3 ms·

I think that they positively spread awareness of both problems and solutions. If a patient doesn't know about a drug, then they might not bring the problem up

I think that they positively spread awareness of both problems and solutions. If a patient doesn't know about a drug, then they might not bring the problem up with their doctor. Viagra might be a good example. Many, or even most, men wouldn't be comfortable bringing up ED with their doctors were they not aware of a possible solution. Perhaps the Internet does a better job at surfacing this information than was the case before, but I am not sure. Personally, I have benefitted from learning, via ads, about a cure that I never would have known existed otherwise, for a problem that I had assumed I would just have to live with.

scotty79 6y ago
Same could be achieved by sponsoring social ads about specific illness without mentioning perscription drug. Yet drug corporations don't do that in countries where ads for perscription drugs are banned. I guess that does not bring the same value to them as pushing drug explicitly.
pjc50 6y ago
I'm convinced that this is the worst possible example given that Viagra marketing produced an absolute tidal wave of spam in the early 2000s. It was advertising at its worst, and least ethical.
valarauko 6y ago
On the flipside, many physicians complain that patients come to them convinced that they absolutely suffer from the disorder advertised on TV, and they need it prescribed. Besides, while direct to consumer advertising is a more recent phenomena, pharma companies have for the longest time targeted physicians. So if there's a new treatment for your condition, your physician knows about it. Are you a suitable candidate for the treatment? That's for the physician to determine.
KozmoNau7 6y ago
Other countries handle this through public service announcements in the form of "do you suffer from X/Y/Z? Your doctor can help you", for identified public health challenges, such as smoking or obesity.

scotty79 6y ago

Same could be achieved by sponsoring social ads about specific illness without mentioning perscription drug. Yet drug corporations don't do that in countries where ads for perscription drugs are banned. I guess that does not bring the same value to them as pushing drug explicitly.

pjc50 6y ago

I'm convinced that this is the worst possible example given that Viagra marketing produced an absolute tidal wave of spam in the early 2000s. It was advertising at its worst, and least ethical.

valarauko 6y ago

On the flipside, many physicians complain that patients come to them convinced that they absolutely suffer from the disorder advertised on TV, and they need it prescribed. Besides, while direct to consumer advertising is a more recent phenomena, pharma companies have for the longest time targeted physicians. So if there's a new treatment for your condition, your physician knows about it. Are you a suitable candidate for the treatment? That's for the physician to determine.

KozmoNau7 6y ago

Other countries handle this through public service announcements in the form of "do you suffer from X/Y/Z? Your doctor can help you", for identified public health challenges, such as smoking or obesity.