for it themselves and ingest it as a substitute for something more obviously accessible and appealing to children? They seem also to assume that there are no adults in the equation anywhere that would prevent their children from using the medicine as candy, or that the parents would store the medicine along side other treats at home, let alone fail to put it somewhere where the kids can't access it on their own.
This society is failing bigtime.