Naked Medicine

Let's Face It: Medicine is Business

Category: Health Advertising

Patient Hot Buttons in Pharma — Series with Casey Quinlan

Introduction: I met Casey Quinlan in October 2011 when we both presented at a Digital Pharma industry conference hosted by DTC Perspectives. Casey describes herself as a “rabble rouser”, and of course, I cannot resist. This is a series of conversations with Casey on various “Patient Hot Buttons in Pharma” that we will be relay-blogging.

Casey

Jane

Segments of this Series:

Absurd Advertising

Lack of Transparency

Behind the scenes manipulation we sense but can’t see

Lack of Presence

Cost

Pharma Companies that Can’t Handle Comments Should Get Off Facebook, Good Riddance!

Jonathan at Dose of Digital talks about pharma’s fear of Facebook pages centering around 2 issues that pharma thinks require 24/7 monitoring: Adverse Events and negative publicity.

I hear the same excuse on why pharma companies are so scared to look at patient comments on blogs: adverse events.

I’m sorry, but adverse events are happening whether pharma companies are monitoring or not, and this is different from monitoring whether someone’s posting something “bad” about your company (newsflash: not everyone’s going to like you, better to expect it and have rules to address it than bury your head in the sand).


Adverse events are crucial for patient adherence and avoiding Facebook comments for fear of posts on AE is a missed opportunity for pharma to engage with patients in an issue that they all care about.

Patients expect drugs to work — rarely will patients want to get on a pharma page to thank the company for making a product that works. You may have a cancer patient who will do this if the company has gone above and beyond the call of duty to help the patient gain access to the drug that the patient otherwise cannot afford. But for the most part, patients have a “love-hate” relationship with pharma companies that is more “hate” than “love”, and I can’t blame patients for feeling this way.

What patients gripe about, and fear, and dread, are the adverse events.

Adverse events chip away a patient’s hope of getting better.

Adverse events erode a patient’s quality of life.

Adverse events make patients wonder, “would I rather stay ill, or deal with this horrible side effect?”

Then they look at companies avoiding discussion about something that is so key to their treatment experience, they naturally assume “profits before patients”. Never mind the realities of bureaucracy in adverse event reporting, I know it’s a bitch… the FDA knows it too.

That’s how pharma companies come across in their being so scared about Facebook.

Funny… I rarely recall pharma companies coming across scared when some of their sales and marketing teams find creative ways to fly under the radar to promote off-label. Somehow these companies are fine with breaking the law to “expand” usage of their drugs, but now they’re claiming they can’t deal with lack of guidance where Facebook pages are concerned.

Better companies pull their pages off Facebook if they are hard-headed about not allowing comments. Leave those who are more enlightened to get those patients’ eyeballs and possibly gain some goodwill.

Companies who want to control the message and behave hypocritically are doing the right thing by leaving Facebook: they aren’t adding value on the social network anyway.

Pharma and Social Media: It’s Not About Controlling the Conversation, but Finding the Right Venues for Engagement

Now that Facebook Pages is to Marketing what LinkedIn Profiles is to Job Seeking – pharma companies are in pickle: Facebook is going to open up comments no matter what.

This means pharma companies can no longer restrict people from commenting on their Facebook pages.

Er…. DUH! Why is this big news? People get on Facebook to socialize – and not just to socialize – but to socialize in a mildly (or very) uninhibited manner. Facebook is MySpace done artfully and profitably, where we aren’t subjected to blinking starry page backgrounds or annoying music on auto-loop.

But remember why Facebook was created, and why Facebook has taken off with businesses – it is because when people are less inhibited, they are more suggestive, and more likely to click on links that businesses want them to click to buy stuff!

If businesses want stuffy and formal – there’s already a Facebook for that – it’s called LinkedIn.

I realize that it makes good sense for pharma to get its brands and company names out there. The problem is that when the public engages pharma, if they don’t ask about products, what would they want to engage pharma about?

[Assuming they aren’t interested in engaging pharma companies to ask, “why are you charging such high prices for drugs I need to save my life?”]

It’s akin to expecting a customer who drives a Toyota Corolla here in the U.S. not to engage the company Toyota to ask about the Corolla he drives. Unless that customer happens to work in an area that involves some business process, thereby predisposing the customer to want to ask about how Toyota “the company” works, customers often equate the company with the brands they use.

I understand that pharma industry supporters, including myself, would love if pharma can once again establish credibility with consumers by focusing on their support of disease state research and advancement.

