Let's not overstate the case - advertising on pharmaceuticals hasnot disappeared. But there do appear to be fewer ads. Spending fell 6 percent in the first eight months of the year, to $3.2 billion, according to TNS Media Intelligence, and that followed a decline of 3 percent for all of last year to $5.3 billion, Dow Jones reports.
Why? Much of the decline came from a downturn in so-called non-branded advertising, including corporate promotion messages and disease-awareness spots, TNS tells the news service. Another factor appears to be the drop in FDA approvals of new drugs is another factor, since spending on new brands fell 7 percent last year while spending on established brands rose 5 percent.
Before last year, direct-to-consumer advertising was generally increasing and peaked at $5.4 billion in 2006, according to TNS. But, as you may recall, there is a growing backlash, particularly after Merck yanked its heavily promoted Vioxx painkiller four years ago over links to heart attacks and strokes. Last week, Roche pharma exec Bill Burns went so far as to say DTC ads were the "worst decision," because they ruined industry credibility. Of course, Roche hasn't ended its advertising (back story).
Meanwhile, Congressman Henry Waxman wants to renew the call for a ban on DTC ads for new meds (see story below). PhRMA is expected to unveil restrictions that include a specified minimum period of time before advertising can start for a newly approved drug, Dow Jones reminds us, noting that the new measures will update guidelines PhRMA adopted in 2005 that were designed to ensure ads provided accurate and balanced information about safety and effectiveness.
4 Comments
If you're wondering why the Star Ledger is getting less ads than normal, one of the reasons is the relentless attacks on the pharma industry. Remember, without them you would have had more operations, parents dying younger, children in the hospitals, etc. Healthcare companies do good things for people, including advertising dollars. Don't forget it.
Hi BB,
With all due respect, Pharmalot is owned by The Star-Ledger of New Jersey, but these are separate editorial products.
And as it so happens, very little of the Pharmalot content is generated by Ledger staffers. I search for interesting material in many places, whether aggregating from other sources or doing as much reporting as possible by myself. In addition, the advertising efforts are also separate.
So if anyone has an issue with the Ledger's coverage, please contact them. If there is an issue with Pharmalot, I'm the guy (and I'm also based in a separate location).
Regards ed
I don't understand how it can be attributed to a downturn in FDA approvals when FDA approvals are up this year and are anticipated to be the highest is several years.
Salmon
Hi Salmon,
Good question. I suppose it reflects the lag between approvals and promotion, in so far as that not all advertising is set beforehand. Anyone else who has more insights into such decisions, please weigh in.
Regards ed