Working in marketing, I tend to pay special attention to sales pitches and advertisements. If an ad catches my attention, I try to analyze why, or I’ll make an effort to isolate what the first element was that I saw or what drew my attention to the ad in the first place. It’s not that I think I’m immune to the message or techniques—quite the opposite. Everyone is susceptible, but the advertising techniques can often be so subtle, that it feels like nothing is happening. It’s easy to dismiss.

It always bothers me when people say “oh, advertising doesn’t affect me.” They will readily acknowledge its effectiveness, but maintain that they are part of the elite few that advertising does not persuade. It’s for everyone else. Fortunately for advertisers, most people are unfamiliar with the techniques used in advertising, so they don’t notice when they’re being used.

“People who say that advertising doesn’t affect them are the ones who are most easily manipulated. “

A little sales secret: the easiest people to sell to are the one who say they will not buy. This has happened to me first hand dozens of times. At first you think it’s a fluke; later you laugh at the predictability; and finally you hoping for it. (On the other hand, folks who keep saying, “Well, I’m not sure…” are the hardest to convince.) In the same way, people who say that advertising doesn’t affect them are the ones who are most easily manipulated. [1]

It’s easy to understand how this might happen. When a marketing message appears, most people don’t even know where to begin an analysis of it. Furthermore, most people are not introspective enough to where they examine their own feelings and motivations to understand how the message is working. These psychological elements are key to effective marketing, but if you don’t know about them, you’re not going to notice when they happen.

Advertising messages can be broken into two broad categories. First, there is increasing awareness. You might not be in the target market, but if you are, advertising serves to make you aware of your options. It’s amazing to see the sheer volume of, say, car dealership ads that you ignore on a daily basis—until you’re in the market for a car. I’ll never forget the first time I was preparing to buy a car off a dealer’s lot (opposed to buying it from the next-door neighbor, or a coworker, etc). Suddenly I was craning my neck to see billboards I had never even noticed along the road before. I would hesitate before shutting off the radio, if a dealership’s spiel erupted as I was reaching for the switch. It’s not that these were particularly good advertisements, but that they suddenly mattered to me. The rest of the time I wasn’t looking, so I ignored them.

The second use for advertising is defining a problem. Local car dealer’s commericals don’t define the problem, they just give you a solution to it. Your lifestyle defines whether owning a car is a problem or not. But some advertisements attempt to define a problem that may not previously have been negatively impacting you, and then provide awareness of the solution which quite coincidently happens to be what they’re selling.

Apple attempts to define the problem as you not being cool enough. Notice that iPod commercials don’t tell you jack about the iPod. How will it make your enjoyment of music better? Easier? What problem do you have with your current CD or MP3 player that the iPod fixes? You don’t know. The only thing the commercial shows is some guy dancing.

Although most people will never think of it this way (and hence why it works), that visual of a guy dancing is defining a problem. The “problem” is that you’re missing out on something, because, hey: here’s a hip new brand icon on the market, and you don’t have it! Problem! Except by any reasonable standard you care to measure at all, this is not a problem. Not really. An iPod is pure, unnecessary luxury, yet Apple sells literal boatloads of them. Apple is a great example, too, because they don’t even provide the solution. They don’t tell you how much it costs, or where to go to get it. The ad doesn’t even say Apple! iPod commercials are distilled down to nothing more than making a problem from nothing–and it works.

It’s important to understand this distinction because of the product advertising I want to discuss as my main point: prescription drugs.

Which types of advertising do pharmaceutical companies use? Like most ads, it’s a combination of both defining a problem and creating awareness of the solution. Certainly there is a problem which exists: the target market is unhealthy. The advertisement isn’t creating that—not the legitimate ailments, anyway. And they do provide a solution: the medication. So what’s the problem?

Prescription medication is the only product advertised which its target market is not allowed to purchase. [2] I believe this is a huge problem.

There are similar examples where advertisers face the problem of the target market being unable to purchase the product—not because they’re not allowed to, but because they’re unable. Both toys and food marketed to children have to overcome the problem of children not having the purchasing power to buy the product. They have to petition their parents to buy it for them. The ads use a variety of techniques to get them to do this.

Likewise, adults are not permitted to buy perscription medication. They must petition their doctor to perscribe it for them. What is really fascinating to me is that the same techniques used to convince children are also used for adults. They just change some of the words around.

Compare:

“If you are being treated for depression or certain anxiety disorders…PaxilCR can help.”

“Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids!”

The juxtaposition is funny, but once you stop giggling, take a look at what’s actually being said. Both sentences are the same message. After defining the problem, both GSK and General Mills are attempting to spur their target audience to action by identifying them with a larger group that has the same problem and providing their product as the solution. The problems are different, of course—depression versus eating food that other kids eat—but the method of convincing the target market to get others to act on their behalf is the same thing. It has to be, because in the same way that most kids can’t afford their own cereal, most people can’t write themselves a prescription for medication.

Even more interesting is that one of the reasons it’s a problem is the same for both children and adults. Children are unable to make informed nutrition decisions regarding cereal, so advertisers have to sell by other means: group acceptance, color, delivery, etc. Unfortunately, adults are not in a position to make informed medication decisions, either. That’s why the medication is prescription to begin with. This leads to adults doing the same thing that children do, just on a more mature level: cajoling their healthcare providers into giving them the miracle drug they saw that takes care of all the symptoms they have. Additional advertising directly to doctors helps this process, as well.

The important difference, however, is that while it may not be healthy for children to eat a lot of sugary cereal, it’s not illegal. This is opposed to Rx drugs where it is indeed illegal for the average person to obtain it without the prescription. What we end up with are adults whining to their doctors the same way that kids whine to their parents. Well of course, they’re being advertised to in the same way.

But the worst part of all is that both methods of advertising—defining the problem and solution awareness—are inapplicable for Rx medication. The problem is not defined by the drug; the drug is defined by the problem. In fact, there was some recent outcry about a medication that was advertised to treat restless leg syndrome. Many people accused the pharmaceutical company of defining a problem that doesn’t exist alone as if it did, and then coming up with a drug to treat it, specifically. People complained that shaking one’s leg can be indicative of so many things that it’s ridiculous to have a medication to treat that only, and nothing else. In general, though, a disorder is identified and studied, and a drug is formulated to treat it.

Secondly, solution awareness is not the job of the patient; it’s the job of the doctor. Obviously it’s good for people to know that treatment options exist, but average folks are not in a position to determine whether Prozac or Paxil is the appropriate medication for their depression, and yet both of these drugs are advertised directly to them. Naturally the pharma companies can’t know either, so they make liberal use of weasel-phrases like “talk to your doctor to see if it’s right for you”. In this way, they are not held liable for any unreasonable demands from the patient. But the question we must ask is: why is the patient presented with this choice at all? The knowledge and experience required to make an informed decision one way or the other is so far beyond the average consumer that it makes this advertising worse than useless. It makes it dangerous.

Why should a pharmaceutical company be permitted to advertise its products to someone who is not in a position to properly evaluate nor obtain it? The answer is, naturally, money. By convincing as many people as possible that this drug is right for them, the company stands to make more money. Besides, when advertised to the consumer, the pharmaceutical company is actually selling a brand. Paxil is a chemical called paroxetine, but if the patient doesn’t ask for Paxil by name (and sometimes even if they do), the doctor can prescribe the “generic” version, which is exactly the same thing, except some other company made it. GSK makes money because people buy Paxil, not because they buy paroxetine.

The reason I believe this is a problem is because it puts the profit of the pharmaceutical company ahead of the health of its customers. An objectivist would say that it’s in the company’s best interest to treat their customers as well as possible and the market will police unethical behavior, but from what we’ve seen with the sub-prime mortgage crisis, this clearly isn’t the case. Much like communism, laissez-faire capitalism looks great on paper, until you factor human nature into the equation. The fact is, it’s in any company’s interest to increase profit to the greatest extent possible.

While I think we need less overall government intervention, it is shortsighted to believe that large corporations will not take any avenue available to them to increase the bottom line. After all, the only reason they cater to customers at all is to keep them buying. Corporations really only answer to the shareholders. Nobody invests in a pharmaceutical company because they think they’re helping to make the world a healthier place. They do it to make money. Ergo, prohibiting direct marketing to consumers who can neither evaluate nor acquire the product on their own seems only prudent.

-Ted


1. Also, 149.6 billion dollars is bet each year on everyone who believes they are immune to the advertising being wrong. That figure is the total amount spent on consumer advertising in 2006, according to TNS Media Intelligence. Companies don’t spend that kind of money on speculative ventures. [Back]

2. I know at this point everyone is probably thinking cigarettes! While this was true in the past, today tobacco advertising is regulated enough to where this criticism no longer applies. [Back]