Only another party’s already settled in that domain: they’re called physicians.

Physicians are typically seen as providers of support to patients in disease areas, from the consumer perspective. Let’s say I experience the symptoms of clinical depression – I’d naturally think, “I need to seek info from the doctors (once I learn more about this on the web)”.

I am not thinking, “I wonder what information GSK or Pfizer is providing in treating depression.” I’m not even thinking, “I wonder how Forest Laboratories or AstraZeneca are supporting R&D in depression relapse.”

But I may think in drug names, like, “I wonder if I should ask my doctor about Abilify, or Zoloft.”

[note: this would be an off-label use of Abilify, since Abilify is not approved for first-line use in treating depression, only as an adjunct to a first-line treatment if that treatment isn’t working as well as it should; it’s like a “boost”. But I use Abilify because I’ve been seeing so many ads on TV for it, and I honestly haven’t seen that Zoloft bouncy little ball in ages on TV.]

Thus there is first a cognitive hurdle that will not be easily passed. It is that diploma on the wall that garners the physician ‘credibility’, just as it is the commercial/business status that garners the pharma industry ‘lack of credibility’ when it comes to its participation as providers of information on the disease state, no matter how objective pharma tries to be.

In fact, even a recent survey of U.S. physicians had shown that they don’t want to pay for their own CMEs, yet they also won’t trust the CME content that is supported by pharma thereby making CME affordable (“free”) for them!

Logistically, the speed of Facebook and Twitter is exactly why Pharma should must hesitate.

People don’t go on FB/TW expecting a support-ticket time-frame (“slow”) response. They are on these platforms for just in time/immediate responses (“fast” “NOW!”). Otherwise, why bother? There are already online forums or patient info phone numbers for support-ticket speed “communication”.

It is not just about the platform, but the patient expectation that comes with the platform.

If you had ever engaged in a hashtag-driven Twitter chat, then you’d know how it’s next to impossible to follow every single conversation that comes at you in firehose fashion. Imagine then if there’s one or two patient complaints or problems amid the 20 other divergent discussions.

That’s what trying to retain “form” around a topical discussion may look like when Facebook comments are opened up for pharma.

[Lest any of us had forgotten – remember the “Motrin Mom” event, where a twitter indignation went viral and before the end of the weekend, the U.S. VP of Marketing at McNeil had to take that YouTube ad down? Try controlling THAT hashtag outbreak; I was there and saw how quickly it amplified.]

I’m 100% for increasing dialog between industry and consumers/public. Yet I think we can’t equate social media platforms the same, just as we can’t equate popular venues the same for medical education.

There are some social media platforms that are akin to a quiet, business like conference room.

Then there are social media platforms where people go for happy hour and unwind and engage in more personal conversations than business.

Then there are social media platforms where people go in expecting a brawl and in fact that’s why they showed up in the first place.

Pharma needs to identify these types of platforms and, rather than forcing or imposing artificial constraints by making everyone show up to a bar in a business suit.

The question Pharma needs to ask is, “is the purpose we intend to serve by showing up here feasibly achievable by the expectations of the crowd who will also show up?”

Big Pharma Shilling and WebMD.com MayoClinic.com Smack-Down

New York Times Online is likening WebMD’s “information” as “using the meretricious voice of a pharmaceutical rep”.

I don’t know… I never found WebMD’s interface “apparently attractive” but I suppose some people like all the flashy stuff. I mean, I find the ads on NakedMedicine.com mildly annoying, but these only go toward keeping the site alive and paying for the internet connection. If I had to start paying staff writers and “physician experts”, I can see how I may need to squeeze ads onto every available white space on a website.

The few times when I did look at WebMD there are so many different ads for so many different things (often unrelated to the topic on the page) that it’s no wonder WebMD brings in over $500M revenues a year. The only time I recall seeing an ad-free page on WebMD is on their “CME” topics… and I do wonder who is paying for those (and for how much!) to keep those pages ad-free. Someone’s paying for these.

But I personally like MayoClinic.com if only for the ease of getting at the information I was looking for without having to block a gazillion ads.

I think Ms. Heffernan is seeing more of the truth in the relationships between the members of the American Medical Association and the drug industry through what she sees on WebMD.com . Maybe in the doctors’ offices we get to see a sprinkling of drug “detail pieces” and miss the piles that are thrown away or hidden (I’ve always wondered why drug companies don’t just stop leaving these behind because they’re the biggest waste of trees). The real goodies are often hidden away – in the form of shadowy monetary compensation that the feds have caught up on.

