The Marketing of Big Pharma

Hi, I'm Zach and this podcast had side effects of burping, laughing, chugging, historical laughter. Ask your doctor if this podcast is right for you. I don't know. No, I liked it. I liked it. That was good. Hello, I'm Caitlin and today we're talking big pills, big pharma, and big money. Oh, big, big, big. I love it. Big money, emphasis on the money, right? And welcome to

manipulating the masses. Don't give yourselves to brutes, men who despise you and slave you, who regiment your lives, tell you what to do, what to think, or what to feel, who drill you, diet you, treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder. Don't give yourselves to these unnatural men, machine men, with machine minds and machine hearts. You are not machines, you are not cattle, you the people have the power. Yeah, yo. Yes. All right. Poppin' pills. Yes. Getting thrills.

Let's do it. Oh, I like that. We're going to be talking about the marketing tactics deployed by pharmaceutical companies. So on that note, Zach, do you have any of your favorite drug ads handy? Yes, I actually like I have them in my head. I didn't pull them up. I have, I'm going to be honest, 99.9% of these I despise with like a fiery passion. I hate that I hate them. I despise them all the way through. But the one that I can remember is Osempic. It's like a heartburn pill.

And it's just, it was just, oh, oh, oh, oh, Osempic. You know, exactly as soon as I was singing it, you rang in. And I think that was like, you know, quality as like, you know, bottom of the barrel. It's like reality TV quality. You know, like it's not going to win any awards, but there are better reality TV's than other ones. That would be the one that I have. So that's the one that's stuck out in your mind when I asked you. Yeah, it's funny because I didn't recognize that name at all. I was

like, Oh, that must be a Midwest drug that they're marketing. But then you sang the jingle and I just have to confirm I have to double down on the power of the jingle. I completely agree. I completely agree. I don't have any specific ads. I mean, I do. There's like the one with the depression.

And she has a frowny face. She holds up the sign in front of her face. But I also just think of like gold when golden fields and like families running out in fields like that imagery is directly associated forever with like erectile dysfunction. Because I was going to say my other one was Cialis, the erectile dysfunction one where they had the couple like holding hands in the separate bathtub. Do you remember that? And they're like

sitting on a beach. You don't remember those old ones. They would just like hold hands in a bathtub. And I like that was all about yeah, you'd stick not really needing some help needed assistance. Yeah, yeah, you always needed in the bathtub. Good for him. Good for him. Yeah, so it's those

ones stick out to me, but you're so right. Like most of them are just b-roll happiness. And I'd say one that I hate right off the bat and it goes into the jingle ad as well is there's I forget the name Sky Rizzy, I think is the pill and it's for you know, some skin issues, but that dumb ass jingle nothing is everything. Oh, that does not make sense. Why would what are you doing that has nothing to do with anything? It's just like yeah, it sticks in your head, but I hate it. I

hate it. I hate it. I hate it. What does that even mean? I just have to also maybe expand on the jingle. Like while yes, the jingle is effective because you just saying that and I was like, oh yes, Sky Rizzy 100%. But as soon as you say the name before you recite the jingle, I don't know any of these drugs. I don't know what they do. And the jingle to your point, I had never thought about the jingle or the words like the lyrics, but they don't make any sense. No, for the skin,

like what? No, get out of here. So let's for a second give hats off to the composer of the jingles. But the lyrics and the language gets an F in our book. Right off the book. All right, so let's dive into the history of pharmaceutical companies. And I think what got me started thinking about this, obviously, I think it got all of America started thinking about the marketing behind pharmaceutical companies is of course, Purdue Pharma. Purdue is directly responsible for the

opioid epidemic. And I'm going to get into that a little bit. I'm going to breach the surface of the opioid epidemic to kind of jog some memories here. But I won't get too far into it. The ground work for the crisis was laid in the 1980s when pain increasingly became recognized as a problem. This was back in 1980. And in 1995, the American Pain Society, which there's actually, that's actually my band name too. Interesting enough. Well, double interesting enough, it was an

organization in Chicago, Illinois. So you might have pain in Chicago. A lot of pain. So this was in 1995, the American Pain Society was a physician's organization launched a campaign that framed pain as a fifth vital sign that should be monitored and managed as a matter of course, in the same way as a heart rate and blood pressure. So just picture yourself going to the doctor. They check your blood pressure, ears, your eyes, like make sure that you are a living, breathing human being and

