Merck is Shocked -- Shocked! -- to Discover That Some Drug Ads Are Deceptive

[Guest guest]

Merck is Shocked -- Shocked! -- to Discover That Some Drug Ads Are

" Deceptive "

By Jim | Mar 11, 2010

Merck (MRK) wants the FDA to know that its own rules on risk

information in drug ads have actually made patients less likely to

encounter safety information. Of course, Merck’s agenda here is to

persuade the FDA to loosen up its oversight of online advertising ­ so

take its conclusions with a pinch of salt.

Merck outlined its argument in a letter to the FDA in which it claimed

that unbranded “help-seeking” ads targeted at patients who simply want to

know more about their disease don’t work and are “potentially deceptive.”

Companies have relied heavily on unbranded ads in part because the FDA

places less scrutiny on them ­ precisely because they don’t make specific

claims about drugs.

Merck claimed to reach its conclusion after doing a study that showed

consumers respond the least to unbranded health awareness ads, and are

less likely to find drug safety information through them.

For years, pharma companies have argued that drug advertising is good for

us because it gets more sick people to the doctor. To burnish this point,

companies have spent millions running unbranded health awareness ads

which urge patients to call a number or visit a web site to research

their health problems. Although the ads don’t push specific pills, the

belief is that patients will end up at their doctor requesting

prescriptions anyway.

Pfizer

(PFE), for instance, made a huge policy shift in 2005, promising

that the money it spent on unbranded health ads would be “on par” with

the money it placed behind specific ads for its name-brand pills. That

year it began

a new campaign for cholesterol drug

Lipitor with a series of unbranded efforts urging consumers to

“get the facts” about the danger of high cholesterol.

But, Merck says in a letter in

which it asks the FDA to update its drug advertising rules, that was

all a waste of money. Worse, these ads are slightly unethical, Merck

hints:

… they may lack transparency. An individual searching for information

on depression, for example, may view a sponsored help-seeking ad as

confusing or worse, potentially deceptive, if the link provided redirects

to a company-sponsored product web site instead of a disease-specific web

site.

Merck’s study found that consumers are least likely to click on

unbranded ads and therefore least likely to reach the warnings and side

effect information that the FDA wants people to read in ads. In addition,

consumers were least likely to agree that unbranded ads were a “direct

way” to reach safety information:

(Click to enlarge.)

Merck did the study after the

FDA’s 2009 crackdown on branded online search ads, mostly in Google.

Those ads ­ which offer a dozen or so words and a hyperlink ­ contained a

few words touting brands and almost no words describing risks, which is

why the FDA wanted them gone. Merck and its rivals were forced to replace

them with unbranded health ads:

Across several brands, we observed an increase in click-thru rates

with the unbranded, help-seeking format indicating that the format may

have attracted more users seeking condition-specific

information.

However, the number of landing (product) site pages consumed after

the click-thru consistently declined. For one brand, the number of page

views by the searcher dropped by nearly 50%.

Merck’s takeaway ­ what’s good for our brands is good for patients,

too ­ is a conclusion that the FDA may want to treat

skeptically.

Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian

Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Washington State, USA

Vaccines -

http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/ Homeopathy

http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com

Vaccine Dangers, Childhood Disease Classes & Homeopathy

Online/email courses - next classes start March 24, March 31, & April

1