After all, when you get a world famous oncologist bragging about how many thousands of dollars he can get drug companies to pay him “per patient” in a clinical study, what’s a drug company to do?

Pharmacy and McDonald’s: Strange Bedfellows that Aren’t so Strange

My friend Natalie Bourre saw my post about the non-biodegradable Happy Meal photo-essay and told me about a Canadian Pharmacy that had, as part of its weekly promotion, a coupon for McDonald’s.

This promotion is no longer on the corporate website, so you will have to visit Nat’s blog to see the screenshot she captured when those coupons were prominently displayed at the “CLICK ME NOW!”-eye-level.

Here’s what we DO have for this week’s promotion, however. A special offer for seniors who spend $50 or more with the drug store:

And here’s why I think it’s not so strange that a pharmacy should accept advertising from McDonald’s, and why an establishment advocating for better consumer health would not be a strange bedfellow with a fast food company:

If we are all more responsible with our health and become epitomes of good prevention and healthy lifestyle choices, pharmacies would go out of business. Or at least struggle a bit in the pharmacy business.

Don’t get me wrong, we’ll always need drugs and stuff that pharmacies dispense, by the mere reality that we are mortal and therefore subject to the systematic and gradual deterioration called “aging”. But people who don’t have serious health issues requiring chronic medication and healthcare intervention aren’t going to be frequenting drug stores. Healthy people who don’t need medication are not that great for the long term robustness of a drug dispensing business.

Let’s also not forget that when we’re at the drug store waiting for our prescription filled, we also get to wander around the aisles for some impulse purchase, as well as doing some shopping for toothpaste or shampoo or laundry detergent or Halloween costumes (drug stores these days are almost like departmental stores, offering things you’d normally not associate with drug stores)! It’s not just the drugs dispensed, but all the opportunistic non-medical drug store purchases that contribute to the bottom line.

The way I see it, promoting McDonald’s now may help create new customers for tomorrow.

Teva Canadian MS Community: No Win for the Company

Teva is closing its community forum from its Canadian multiple sclerosis education website because of Canadian healthcare regulations around dissemination of information relating to prescription drugs.

You’ll read the explanation if you visit the Teva MS website, but keep reading for the crux of the situation:

I have to agree with Teva’s decision because it becomes a no-win for Teva. If Teva were to hire someone to conform to regulations and actively monitor the site, the patients could claim that Teva would allow only favorable comments when it may in …fact be a perception issue. Teva could be allowing only approved/indicated usage discussions posted, rather than removing unfavorable comments to Teva.

On the other hand, Teva stands to be liable for any damages claimed by patients who said they tried something because of what they had in a Teva-hosted discussion forum even if it was not sanctioned by Teva and even if Teva could have disclaimers abound. If I were a company I would not allow a truly “free” discussion forum, other than one that deals specifically with the approved indication of its drug, and even then would question the utility of this over an actual conversation with a licensed healthcare provider.

I see this as a case of controlling information not for restricting its availability but for the sake of responsibility of how that information is used. Drug information can be used out of context and inadvertently harm patients.

On the other hand, non-profit patient advocacy sites will host these discussion forums, and they appear to legally be able to do so. It would be interesting to see how these associations deal with legal situations that could potentially arise from patients being injured or harmed by information shared on the site that may not be accurate or even safe for others. This is a delicate balance of sharing information to help while keeping that Hippocratic “do not harm” oath in mind. Even if the intention is good, injury can occur because of misuse (and that misuse does not have to be intentional, either, it could be accidental).

But the reality is, drug companies are more likely to get sued than non-profits!

First heard from: Nat Bourre

Advil PM v. Tylenol PM Ad is Misleading

This has been bugging me for a long time, but recently I saw another one of these “advil PM versus tylenol PM” commercials, so I am going to finally write about it!

First of all, the commercial is basically a “why Advil PM is so much better” ad. It talks about how the person taking tylenol PM isn’t getting as good of a sleep as the person taking advil PM, and it shows the person on tylenol tossing and turning while the advil taker snoozing peacefully.


What’s wrong with this picture? Several:

1. They are different drugs. Advil is ibuprofen, an NSAID. Tylenol is acetaminophen, which works on pain by a different pathway. Both work for pain, and both have their advantages and disadvantages as pain killers.