everything is good. But then they ask you about your pain tolerance, which I don't even know where to begin unpacking this like pain to me is so it's subjective. It's not like like a heart rate is a number on a device that you can say, okay, you have heart problems or no, you don't have heart problems. And pain is subjective. And like the blood pressure on this metrics too, but I still don't know what it means when they say it to me. They're like 20 or over, but I'm like, okay, I

guess I should learn that as we get older. Yeah, I found out the other day I have low blood pressure and she was like, did you know that? I was like, no, because I never nobody took time to explain what these numbers meant. You have low blood pressure, you do not give me a low blood pressure vibe, Caitlin. That's a little surprising to me. You know, congratulations. But like, yeah, but I'm surprised. What are we gonna say? Well, let me let me give you what low blood pressure means.

And you'll be like, oh, yeah, that makes sense as I'm wearing a hooded jacket right now, when it's like 70 degrees in here. It means that you naturally run cold and you get dizzy spells when you stand up. That's all like low blood pressure is. It's not like you're I just thought you were like chill like you never because like stress, right? Okay, that was such a backhanded couple like such a backhanded insult was just like, you don't strike me as the low blood pressure person. And

to me, low blood pressure associates chill vibes. You are not chill vibes. I mean, I'll take it. You know, that's is a good thing, Caitlin. It's a balance because I'm which I'm the opposite. They always tell me I have high blood pressure. You do. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But I also hate doctors offices. So like I credit it like I've done it at home and it says it's fine. But like doctors offices, I just like the sterleness the whole thing, I like get a little freaked out in there.

So yeah, that's my credit. But I would say, I don't know, I just tried to deflect from my back hand. Sorry, Caitlin. I mean, I will take it sometimes I'm a little bit of a sporadic person who creates unnecessary fires, but a lot of times I don't I would say you're focused, right? Like I do not could I do not contribute chill with focused people. You're not like that does not you're you're driven. Yes. Look at me do that. Yeah. Thank you. We'll leave it at that.

For everyone listening. You heard it here first. Zach thinks I'm driven. That's the that is the full circle point of that conversation. I'm a driven individual. All right, moving on. So right to the mid 90s, they started that like literally diagnosing and asking patients about their pain, which to me is ludicrous because I understand chronic pain is an actual illness. People suffer through chronic pain. Do I understand chronic pain? No, I don't. So I don't

even want to get into that. But for you as a doctor to leave it up to the patient is ludicrous to me. Yeah, because my pain tolerance is very different than your pain tolerance. Yes. Yes. And isn't there but isn't there like a scientific way to test that yet? Like because really it's just like nerves sending information to your brain, right? If there's a lot of nerve activity, then there's probably I don't know. I'm not this is why this is where pharmaceutical

companies get us ask your doctor. I'm not a fucking doctor. I don't know. I'm just you could have sold me on that. I think that was like your marketing language coming out a little bit like nerves equal firing to the brain, which equals pain nailed it. Yeah. I mean, that's like, I don't know. Okay, you're right though. Sorry, I keep distracted. I keep I keep putting us on tangents, but you're right. Like it's all even perception isn't there like you can have like false pain,

right? If you're just like totally is like just focusing on or nervous about it, right? Totally. So in the mid 1900s, the mid 1990s, Purdue Pharma released what the legendary pill, OxyContin, and began promoting their opioid products heavily. All right. So that was it all began with Purdue Pharma. It all began with opioids. How did they do it? How did they market this product heavily? Actually, maybe I'll toss it to you. If you were in that seat, how would you go

ahead and market an opioid to an industry that hadn't previously used opioids? Yeah, that's a great question. I said two pronged approach, right? First is, and I know they did this. So like, I'm cheating a little bit, but sending sales reps to doctors offices to get doctors to prescribe. I mean, especially if you have close competitors that do similar effects like C. Alice in Viagra, right? Like they both have the desired effects. It's up to the doctor to write the prescription,

right? So they have the license, you go to them, you market to them, you woo them to sell more OxyContin over competitors. The other piece is you, we see it all the time, a marketing campaign, promoting benefits, promoting happy living targeted at people with chronic pain, with what I consider to be one of the best call to action tag lines ever created in advertising. Ask your doctor if this is right for you. So you're prompting them to ask about their specific product in the doctor's

