Direct-to-consumer advertising

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The tone or style of this article or section may not be appropriate for Wikipedia.
Specific concerns may be found on the talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions.(December 2007)

Direct-to-consumer advertising (DTC advertising) usually refers to the marketing of pharmaceutical products but can apply in other areas as well. This form of advertising is directed toward patients, rather than healthcare professionals. Forms of DTC advertising include TV, print, and other mass media. There are ethical concerns regarding DTC advertising, specifically the extent to which the ads result in over-prescription of the products in cases when they are not medically necessary.

1 Nations permitting DTC
2 Pharmaceutical industry controversy
3 Financial services
4 References
5 External links

[edit] Nations permitting DTC

To date only two nations permit DTC (Nation, year of legalization, link to legislation permitting DTC)

New Zealand (1990s?)
United States (1990s)

DTC and threats to national sovereignty

Canada: US terrestrial broadcasters and some US cable broadcasters that have access to the Canadian market via Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) regulation have effectively overridden Canada's laws that forbid DTC with respect to the transmission of these ads into the Canadian market via these broadcasters. The CRTC has not evicted these broadcasters from access to the Canadian market.
Mexico: there is a similar case of national sovereignty to Canada with respect to some US terrestrial broadcasters running ads in Spanish on the Univision network -- where reception of these broadcasts is possible in Mexico (only the states of Sonora and Baja California are affected).
With the coming of DTV conversion of the US in 2009, Canada and Mexico may be less affected by US terrestrial broadcasters and the issue of DTC.
US cable broadcasters on Canadian cable TV systems will continue to be in violation after 2009.

[edit] Pharmaceutical industry controversy

All western nations, with the exception of New Zealand and the United States, have historically (since the 1940s for Australasia, North America and Europe) banned direct advertising of pharmaceuticals to consumers.

DTC advertising was only legalized in the US after a 1985 United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ruling, but the agency required the adverts to include a great amount of information on the risks of the drugs.

These long consumer warnings often required multiple pages (or infomercial length ads to fully fulfill the requirement.
In 1997 the US FDA changed this rule and allowed significantly greater amounts of DTC advertising of drugs by effectively allowing the full side effects to be reduced to a brief statement (or series of brief statements) that is now familiar on most television pharmaceutical ads.

After that, the amount of money spent on DTC advertising increased from $220 million in 1997 to over $2.8 billion in 2002.

This great amount of advertising has been successful in raising the prescription rate of DTC drugs by 34.2%, compared to only a 5.1% increase in other prescriptions(1).
This, and many other aspects of DTC advertising, has made it extremely controversial among public health officials and physicians(2).

Rufen, manufactured by Boots, was the first drug to be advertised on US television in 1983.

[edit] Financial services

Consumer vulnerability to deceptive advertising is also particularly acute in the area of financial services. Individuals often have little knowledge of the workings of credit, leases, and security agreements. It is sometimes difficult to obtain information on such subjects that would be meaningful to the average consumer, so it is especially important that consumers be on guard against misleading or fraudulent advertisement. Because of the great inequality of bargaining power in this area, the government often backs up the consumer with protective laws(3,4).

[edit] References

1. Sheehan, Kim. Controversies in Contemporary Advertising; Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2003; pp 209-215.
2. Kerber, Ross. Doctors Criticize Sleeping-Pill Ad (Lunesta from Speracor Inc.). Boston Globe, Boston, Aug. 18, 2005, p HS05.
3. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 1981. What Truth in Lending Means to You
4. Rist, Marilee C. 1989. Mass Marketers Have a Sweet Deal for You, but There Are Strings Attached. American School Board Journal (176)9, 20-24.