2. But is Advil focusing on this fact – PAIN? NO! Advil is now talking about sleep! All right then, let’s look at the ingredients for sleep. It is basically the same ingredient as Benadryl. The exact same ingredient in both. But I thought I was watching a commercial for a pain killer drug. And instead of focusing on the key indication (pain), the Advil ad focuses on the side indication (sleep).

3. Fine. So why does Tylenol’s sleep aid work less better than Advil’s sleep aid even when both offer THE SAME SLEEP AID? Simple answer: Advil puts more Benadryl (38 mg) in its combo med. OK more accurately, “the active ingredient in Benadryl”.

So it’s not because Tylenol’s sleep drug is less effective, it’s not because Tylenol PM uses an inferior or less effective sleep drug than Advil.

It’s because Tylenol has less (25 mg) of the same sleep drug as Advil.

[On a personal note, Benadryl’s regular dosage is 25 mg, which already makes me feel completely drowsy and dried up. I don’t need an extra 13 mg of antihistamine to make me sleepier!]

This commercial annoys me because it exemplifies what is wrong with many commercials on TV relating to meds. They dupe consumers by playing with words and making apples-to-oranges comparisons, instead of true head-to-head comparisons.

Come on, Pfizer (maker of Advil), you can spend millions of bucks on a better commercial!

Which Side Are You Really On, Jane Chin?!

I received what is probably the most passionate email from a reader of this blog that I’ve ever gotten since creating NakedMedicine.com in 2006. The email concludes with this:

I can’t figure out what your agenda is Ms Chin. Are siding with the poor hard working physicians who are fighting a losing battle with their idiot patient’s lifestyles? Are you siding with the tirelessly industrious pharmaceutical scientists who are selflessly dedicating their efforts to cure our ills? Are you siding with the poor neglected suffering individuals who are bravely pushing onward in their lives, struggling with disease, possible disease, possible pandemics, or just plain plainness requiring cosmetic medicine? Doctors, business, persons, for whom are you advocating?

I was shocked by the email, because this reader “hit the nail on the head”! He can’t figure out what my agenda is, because my agenda is in NONE of those sides he described. In other words, if I were guilty of picking “a side”, it wasn’t part of the “usual suspects”.

Here’s my very long response to my reader, to whom I’m grateful, because he took the time and effort to share with me this question that obviously is frustrating him.

******

You wrote what you felt, and I don’t fault you for that. I can sense a real feeling of frustration from you, and I don’t blame you for feeling frustrated about the healthcare system that seems to be broken in many ways.

I want to address specific points you brought up – first one being ‘cures’. I genuinely don’t think that the drug industry is prevented from, or are resistant to, discovering cures for diseases. It’s not about ‘cure’ versus ‘not the cure’ that is the problem. It is often the economy of scale that is the problem, and a very understandable one when you consider that the drug industry is – and has to run like a business – in order to remain in business. I have no doubt that the drug industry would love to find a cure – because they can charge for the price of a ‘cure’ and be justified in charging such a price.

The problem on the one hand is that many times we simply cannot find ONE underlying factor of a disease, especially the chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease (in fact, many diabetics die of a heart attack and don’t live long enough to die of diabetes complications, especially those consuming a western diet). It is not like a bacterial infection where we can pinpoint ONE origin of the disease and target that specifically, the way we can target an infecting bacteria with an antibiotic and ‘cure’ the patient.

The other problem is about the number of people with a certain disease. For example, there may be fewer companies willing to research rare diseases that may be ‘repaired’ let alone ‘cured’, simply because the companies need to get the money somehow to do all the experiments and clinical trials necessary to jump through regulatory hurdles to even get the drug approved. When i was a graduate student, doing what are pretty simple experiments (and not even in people – i worked off the petri dishes), i was often using reagents that cost my employer thousands of dollars to purchase from reagent companies. Each of my experiments has to cost at least a thousand bucks, and many of my experiments failed and produced no result.

These prices are nothing compared to the amount of money it costs to run a clinical trial at the scale required by the FDA. Now the drug companies have to pay for the drugs, the cost of mountains of paperwork needed to get the clinical trials started, the doctors who do the clinical trials (and some doctors get really snobby and brag to each other about how much $ they can muscle out of drug companies “per patient” to enroll in the drug companies’ trials), not to mention the “overhead” that the academic institutions charge the drug companies because their doctors work there (and these overhead costs can mean more than 50% of the total study budget).

