Pharma advertising is something that always strikes me when I watch US TV feeds. Here in Canada, pharma advertising is very heavily regulated by the Federal government.
It can come in essentially two forms. One is the "for sale" form, in which case the ad is limited to the drug name, the amount, and the price - no description of what it's for, or any other information. The other is the "informational" form, in which case the ad can talk about a symptom, like "acid reflux is dangerous - here are some signs", but it can't mention the name of the drug or pharmaceutical company producing it, and it has to talk about alternative non-drug remedies.
The net result is that there are very few pharmaceutical ads on TV here, since they have so little value in what they're allowed to say.
Here in Canada, pharma advertising is very heavily regulated by the Federal government.
While I think these regulations are very useful in general, they sometimes break horribly. I've found that sometimes the only way to get information about medicine I am currently taking is to click "I am a medical professional" on the manufacturer's website -- because drug companies have been told that web sites count as "advertising", and that they are consequently not allowed to put information online for public consumption.
> Here in Canada, pharma advertising is very heavily regulated by the Federal government
"The United States is one of only two developed countries that allows direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) of prescription drugs. (The other country is New Zealand)."
I wish. Then it wouldn't mean spending ~$160 to visit the doctor and get a prescription if I wanted to try a different medication to treat the same problem.
I do not favor direct-to-consumer advertising of this kind; for one thing it might well create a reverse placebo effect where people believe there's something wrong with them because they're bombarded with lists of symptoms, for another you can't actually buy these medications yourself, as above; for a third, most people don't have the inclination (and maybe not the education either) to read all the small print.
About the Canadian drug ads, I wonder—can a company buy two ad spots, one for the problem information (w/o drug) and one for the drug (w/o information), and then run them one after the other? Might help people make the connection; I've never been able to understand the drug-name-and-that's-it spots.
I don't think there's an explicit prohibition against it, but I imagine Health Canada would probably lay the smack down pretty hard on both the network and the company for trying to skirt the rules - seeing as HC owns the game, it's probably not worth it for them to try.
Ironically, there is an argument in the article that the Parmaceutical ads on TV enhance the placebo effect, and are therefore helping those people who see the ads and then take the drug more than those who don't see the Ad.
> I'm always put off by folks (on television) telling me about their E.D. meds.
Are you talking about commercials or something else?
If commercials, how do you propose that folks who have those problems become aware that it's okay to get help? Or do you think that they should just give up on sex?
Remember - you asserted the reasonable proposition that it's reasonably normal to be embarrassed about such problems.
It can come in essentially two forms. One is the "for sale" form, in which case the ad is limited to the drug name, the amount, and the price - no description of what it's for, or any other information. The other is the "informational" form, in which case the ad can talk about a symptom, like "acid reflux is dangerous - here are some signs", but it can't mention the name of the drug or pharmaceutical company producing it, and it has to talk about alternative non-drug remedies.
The net result is that there are very few pharmaceutical ads on TV here, since they have so little value in what they're allowed to say.