tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8550428.post4965962182177078731..comments2024-03-27T01:34:23.434-04:00Comments on Pharma Marketing Blog: Free Health Speech - Marketers, Reach for Your Gun!Vladhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04114063498108633047noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8550428.post-62759322827831592902009-04-23T03:43:00.000-04:002009-04-23T03:43:00.000-04:00I like it your blog, I used the example of "regula...I like it your blog, I used the example of "regulation by what level of marketing spend" to demonstrate how arbitrary many of such restrictions may be.<br /> Great ArticleRavihttp://meta-works.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8550428.post-67430002465752674152009-03-13T05:43:00.000-04:002009-03-13T05:43:00.000-04:00Dear John,Love the blog, it's very informative. Th...Dear John,<BR/>Love the blog, it's very informative. Thought you might find this post interesting. Its from a broader SM blogger, but one that I also like: http://nomadologies.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/the-fiction-of-todays-health-consumer/<BR/><BR/>Linda MargaretLinda Margarethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00028859002817594850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8550428.post-70742634968832747032009-02-11T04:28:00.000-05:002009-02-11T04:28:00.000-05:00Hi,thanks for the healthy tips.I like very much yo...Hi,<BR/><BR/>thanks for the healthy tips.<BR/><BR/>I like very much your blog.This is nice collection and references information.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8550428.post-36465216694624649322009-01-13T15:27:00.000-05:002009-01-13T15:27:00.000-05:00Excellent information on this subject. Hope to see...Excellent information on this subject. Hope to see more!<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.danscartoons.com/pharmacy_cartoons.htm" REL="nofollow">Pharmaceutical cartoons and cartoon humor available</A>Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12602895446020408460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8550428.post-77650177328007629762009-01-09T15:21:00.000-05:002009-01-09T15:21:00.000-05:00Commenting on my original post, Hank Stern raises ...Commenting on my original post, Hank Stern raises a similar point re: how consumer opinion is increased by lack of entanglements. I agree but note that this should be voluntary and the market itself (consumers) will determine the exact premium placed on that trust. Ironically, if there were to be a mandate, refusing such incentives could no longer be a point of differentiation. Check out the thread!<BR/><BR/>Indeed, physicians and consumers need to be at the table. A lot of docs consider these restrictions silly and insulting. Consumer's opinion might be a bit harder to gauge, but I would note that marketing that goes overboard gets rejected by consumers and in the end loses effectiveness.<BR/><BR/>Marketing still has to be tasteful to work, but I doubt it is possible to precisely mandate the way it should be via regulation.<BR/><BR/>Personally I favor disclosure over prohibition.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8550428.post-44246879336788636472009-01-09T14:48:00.000-05:002009-01-09T14:48:00.000-05:00I agree, but there are different stakeholders -- i...I agree, but there are different stakeholders -- including patients and physicians -- who need to be represented in the discussion. If marketing is getting to the point where it is alienating its audience, then I'm sure you would want to reign it in.<BR/><BR/>Personally, my opinion of my primary care physician was diminished greatly when I saw all the free pharma stuff in her office. Perhaps she felt that it did not influence her decisions, but I wasn't so sure. Added to that was the fact that her office always has one or more sales reps in it. It just made me feel uncomfortable.<BR/><BR/>That breakdown in trust between physician and patient is very troubling.PharmaGuyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10211557578124130640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8550428.post-18338517068148311712009-01-09T14:22:00.000-05:002009-01-09T14:22:00.000-05:00John, I know you are the good guy! My post was not...John, I know you are the good guy! My post was not pointing finger at you, but just lamenting the overall blame-the-marketers-first attitude that is saturating the airwaves and shaping the public's perceptions.<BR/><BR/>I used the example of "regulation by what level of marketing spend" to demonstrate how arbitrary many of such restrictions may be.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, a lot of these are driven by competitive or anti-competitive jockeying. But I believe regulatory intervention should be limited to protecting the public from harm rather than to redistribute benefit on behalf of this or that stakeholder.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8550428.post-26163060027999034402009-01-09T07:21:00.000-05:002009-01-09T07:21:00.000-05:00There's nothing evil about marketing, it's just co...There's nothing evil about marketing, it's just competitive like everything else in a free and open market. Drug companies compete with one another and sometimes they demand a level playing field and demand more regulation of their (competitors' actually) activities.<BR/><BR/>So it's just not the media that takes pharma marketers to task, it's their competitors. Many pharma people have told me how much they enjoyed reading my critiques of their competitor's tactics.<BR/><BR/>And let's not forget that the complaints the FDA pays most attention to are complaints from pharma companies -- FDA ignores me and probably the NYT as well!PharmaGuyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10211557578124130640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8550428.post-73430085035996376942009-01-09T05:28:00.000-05:002009-01-09T05:28:00.000-05:00John,Thanks for the quality discussion. I will com...John,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the quality discussion. I will compile feedback from all sources and blog it this weekend, but in the meantime a few observations re: your points:<BR/><BR/>1) Interesting that your survey confirms my position, though few people are willing to publicly support marketers. What is your audience demographics?<BR/><BR/>2) "Branding", "reminding" and "implanting" are not that different in my eyes. The real question is whether this leads to improper prescribing behavior. The evidence on that is lacking and docs consider these suggestions highly insulting.<BR/><BR/>3) No I am not "too focused" on trinket issue. I am just using it as an opening to kick off the conversation about anti-marketing campaign gone too far. I promise to cover a lot more this year - this is my New Year Resolution.<BR/><BR/>4) I do not endorse the positions of the "Google girl" and do not think of marketing as democracy - this is way too utopian. But I believe it is unfair to dismiss out of hand the substance of any message just because it is advertised or financially incented.<BR/><BR/>5) You say you cannot compete $-for-$ with pharma advertising. Fair enough, but they get beaten up a lot in editorial media. Then as you mention on your podcast you advertise too. At what ad spend does it become evil? $1? $100? $10K? $1M? $1B?<BR/><BR/>IMHO, none of these issues are clear-cut. That is why I see many of these marketing bans as just good show failing to do much other than tie up everyone in red tape and generate full employment for lawyers and bureaucrats.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com