office. So that was my two. Yep, nailed it. And so you went with you market direct to consumer and you market direct to the person prescribing, which is exactly what Purdue did. They lobbied lawmakers. So they have people on the inside. They sponsored continuing medical education courses. They funded professional and patient organizations. And of course, what you just mentioned, they sent

representatives to visit individual doctors. So they were taking what like you said, the education course, then they went to the lawmakers, and then they went to the doctors, and then they went direct to consumer. I have a question. Oh, do you know? Oh, go ahead. Sorry. No, I was just going to say their marketing message was emphasizing, like you said, not the benefits, but the safety and efficacy and the low potential for addiction of prescription opioids. Wow. They specifically

put that in the messaging. Oh, wow. There is low potential for addiction. And they backed it up with some sort of bullshit study. Yeah. Yeah. What was your question? I have a question. Do you know what they lobbied lawmakers for? Was it like subsidies to like try to get the government to like, you know, how they subsidize like different medications? And so it's cheaper for the consumer to buy? Is that do you think that's what they lobbied lawmakers for was, hey, subsidize this

this, this America's in pain subsidizes painkiller. And so it's cheaper on the consumer end, which makes it more feasible. They still make the same amount of money because the government subsidizing it. Do you do you know what that is? That is a fantastic call out. I don't know. But in my research, that did come about where it was like opioids at face value to the consumer are super cheap because insurance companies cover this. And lawmakers, of course, have a decision in what

insurance covers and what they don't cover. So I think you're spot on. I think that was the lobbying aspect of it. Crazy, crazy. So they're because they were advertising the low potential for addiction, of course, they got doctors on their side, which was really the big ticket for them. Purdue, Pharma focus, the initial marketing of OxyContin on suburban and rural white communities. That strategy took advantage of the prevailing image of drug addict as an African American or

Hispanic person who lived in the inner city. And I think this was the most genius thing that they did. They targeted white communities and these white people were starting to get addicted. But the pharmaceutical companies can be like, wait, these aren't addicts, because as you see an addict, they are African American and Hispanic people. Those are addicts. That is what America painted a picture of an addict to be. But then you see a white person who's starting to get

addicted to opioids. And you're like, this isn't what an addict looks like. And this kind of it stigmatizes like when you think of an alcoholic, this is kind of on my rant, it's like when you think of an alcoholic, you think of an out like a bum, a homeless person sipping a beer, a 40 out of a brown paper bag underneath a bridge. Like there is always a picture that is painted associating an addict. And a lot of the times I would I would say 75% of the time that is not

what an addict looks like. Absolutely. And addict is high functioning. They're a part of society. They're holding down jobs. They just have some dark demons that they're fighting in the background. Yeah, I think of it with like, you go alcohol and I go cannabis, right? Like cannabis addiction is very real, not so much in the chemical sense, but a little bit, but more in like the gambling sense, like the process of it, the doing it, like having it. And like I said, like people are addicted

to it. And you typically think of the dude in a drug rug on his couch surrounded by a mess, but there's we worked in the industry, there's plenty of them that like cannot function, cannot function without first thing in the morning, rolling one up, right? Well, there's a numbing aspect to all of the all of these drugs. And that is again, cannabis gives you that cannabis gives you the ability to numb. So, um, okay, so, well, before we go, can I comment on that? I think

I think you're right. That's a terrific strategy, especially if you're really lobbying lawmakers and the public like, you know, suburb a mom with three kids living in the suburbs, there's no way she's an addict, right? She's, he has three kids, she's has a house, like it's

yes, good strategy, terrible. But it's also very interesting too, because, and I've watched a couple of documentaries on this, where it's like, that is why we were so quick to categorize this as an epidemic versus the 80s, where crack was really prevalent in African American communities, like the Bronx, or you know, kind of like urban areas, nobody was quick to categorize that as an epidemic, even though it was killing off people at the same rate that heroin was.

And so people were so quick to be like, holy fuck, white people are dying. Wow. Which fix this problem, you know, I mean, the, the, we don't need to go into the racial disparities. This isn't what this is about. It's well documented. It's well documented. And it's worth mentioning that there was tactics behind targeting urban community. No, I'm sorry, not urban communities, but rural white suburban neighborhoods.

