I was catching up on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and an interesting topic arose...pharmaceutical marketing and the unethical money that goes behind it. Overall, about 70% of Americans take at least one prescription drug, and 50% take two prescription drugs. Over 4 billion prescriptions were written in 2011 and prescription drug spending raised by 3% last year to $330 billion ($1,000 per person in the US).
It is impossible to escape pharmaceutical ads. You can't turn on the TV without being subjected to an endless stream of sleeping juice moths, old men getting erections while varnishing chairs, and cartoon bladders leading around their owners. However, drugs aren't like most other products because you need someone else's permission to buy them. All drug ads end with the same catchy phrase, "Ask your doctor if ____ is right for you." Drug companies know that doctors hold all the real power in the prescription drug business. While these companies spend over $4 billion annually marketing to us, they spend $24 billion annually marketing to doctors. According to BBC, 9 out of 10 Big Pharma companies spend more on marketing than on research and development. And according to John Oliver, "Drug companies are like high school boyfriends, they are more concerned being inside of you than they are being effective." Drug companies will tell the public they are there to educate doctors, but behind closed doors it can be a little bit different.
The problem comes when the reps don't understand the effects of the drug they're pushing though. A former pharmaceutical sale rep, Shahram Ahari stated, "I was in a room with twenty-one classmates and two trainers and I was the only one with a science background. In fact on the first day of training I taught my class and my instructors the very basic process by which two brain cells communicate." So basically pharmaceutical reps are like the cast of Grey Anatomy, they're young, they're hot, and they have virtually no medical training what-so-ever. It is alarming that drug reps are even allowed in doctors offices at all, but they don't come empty handed. They come bearing free lunches and free samples. Jamie Reidy stated that some offices even advertise in the job description that there is free lunch everyday, not on the office's expense, but from the pharmaceutical sales reps. Between delicious lunches and free samples, the reps know this remedy works almost every time on a doctor. Additionally, pharmaceutical reps monitor how many prescriptions the doctors that signed with them are prescribing of their drugs, and how many prescriptions they are writing for the competitor's drug. If they are supporting the competitor too much, these perks will be taken away. Leaving the doctor with less incentive to prescribe what is actually in the best interest of the patient.
Crossing the line even more, reps even pay doctors to talk to other doctors about their drugs over expensive steak dinners paid for by the reps. The pharmaceutical reps convince the doctors to participate in this unethical practice by saying, "Our company has identified you as a thought-leader, would you like to be a thought-leader for our company?" At this point, many doctors cannot refuse an paid dinner and an ego-booting title such as a "thought-leader." However, they are not a thought-leaders at all because they are merely reading off of a script given to them by the reps. Lawsuits have even been filed against pharmaceutical companies for treating doctors lavishly in exchange for the promise of prescribing their drugs. Hiring doctors as paid spokesmen is a conflict of interest and it is alarming how common this practice is. Multiple pharmaceutical reports have shown that the doctors that prescribe the most of a certain prescription drug are often getting finically compensated by the corresponding pharmaceutical drug company. Which is alarming, because we trust doctors. When we see a regular ad for a product, we take into account that the person in the ad is getting paid to be there; we don't see doctors the same way when they are recommending a certain drug, and we shouldn't have to.
There recently has been a new new clause placed in the Affordable Care Act that for the first time allows average citizens to research a federal website to see all of the perks given to physicians given to them by pharmaceutical companies. You can visit this site at OpenPaymentsData.CMS.gov. The first numbers are now online covering the first half of 2013. If drug companies are really going to be able to regain our trust, they are going to need to let us know the effect that their money has on doctors.
During each Grammy commercial break, I didn't flip the channel or go into my kitchen looking for unclaimed bottles of wine I could steal a glass from (okay maybe once), I was fully committed to uniquely viewing each commercial. Each would be judged by every detail, however after the most recent games and award shows I have noticed one thing: if you're a celebrity featured in an ad, the one commercial or print ad you're featured in is not all that's expected from you. Yes, we all are very used to seeing a celeb wearing/using the products they are endorsing, this is nothing new. I'm talking about enduring further than this.
I saw this practice taken to a new level yesterday at the Grammy's with Katy Perry, E! Entertainment, and CoverGirl. Katy Perry was featured in CoverGirl's mascara commercial during almost every E! Entertainment commercial break. During the time she was getting ready for the Grammy's, Katy posted a picture to Instagram of her makeup artist using CoverGirl's newest mascara on her lashes. This is a marketing ploy we have all seen happen before, we all know Katy's makeup artist might have used two swipes of CoverGirl's mascara for the picture, and turned back to a more expensive, higher quality mascara. Not throwing CoverGirl under the bus, just saying there's better mascara out there in the makeup world. Furthermore, I am 95% positive Katy's lashes are fake; like many of her costumes and wigs, every thing is about high drama and full effect, rather than reality.
The moment CoverGirl really took me for a spin was when Katy Perry stepped up to talk to Ryan Seacrest on camera during the E! red carpet segment. Seacrest had previously been interviewing artists about their outfits, recent success, what they're looking forward to about that night, wishing them luck, and sending them on their way. But when Katy stepped up, he asked a few of the basic questions, then made a note to mention how Katy had Instagrammed a picture of her getting ready for the Grammy's, clearly talking about the one CoverGirl was featured in because that was the only picture she posted while getting ready. He then told E! to pull it up, at the blink of an eye the Instagram picture popped up on the TV screen. Next, there was a commercial break, and the first commercial that aired was CoverGirl's with Katy.
Coincidence? I think not. CoverGirl clearly not only had an ad aired on the exact channel that would be interviewing Katy Perry AND with an artist nominated/featured in a Grammy performance, they had Katy Instagram a picture of her markup artist using the product, and topped it off by having Ryan Seacrest casually bring up the picture on screen when he was live interviewing Katy. Do they think we're stupid? Also, Seacrest not once talked to any of the artists about their makeup or Instagram pictures, and it was clearly a marketing ploy strategical set up.
Not sure if anyone else caught on, but I did. CoverGirl, you can't fool me. It's amazing how much more integrated marketers have to be to try and convince consumers to use their products. I don't watch much cable TV, maybe this type of marketing is very common, it's just the first time I have been exposed to it and it really caught me off guard.
Here is a link to the commercial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoZhr5MfQLo
The most recent Snapchat update from January 27th finally has something to offer. Personally, I cannot say I was too intrigued by the previous updates which included Snapchat messaging or Snapchat money transfers... all sounds a little too unnecessary and sketch for me. However, being able to swipe through the hottest news headlines, recipes, humous Comedy Central clips, and Cosmo's 101 sex tips (which are still a mystery to me since new ones are included in almost every monthly issue) is actually quite nice of a change.
Snapchat is a great indicator of the way our generation and younger generations consume information--we want what's important to right now and we want it fast. It's almost like speed dating or an audition where you have to say what's good about yourself in under 10 seconds. Snapchat specifically chose 12 different companies who they believed would have the ability to capture their audience in roughly under a minute.
Unfortunately, Snapchat only chose 12 companies of the thousands of entertainment businesses that exist. I was very happy to see CNN, Yahoo! News, Cosmopolitan, Comedy /Central, food Network, and People among the "chosen ones," but I wish I didn't have to limit myself there. I would love to see HBO on there releasing 10 second teasers of the new Game of Thrones series; or Spotify giving us snip bits of some of the hottest, yet undiscovered songs; or YouTube, E! Entertainment, etc. Snapchat could even take a stab at some good causes, perhaps an animal adoption account for example. The options are endless, do you have any ideas?
