Adland_ Searching for the Meaning of Life on a Branded Planet - James P. Othmer [66]
The second thought is that more than 99 percent of these impressions were almost certainly not created by a major advertising agency, or for a large, recognizable brand. So far, it’s just been a noisy, ugly mess haphazardly put together and malevolently thrown in my face—our faces—by amateurs and hacks. Unless, I wonder, is it possible that the really good ads are the ones you don’t consciously remember?
A four-hour, mildly productive, advertising-free siesta interrupted only by the phone call of a friend who tells me I must tune in to the Joe Torre farewell interview on WFAN. Which, of course, is sponsored by Bigelow Tea (378).
Only the Very Old and the Very Sick Watch the Evening News
Or maybe the evening news just makes people feel very old and very sick. Either way, whether you’re a fan of Katie, Charlie, or Brian, the 6:30 to 7:00 p.m. national network news is all about pharma advertising, all about our myriad physical and psychological ailments.
If I had a dime every time I heard the words “Ask your doctor” or saw a crude clip of phallic imagery during a commercial break from the network news, or was forced to contemplate a stomach-turning side effect, I’d almost be able to afford my own health care.
According to a 2008 report released by York University, “The Cost of Pushing Pills: A New Estimate of Pharmaceutical Promotion in the United States,” in 2004 in the United States alone, pharmaceutical companies spent twice as much on advertising and promotion as on research and development. And the study claims that its estimate of $57.5 billion spent on pharma advertising and promotion (versus $28 billion on R&D) is conservative because it doesn’t take into consideration efforts like off-label promotion, ghostwriting, and seeding trials, not to mention over-the-counter brand-name meds. The study concludes that the pharmaceutical industry in the United States, which accounts for 43 percent of all global pharma sales and promotional expenditures, is indeed market driven, and not the research-driven, lifesaving industry it professes to be.
Which makes one wonder how a major network could ever do an exposé of the big drug companies without fearing it would be left without a sponsor. Or how a physician who benefits from the numerous promotional vacation boondoggles, I mean conferences, paid for by pharmaceutical companies can give you a straight answer when you do, as the voice-over announcer repeatedly instructs you to, ask your doctor.
I’ve had only limited experience on the, um, creative side of pharmaceutical advertising. Once, near the end of my run as a creative go-to guy, I was asked to join a brainstorming session for a pitch about a new drug that apparently was for people who had allergies but didn’t know it. We had to come up with ways to convince consumers who thought they were allergy free that they really may have something wrong, as well as a name for the pill and the condition it was to treat. We were told by a moderator that anything that can be easily abbreviated or that ends with the word “syndrome” seems to work well, I’d guess because “syndrome” sounds like something fleeting, beyond your control. Put “syndrome” on the end of any horrible human behavior, and for some reason it sounds less threatening, less your fault, and not such a bad thing to have. Feel like punching a stranger in the face on the side of the road? Chalk it up to traffic-related anger syndrome (TRAS), which can be treated by the green (means go) pill Flolane. Suffering from TRAS sounds much better than simply being a raving fucking lunatic.
Hinting at but never saying the supposed benefit in the name of the medication helps, too. I imagine that spam bots would be great at naming syndromes and their respective meds.
After helping