|
Click Here
for more articles
|
|
|
|
Bextra
and Vioxx Product Withdrawal Spawns Advertising Pause
from Bristol Myers Squibb
|
|
by:
Charles Essmeier
|
Pharmaceutical
giant Bristol Myers Squibb has announced that they will suspend
direct-to-consumer advertising for their prescription drug products for
a year. This comes in the wake of the well-publicized withdrawals of
Merck’s Vioxx and Pfizer’s Bextra, two non-steroidal anti-inflammatory
drugs (NSAIDs) that were voluntarily withdrawn from the market
recently. Studies showed that they increase the likelihood of strokes
and heart attacks among patients that take them for prolonged periods
of time. This represents an unusual move for a pharmaceutical company,
as they tend to spend a large portion of their annual advertising
budget on direct-to-consumer advertising.
It is possible that Bristol Myers recognizes that consumers are
becoming concerned about new drugs being approved by the FDA and
advertised heavily, only to find out later that the drugs have
previously unknown and possibly dangerous side effects. Consumers have
learned that advertising a drug as “new and improved” doesn’t
necessarily mean that it is new, or improved, or even safe. In short,
customers are suspicious of pharmaceutical advertising, and the drug
companies are to be commended for taking notice of that fact.
Since 1997, drug companies have been allowed by U.S. law to advertise
directly to consumers. This has led to an astonishing number of ads on
television and radio, as consumers see ads showing one happy person
after another. The ads suggest that the happiness shown is a result of
the use of the product, and a voiceover quickly mumbles through the
known, and sometimes lengthy, list of side effects. Patients are
encouraged to speak with their doctor, and they have been doing so in
record numbers. The problem, as Bristol Myers know realizes, is that
consumers are well aware that the withdrawn Bextra and Vioxx were
advertised as being safe. This has naturally led to a general suspicion
of all advertised drugs, and Bristol Myers correctly sees that they
could be the victims of a drug-company backlash, even if they didn’t
manufacture any of the withdrawn products.
This will probably save Bristol Myers a lot of money in the short term,
as their advertising would have largely gone to waste. The Food and
Drug Administration is taking steps to make sure that the drugs that
reach the U.S. market are safe, and in time, the public will again
become more trusting of pharmaceutical advertising. In the meantime, TV
viewers will be spared from having to watch the sometimes-cryptic drug
ads, which often prompt questions of “What does this drug do?”
About the Author
©Copyright 2005 by Retro Marketing. Charles
Essmeier is the owner of Retro Marketing, a firm devoted to
informational Websites, including Bextra-Info.net, a site devoted to
the withdrawn drug Bextra
and StructuredSettlementHelp.com, a site devoted to structured
settlements.
|
|