Fascinating. And I think you bring up a good point of even the word epidemic, right? Like, they, they didn't call it a crack epidemic. They don't, they like, I think that just means it's like, that, that just means it's something rolling through society that we need to take a look at, that there's a problem. I don't know. Yes, you're so right. That word is so carefully tailored. Yeah. So, this is where we dig in. Who worked on the

marketing campaign for Purdue? Have you heard of the agency called publicists? Yes. Yes. They had headquarters in Seattle or maybe not a head. Well, yeah, headquarters are an office or some sort of like, whatever. And this was a company that I, like I applied to them when I was a young, when I was in my twenties, like I know of publicists. They were the people partnering with Purdue in the nineties. Are they promoting on their website? I doubt it.

Hell no. I went to their website and I'm going to get into that in a little bit. But so Purdue alone paid publicists more than $50 million for its work. And that doesn't even, that's, that's not even the ad buying or the media buying space. That's just for the work. And to publicist's credit, I will give them a little bit of credit in 2016,

which was long after they should have said something. But they did say, like, they went to Purdue and say, we need, you need to shut down your sales force to quote, fully embrace a deeper held responsibility for what is going on. But that's all they said. And they continue to take their money. Last year, Zach, in 2021, Massachusetts is now suing publicists. But isn't that wild that it took this long? And, but I kind of let like, this is,

this is the outcome of this quote, it's not a quote, I'm sorry, it's an epidemic. This is the outcome of this epidemic is now they're not only targeting Purdue and the Stackler family who owns Purdue, I think it's Stacklers or Stacklers or something. They're not targeting them, they're targeting all of their associates. So they went after publicists in 2021. I tried very hard to understand exactly what work publicists did, and it is nowhere to be found.

Yeah, they hit it pretty deep. Yeah, they obviously are like, no, wasn't us. And I went to their website, obviously, an awesome website, but their tagline is wellness and health. They're really, really doubling down on wellness, which is what we see in the cannabis space is like, people flip the script with drugs, they market it as wellness. And that's not wellness, like the health industry is not wellness, it's a medical industry. Yes, yes, wellness is meditating,

and you can't sell meditation. Wellness is goop. Yeah, no, I'm with you. You can't. Yeah, that's well, that's fascinating. What is your gut reaction? So let's talk through there, because I do know like Purdue Pharma just got, it's either pending or recently came through that they got to pay out the federal government. And I don't know if you're getting into that, but they have to pay like a significant and the Sackler family, a significant amount of money in response. How do you feel as

an agency owner, seeing an agency being sued by a state for their marketing work, right? Like, they didn't produce the product, but they did provide marketing. I like, okay, I'm going to leave it at that. I have opinions, but what are your thoughts? Like, as an agency owner yourself, does it make you conscious of like the clients that we're going to take on? Like, what do you think?

Absolutely. I mean, as I was researching this, I had my own kind of moral dilemmas on like, if a company were to come to you in the early, the mid 1990s, where they're saying that this drug is addiction free, and they say, we'll pay you $50 million. Like, I don't, I, oh my God, I mean, of course I'm going to take the higher ground at this point because I can see what happened. I'm going to be like, no, we would never take that money. But I think we would take that money. Like,

and if they're like, here is science to back up the proof that this is a non addictive pill. I'd be like, I don't have a pool of researchers or scientists in my back pocket to rely on to, you know, do our own studies. I take your word for it. I completely agree with that. And, you know, I do want to also say that publicist's argument at this stage was to say, our role

was limited to implementing Purdue's advertising plan and buying media space. And they were quoted saying, we look forward to a court determining that there's absolutely no legal basis that supports this lawsuit. So, yeah, and I have to. I think we're right, though, you know, I mean, like, if we were to take on, you have to rely on the company's own, if Purdue Farm is giving them research saying this is non addictive,

how else will an advertising agency know that it's actually addictive? Like, are they, they're beholden to whatever Purdue's research is, like, they're not going to go out and conduct their own, like that's not the role of an agency, right? That's not our role. That's not our expertise, even if I was to call on scientists, like, I am, yeah. Yeah, I mean, think about like the ad

agencies that did tobacco products, right? Like they kept coming out with science that everything was like, don Draper, yeah, Don Draper, Mad Men, that everything was like, it was bad for you, is bad, it was killing people. But like the tobacco companies would come out and say, you know, four out of five doctors smoke too, or some, some like there's, yeah, at what role is it an agency to, like, I guess health is just a different animal, right? Like, I think this is where advertising

in the healthcare space is touchy. And publicist has their own publicism is such a big agency that they have different agencies specifically tailored to different industries. And this one is specifically publicist's health LLC, their whole role is the health and, and you hit on that, like, what a risky fucking industry. Why would you even put yourself in that industry? Like, we'll maybe touch it with the 10 foot pole and we'll explore it. But like, never would I,

