5 ms·

The amount of big pharma ads on TV and radio is obnoxious. You basically can't consume mass media without seeing 5 ads every 10 minutes for medications. It's

The amount of big pharma ads on TV and radio is obnoxious. You basically can't consume mass media without seeing 5 ads every 10 minutes for medications. It's insane. I'm with you we need this to stop.

lp0_on_fire 4y ago
It's definitely a problem with pharma but in general advertising is getting worse and worse. Our brains were not designed to be under _constant_ psychological assault designed to trick us into buying things we don't want or need. Advertising and marketing have been refined as a science in the past 100 years to such a degree that many times you don't even know you're being subjected to it.
- NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
  You know what I think? I think it's trained my brain to disbelieve and be skeptical of basically everything I hear, and I think it's also trained me to instinctively say "no" and refuse things that I am offered. Now it is healthy to have skepticism when strangers tell me a whopper, or when I'm offered something too good to be true. But if I'm in this habit and I refuse to believe trustworthy sources, someone in authority, or I refuse a gift of goodwill from someone who truly has my best interests in mind, that is advertising being detrimental in its training my mind and will.
  - chankstein38 4y ago
    Right? I don't think the point that it shouldn't be happening and something needs done is nullified by this but I'm with you all it's done is made me say "If I firt see it in a commercial, I'm not going to buy it or deal with it because it's likely a scam"
  - smcin 4y ago
    Skepticism is fine, but ads often actually aren't making the claims a casual watch would suggest they are. Unrepresentative testimonials (see small print disclaimers), phony personal experiences, doctors portrayed by actors in white coats (remember "Dr" Victoria Zdrok selling male enhancement pills in 2008; she's a doctor in psychology).
judge2020 4y ago
My theory on this is because there are a decreasing amount of people watching broadcast television on-air. As fewer millennials and Gen Z/Zoomers are watching anything live, fewer advertisers are going to see it as a lucrative advertising opportunity, so the only people left still paying big bucks are the pharmaceutical companies, and they get a better deal anyways since a larger percentage of the viewers that see their ad will be >50 and need that medicine.
- burkaman 4y ago
  I think there's also a much higher return on investment for medications than anything else, since they can overcharge so much. One person starting on an expensive drug could single-handedly pay for an ad that a million people saw.
smcin 4y ago
Because the median age of "linear" TV viewers in the US is in the high 50s [0], and of cable news viewers early 60s [1], and of PBS viewers 65. All the kidz have gone to streaming or social media or podcasts [2]. As to the direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) for pharmaceuticals, the US and NZ are the only countries which allow it, it's a terrible idea. So on US TV you get the inevitable intersection of both of those. US pharma spent $6.88b on DTCA in 2021. Congress isn't going to do diddly because it loves insider-trading on non-public information in pharma. Perverse incentives. If you want to avoid the pharma ads, cut the cord or switch to a news source with younger viewer age. I see judge2020 had already written the same thing just below. [0]: https://www.parrotanalytics.com/academy/learn-about-the-value-of-broadcast-tv https://www.parrotanalytics.com/academy/learn-about-the-valu... [1]: https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/heres-the-median-age-of-the-typical-cable-news-viewer/ https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/heres-the-median-age-of-the-... [2]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/717651/most-popular-news-platforms/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/717651/most-popular-news...
ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
My fave is the old couple in his and hers tubs. This is the version they should broadcast, though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY6HOdG9sTY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY6HOdG9sTY

lp0_on_fire 4y ago

It's definitely a problem with pharma but in general advertising is getting worse and worse. Our brains were not designed to be under _constant_ psychological assault designed to trick us into buying things we don't want or need. Advertising and marketing have been refined as a science in the past 100 years to such a degree that many times you don't even know you're being subjected to it.

NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
You know what I think? I think it's trained my brain to disbelieve and be skeptical of basically everything I hear, and I think it's also trained me to instinctively say "no" and refuse things that I am offered. Now it is healthy to have skepticism when strangers tell me a whopper, or when I'm offered something too good to be true. But if I'm in this habit and I refuse to believe trustworthy sources, someone in authority, or I refuse a gift of goodwill from someone who truly has my best interests in mind, that is advertising being detrimental in its training my mind and will.
- chankstein38 4y ago
  Right? I don't think the point that it shouldn't be happening and something needs done is nullified by this but I'm with you all it's done is made me say "If I firt see it in a commercial, I'm not going to buy it or deal with it because it's likely a scam"
- smcin 4y ago
  Skepticism is fine, but ads often actually aren't making the claims a casual watch would suggest they are. Unrepresentative testimonials (see small print disclaimers), phony personal experiences, doctors portrayed by actors in white coats (remember "Dr" Victoria Zdrok selling male enhancement pills in 2008; she's a doctor in psychology).

judge2020 4y ago

My theory on this is because there are a decreasing amount of people watching broadcast television on-air. As fewer millennials and Gen Z/Zoomers are watching anything live, fewer advertisers are going to see it as a lucrative advertising opportunity, so the only people left still paying big bucks are the pharmaceutical companies, and they get a better deal anyways since a larger percentage of the viewers that see their ad will be >50 and need that medicine.

burkaman 4y ago
I think there's also a much higher return on investment for medications than anything else, since they can overcharge so much. One person starting on an expensive drug could single-handedly pay for an ad that a million people saw.

smcin 4y ago

Because the median age of "linear" TV viewers in the US is in the high 50s [0], and of cable news viewers early 60s [1], and of PBS viewers 65. All the kidz have gone to streaming or social media or podcasts [2]. As to the direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) for pharmaceuticals, the US and NZ are the only countries which allow it, it's a terrible idea. So on US TV you get the inevitable intersection of both of those. US pharma spent $6.88b on DTCA in 2021. Congress isn't going to do diddly because it loves insider-trading on non-public information in pharma. Perverse incentives. If you want to avoid the pharma ads, cut the cord or switch to a news source with younger viewer age. I see judge2020 had already written the same thing just below. [0]: https://www.parrotanalytics.com/academy/learn-about-the-value-of-broadcast-tv https://www.parrotanalytics.com/academy/learn-about-the-valu... [1]: https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/heres-the-median-age-of-the-typical-cable-news-viewer/ https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/heres-the-median-age-of-the-... [2]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/717651/most-popular-news-platforms/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/717651/most-popular-news...

ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago

My fave is the old couple in his and hers tubs. This is the version they should broadcast, though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY6HOdG9sTY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY6HOdG9sTY