People who watch ads on TV for prescription drugs feel smarter because of it. That's the finding of two separate studies examining reactions to this ever-controversial marketing medium.

Yet despite the support, these results also reveal a distinctly conflicted undertone. Even a decade after FDA first allowed DTC ads to be broadcast into America's living rooms, a small but significant proportion of us still wonder whether the pitches should be taken off the airwaves.

The studies come as Congress prepares to reauthorize the Prescription Drug User Fee Act. As part of that legislation, FDA has proposed a new user-fee program to fund TV ad reviews--and catch sketchy matter before it airs.

In the first survey, of 1,002 adults, 90 percent reported having seeing a drug ad on TV or in a magazine. And these spots do deliver: 28 percent of respondents said they were prompted to take action--such as talk to their doctor about the drug (71 percent) or look up the product on the Internet (61 percent).

Across the board, a majority agreed with statements such as drug ads "can help people be better informed about their health options" (72 percent) and "can make it less embarrassing to raise sensitive issues with your doctor" (62 percent).

But the group seemed almost ambivalent in their attitudes toward DTC outreach. Half of respondents described the ads as "informative and accurate," while half either found them "uninformative and inaccurate" or were unsure. While the majority--58 percent--opposed prohibitions on DTC marketing, 38 percent favored such restrictions. The Advertising Coalition, a group of trade associations representing advertisers, advertising firms, broadcasters, and magazines, sponsored the survey.

The second study--conducted by Harris Interactive for the Pharmaceutical Safety Institute--also found that people think pharma pitches are persuasive. More than 40 percent of the 1,726 respondents reported feeling more knowledgeable about new treatments, drug benefits, and even drug risks after viewing DTC ads. Fifty-one percent say that the ads prompt them to pepper their doctors with more questions.

Yet it is perhaps this trusting attitude that has critics of DTC ads up in arms, scrutinizing every scripted line. Take the new Celebrex ads. Pfizer this month reintroduced its maligned Cox-2 inhibitor to the airwaves with a two-and-a-half minute commercial featuring the tagline "understand the risks, see the benefits." Still, the mixed message wasn't enough for advocacy group Public Citizen, which immediately asked FDA to pull the ad because of how Pfizer compared the Cox-2 inhibitor to NSAIDs.

Articles

Survey respondents say the spots make them smarter, but some would still like greater advertising restrictions.

Americans Ambivalent About DTC Ads

Pharmaceutical companies have spying on their neighbors down to a science. When it comes to competitive intelligence, the drug industry can boast a longstanding, deeply ingrained commitment.

This shouldn't surprise any industry insiders, however. Executives have nearly a decade before a product is launched to survey and seed the market. 

Then once the product hits, regulations are strict, patent life is short, and competition--especially in primary-care fields--is cutthroat. In addition, in this era of consolidation, it pays to know not only your own market space but that of any takeover target.

Spook smarts doesn't have to be expensive, either, with the average budget between $1 and 2 million, according to Fuld & Company, a consulting firm that specializes in the field. In a recent report, Fuld surveyed 27 pharma and biotech companies and compared the results with 141 firms in five industries. The findings showed that 57 percent of pharma respondents--more than any other industry--have competitive intelligence staff reporting to C-level management. They were also most likely to surpass the million-dollar budget mark (26 percent of pharma companies compared to 16 percent in manufacturing and nine percent in technology.)

Fuld's report surveyed only internal intelligence programs--which are usually owned by employees who span departments from science to branding. "If they're doing their job well, they're actually leveraging the people inside their companies," he said.

Still, the report cautioned that the drug industry is the most polarized in terms of who is using competitive intelligence. Those firms that fell well below "world class" caliber were likely to be merely piloting competitive intelligence activities. "Even though as an industry they're considered world class for this study, some individual companies have a long way to go," said firm president Leonard Fuld. "They don't perform uniformly well." (Companies interested in seeing how they stack up against their peers can take a free self-test online at fuld.com. Respondents get automatic e-mail feedback.)

Fuld noted that pharma is using competitive intelligence primarily for "war games and strategy games"--to anticipate a competitor's move when two companies are racing to launch the first-in-class product, to thwart a generic threat, or to plan in advance of partnering with another firm. "These programs are built on years of preparation. Pharma companies have a longer view of the market," he said. "They see this basically as an insurance policy."

Competitive intelligence can range from regular, rigorous research to monitoring chat groups and online forums. Novartis CEO Daniel Vasella, for instance, "takes soft intelligence in a very serious way," Fuld said.

Mssrs. Garnier, Dehecq, and Kindler, take note.

Drug industry leads in 'world class' competitive intelligence.

Pharmaceutical Executive-04-25-2007

Americans Ambivalent About DTC Ads

The Name is Bond...Pharma Bond