And then most of the drugs end up not passing the FDA’s requirements and fail to get approved. So if you’re running a company, you will tend to want to go into areas where you will likely have more customers – heart disease for example – just so you stand a better chance of keeping your company operating should it succeed in getting a drug treating that disease approved. This is also why the government has to create incentives for companies that are willing to go into rare or “orphan” diseases – for example, Gaucher’s disease is a rare lysosomal storage disease affecting maybe 1 in 40,000 people. A drug company that competes in this market will be happy selling 1 prescription every 3 months.

I honestly do not view drug companies as entities that profit from the suffering of others, because of the logic of this assumption: If drug companies are creating diseases in people in order to make drugs for the very diseases they created, then that to me qualifies for the statement. However, drug companies happen to offer the tools to treat the disease, not unlike device companies making scalpels and surgical tools to allow doctors to cut us open should our illnesses demand it. It seems illogical to me to accuse device companies for profiting from people having tumors that require scalpels to operate and excise the tumors – unless we’re also implying that the scalpel companies are putting tumors in people that only their brand of scalpel can remove.

Additionally, I have observed that for the most part, people in our society today tend to prefer that we “have a pill to treat XYZ”, so that they do not have to do the hard work required to get their own health back on track. And then you add to the fire media agencies that charge pharma companies millions of dollars to come up with brainless gimmicky advertisements, and it is no wonder why many people feel like the drug companies are “profiteers of suffering.” Some years ago, there was a government funded study that shows that rigorous diet and exercise will help reduce diabetes risk at a very real level – in fact – the study patients who had diet and exercise regimen did as well in reducing their diabetes symptoms as study patients who took an anti-diabetic drug.

But why hasn’t the government or the doctors (not the drug companies – their responsibility is in making drugs) done anything about this amazing result? Because the of costs involved to the clinics in order to make “diet and exercise” possible in patients at a therapeutic level. Clinics would need to hire case workers and nurses whose job is to counsel and support and follow each and every single patient who opts for this “natural and effective” treatment. OK then, how about asking patients themselves to do this? Seriously, if you are a patient at risk for diabetes (i.e. risk factors are there, but patient is still “pre-diabetic” and not yet requiring drugs to control their blood sugars), you have everything you need at your disposal to go for the natural and effective (and less expensive than prescription drugs) cure! why aren’t patients doing this? because willpower and discipline are key – and you’re going to need both for a lifetime to prolong the onset of disease.

I can share this true experience – my husband had prediabetic blood work results some years ago when I urged him to see an endocrinologist, because his side of the family also suffers from diabetes. the endocrinologist told him that because he was so young (not yet 40 at the time), she preferred that he try the old fashioned diet and exercise, and see if he could get the risk factors down, before she put him on a drug. He happens to have a level of willpower and discipline that even I don’t have – and he altered his lifestyle dramatically – and it was enormously difficult. 6 weeks later he went back and the endocrinologist was so impressed with his results that she told him that most of his blood work results were approaching normal numbers. But she also told us that not every patient she sees can make this happen – and often she is forced to give the patient drugs to make sure that the patient doesn’t end up with uncontrolled diabetes symptoms (resulting in all sorts of nasty things including death).

I see drugs as exactly what you said you wished to see – repairs and cures. However, the reality is, few are truly cures because of the complexities of most diseases, and repairs don’t always “fix” things without creating new problems (called side effects) EXACTLY because of the complexities of most diseases.

The doctors’ hands are tied not by pharma companies, but by insurance companies as well as their own malpractice lawsuit concerns. Your average primary care doctor has to track how many patients he sees everyday because he needs to make sure he breaks even. That’s not the drug companies doing, but the insurance companies that capitate how much doctors are paid for doing what. So you also have a system that don’t reward doctors for spending more time with patients – in fact – you’re making it very bad business for the doctor to spend too much time because then he’ll lose money that day – and this does not do well to cultivate trust with patients who then need to heed the doctors’ advice about doing the hard things they need to do to steer their health status back on track.

I hope my email begins to help you understand where I am coming from – perhaps I can’t take any sides because I don’t think there are any sides that I can reasonably take without acknowledging that there are other entities that also need to be held accountable. the healthcare ‘system” is truly a “system” and a staggering, complex one at that. the best I can do is to help the consumers – people like you and me – to think for ourselves about what is being “sold” to us whether it’s from the drug companies, insurance companies, the government, the doctors, even patient groups. If I am guilty of siding with anything, it will be on the side of “critical thinking” about the system of healthcare with all of its players.

