3 ms·
I think what happened in the past with drug and doctor ads is they "red-tided" themselves in the space by making themselves known as the source of disreputable
by Nasrudith 6y ago
I think what happened in the past with drug and doctor ads is they "red-tided" themselves in the space by making themselves known as the source of disreputable patent medicine quacks such that advertising was shameful. The public, even with the worse transparency learned that they just didn't work. Like how infomercial products are often synonymous with overpriced and/or not working.
Part of why we aren't seeing that reoccur is that while expensive there is FDA regulation and the drugs more or less work even if there may be rightful concerns about side effects. They made sure they actually work so they rake in way more money than any small time quack.
Part of the issue with any return to glory days movement is that tradition is fundamentally a cargo-culted lie via induction. Traditions never were first done because they were tradition. The hard truth is the rot has always been there.
- fhsm 6y agoI wouldn’t merge physicians and pharmaceuticals in a conversation about ads. Ads for the former remain rare in my experience. Supply is tight (imagine an ad to join a 10 month waiting list) and insurance coverage is the critical entry point in searches for a new provider ( that a mental health provider is buying ads is testament to the continued lack of mental health parity / vibrant cash market there ). Pharma ads are older than the FDA itself which practically grew out of the snake oil market. What many people experience as the explosion in pharma ads is really a broadcast explosion. FDA guidance around balanced reporting of side effects changed in the late 90s such that the brief “this may kill you” was newly possible. Lots written about this, eg: https://doi.org/10.1509%2Fjppm.21.2.174.17580 https://doi.org/10.1509%2Fjppm.21.2.174.17580