Consumers think ads for drugs lead to higher prices

MIAMI -- Expensive drug commercials -- which bombard television viewers with talk of heartburn, arthritis pain and erectile dysfunction -- are often a waste of money, cause repulsed viewers to channel surf and leave many with the impression that the ads are a big reason for high drug prices.

That's what participants were told this week at a healthcare summit staged in Miami by Forrester Research, a widely respected business advisory group based in Cambridge, Mass. About 50 healthcare specialists, many of them in the pharmaceutical industry, paid up to $1,500 each for the event.

"'Mass marketing in television and radio is a scattershot approach that's expensive in these tough economic times," said Bradford J. Holmes, Forrester's research director. "Drug marketers are in love with television, but they need to look for more effective ways of targeting their audience."

A poll by Forrester found that viewers of a commercial are as likely to remember a drug's side effects as they are its benefits. What's more, the commercials -- which often deal with distasteful body conditions -- are the most likely to cause viewers to start clicking to other stations, the poll showed.

"They're a blanket approach that inundates consumers who don't care," Forrester analyst Elizabeth W. Boehm told 50 healthcare specialists, many of them in the pharmaceutical industry.

Thinking about ads

The upshot is that turned-off consumers start thinking about the cost of the ads and how much they add to the soaring prices of pharmaceutical drugs.

Baseball star Rafael Palmeiro may praise the wonders of Viagra, skater Dorothy Hamill can sing the joys of Vioxx and coach Dan Reeves might express the happiness caused by Zocor, but many critics have linked the huge increase in drug expenditures to the rise in drug advertising.

Forrester reports that from 1996 to 2000, direct to consumer drug advertising leaped 352 percent, to $2.5 billion.

A study by the National Institute of Health Care Management found that the 50 most heavily advertised drugs accounted for almost half of the $21 billion increase in drug sales in 1999 and 2000. The other half was due to 9,800 other drugs.

Wyeth spent the most in 2001, according to Competitive Media Reporting, followed by Merck and Pfizer.

One problem is that the drugs don't always live up to the smiling testimonies given in the ads.

Ann Devereux, president of marketing group DVC ActiveCare, drew a laugh from the audience when she showed a New Yorker cartoon in which a dowdy woman tells her doctor: "I think the dosage needs adjusting. I'm not nearly as happy as the people in the ads."

The big pharmaceutical companies have repeatedly said that their consumer ads are informational, giving material that patients can talk to their doctors about.

But Forrester's survey of 5,112 households found that only 22 percent agreed with the statement, "Drug ads help me decide what drugs to talk to my doctor about."

Only 16 percent thought "drug ads accurately present product benefits and risks."

Questioning campaigns

Forrester reported that drug companies are starting to question their expensive marketing campaigns, because there are fewer new drugs to promote.

Many of the conference speakers talked about alternative marketing strategies, targeting likely consumers through direct mail, phone and Web contacts.

These are cheaper, more effective strategies, the speakers said.

New privacy regulations make it more difficult to collect data on individuals and their ailments, but Boehm said there are companies offering to sell vast amounts of information on patients and their diseases.

The key, said Boehm, was to concentrate on '"getting the balance right" and not to over-personalize marketing material before consumers had expressed interest.