Best wishes,
Jane Chin

Female Sexual Dysfunction: Pharma’s Next Lifestyle Market

I’m posting this from one of Steve Woodruff’s blog posts that I shared via my Facebook profile, which turned into a full blown debate between me, Dmitriy Kruglyak, and Yvette – one of my FB friends.

Jane Chin
I’m pro-pharma, but I’m NOT happy w/ female sexual dysfunction disease mongering I expect to see from pharmacos! http://ow.ly/4xQH

Dmitriy Kruglyak at 8:18am April 30
Where do you draw the line between “disease mongering” and “disease awareness”?

Jane Chin at 8:21am April 30
When the ‘awareness” generated makes patients who otherwise are not candidates for the drug pressure docs to write the Rx.

Dmitriy Kruglyak at 8:23am April 30
Ah, but who gets to decide “who are the candidates” and what qualifies as “pressure”? Especially if we are talking DTC, rather than Rx. Are there hard and fast rules?

Jane Chin at 8:25am April 30
that’s why I don’t think DTC is responsible for niche diseases. Pressure=if you don’t write it, I’ll go to another doctor who will.

Dmitriy Kruglyak at 8:27am April 30
Hmmm, seems to me “if you don’t write it, I’ll go to another doctor who will” can come from any kind of patient empowerment, not just driven by Rx advertising.

Jane Chin at 8:28am April 30
Yes it can, but true patient empowerment IS NOT “take this pill, fix your problem” when the problem is not always solved by “a” pill.

Dmitriy Kruglyak at 8:47am April 30
Patients just want to do what they want to do. People have, are and will always look for quick fixes. That’s human nature.

Jane Chin at 8:51am April 30
I know this is human nature, and one capitalized by advertising. But where health and human life are concerned, the ethical standards should be higher.

Dmitriy Kruglyak at 8:53am April 30
Seems to me advertising is simply fulfilling demand

Jane Chin at 9:02am April 30
No, advertising is meant to CREATE demand. Even better when advertising increases the market from perception-based v. needs-based demand. (more…)

How to See Through Pharma Ad BS?

Like all marketing campaigns, the aim of any pharma advertisement is to get you to think that you need a certain product or a service. I understand that all pharma companies will say that they want to educate patients on the condition first and foremost, but I guarantee that when pharma companies are forking over multimillion dollar checks to ad agencies, they’re looking for more product sales as a return on investment (ROI).

This is not a “bad” thing – this is business. Let’s say you’re an inventor and you created a program that would improve the amount of sassing teenagers give to their parents. Would you pay an agency half of your annual paycheck so that parents can be educated about the prevalence of sassing by teenagers? NO! You want parents to buy your program so you can make back at least the money you spent on the ad, plus more so you can pay your mortgage and keep your family fed!

Well, pharma’s like that. I know for some it is incredible to believe, but pharma companies are not alive in themselves, as if there is a force called “the pharma company” making decisions. Pharma companies are made up of hundreds of thousands of people who have to feed themselves and their families and put a roof over their heads. (Many of them are parents and most of them probably wish that you did invent a program that improves teen sassing of parents.)

So the key is not to spend your energy hating companies and talking trash about how misleading some commercials are or how annoying you find that a computer graphic bee is selling you asthma medication or how a group of red-towel clad women looking like they think they’re better than you want to sell you a hormone replacement drug.

As consumers, the key is to see through BS!

And the best way to see through any “BS” – whether it is from pharma or any other industry – is to know the difference between:

– what you NEED

– what you WANT

– what you are led to THINK you NEED

This last item – what you are led to think you need – is the crux of how ads work. Ads lead you think you need something, and usually tap into our animal instincts, or tap into our more “evolved” desires like convenience.

Example:

– buy this car and you’ll attract sexy partners (taps into animal instinct)

– take this pill (taps into convenience in some cases where diet, exercise, life style change is much harder)

Therefore, a question consumers can ask themselves whenever they are confronted with an agent of influence is,

“Is this what I REALLY need? Or is this what I want? Or is this what I am tempted to think I need?”

You can apply these questions to 99% of the junk ads you see on television these days, aside from pharma ads.

Naked Medicine © 2016 Frontier Theme