tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8550428.post114427007326660518..comments2024-03-27T01:34:23.434-04:00Comments on Pharma Marketing Blog: Clash!Vladhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04114063498108633047noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8550428.post-1145304610412692702006-04-17T16:10:00.000-04:002006-04-17T16:10:00.000-04:00Heh. We at MM&M were as amused as you were at the ...Heh. We at MM&M were as amused as you were at the juxtaposition (which we only noticed on visiting your site), though I can assure you, it was completely coincidental, right down to the colors. We editorial types don't even look at the ads. We're that pious. Well, okay, actually just that busy. <BR/><BR/>Regarding the CHC's petition: if you'll forgive me for saying so, I think your analysis of their prescription for risk information is a little woolly. They have, indeed, called for the elimination of fine print disclosures "in scientific language reproducing professional labeling, which most patients cannot comprehend" and long "major statements" which are challenging to consumers and are seldom retained. They argue that doctors are better equipped to communicate <I>detailed</I> risk info than are drug ads. Based on the volume of data on how consumers read drug ads, as well as my own personal experience, I'd have to agree. <BR/><BR/>I read the CHC's petition as a cry for clearer, more common-sense rules for DTC that 1.) make drug information more accessible to consumers, 2.)reinforce the patient-physician dialogue and 3.) liberate straightjacketed advertisers by giving them clear-cut boundaries instead of vague, subjective and arbitrarily-enforced rules. <BR/><BR/>That's the kind of thing our sources in pharma marketing have been praying for, so that they can do their jobs with confidence, better inform patients and piss off physicians a little less. Sounds like a win-win to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com