I don't know, but they have so much money is the thing. It's a public sector. I mean, a private sector. I've done so in my previous work at an agency, a hospital was on our roster. And we, like, did marketing and advertising for a hospital. And it's just, it's, it's a gray area all around, right? Like, you're, you're on one sense, like highlighting their care and their research,

which is awesome. But on the other sense, like, people are pan, what, what does everybody do first thing when they feel sick, or they have something weird going on, they fucking go to Google like, God damn idiots, but they go there. So we structured campaigns about like people in a panic and trying to find out things about their own body. And it's all marketing. As soon as you Google something, that whole page is marketing. Yep. And it just, it's, it's a gray area for me.

Yeah, totally, totally. So I think the outcome of that little conversation was like, I don't know that we can completely fault the marketing agency. And it will this, I think it'll be really interesting to see what the outcome of this lawsuit is. In addition to Massachusetts suing publicists, they're also suing McKinsey and Co, which is probably the largest consulting firm in

the nation, it's not world. Yeah, some of the most evil people like that. I don't know if you want to, if you want to get doomed scroll, go look at some past work of McKinsey and Co. Why do we run across McKinsey and Co so often in our, like they are everywhere. Like no matter

where we go, it's like all roads lead to McKinsey and Co. Yeah, they're everywhere. No, it's because we fucked up situations and we traced them back and McKinsey and Co is like this, like people want to believe in the Illuminati and shit, fucking look at McKinsey and Co. Like that, that company is like has a hand in every evil decision. Like, yeah, they're ruthless, man. They're ruthless. So the lawsuit with McKinsey and Co. They are being asked to pay $650 million to resolve lawsuits

by all 50 states. Awesome. Awesome. Awesome. So, okay, what is also interesting about publicists going back to the marketing agency at the same time that they are accepting money from Purdue, the same time the employees are pitching their services to a partnership to end addiction, which is a nonprofit famous for its TV ad. This is your brain on drugs. Isn't it irony and that is

so sweet. So that they pitched them and won that based off of their pitch that they are quote, immersed in the evolving national opioid medication dialogue going on between pharma companies via our inside access to trusted and informed consulting partners. So they said, hey, we understand the opioid epidemic better than anybody else because we are on the inside of it. Let us run your ads and they won that account. Yeah. Wow. That's ruthless. That is ruthless. And I also want to say like

nonprofits are largely funded by government subsidies. So I want to say like, I want to point out the fact that like this opioid crisis cost tax payers a ton of money, not only in a very obvious way, but in a marketing way because here you are, this nonprofit organization is now paying publicists to counter message the other message that they are advertising. So I just want to point that out too. Our tax dollars are being just thrown around. Yeah, definitely. Definitely. I don't know.

How do you reason with that as an agency owner? What's your stance? Do you take the money? I mean, do you like, okay, they're two different clients, right? And you treat them as two different clients? I worked for a commercial photography company that this is nowhere near the same, but a little bit. We had a client that served the same purpose. They both sold kitchenware and the owner of that company was first of all kind of a Nazi if I do say so myself, but she was okay. Okay.

Was that too far? I don't know her. You're gonna have to tell the story now. That's quite the claim going in. Okay. She was just very she was just very controlling and oh, I took it as like anti-Semitic and I was like, oh, okay. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Okay. But we were we were servicing the same company basically selling the same product and she would do we would do everything in our control to hide it. We were not obvious about it. We would not put it in our portfolio that we served these

two companies. So as a marketing agency, I would probably as the owner, I'd just be like, well, let's not tell the other person obviously. Let's say ask, you know, like I've had pitches where they're like, do you have any other clients like that like me? Yeah. And a lot of times that works in our benefit is like, yes, we know the industry we've served some of these companies, but if they're

direct competitors, then we would probably hide it a little bit. I don't know. I think, I think, I think just keep them separate, you know, there's a reason why they're not actually competitors. Yeah. So like, I think, sorry, I went off on a tangent, you could probably just cut that out. Me too. I keep, I keep throwing, I think keep throwing curveballs at you, Caitlin. I just find I like the pharmaceutical marketing stuff is just, I think it creates a lot of interesting

dilemmas as an advertising company coming from here. Totally. Totally. It's a lot of interesting dilemmas. And I think just to go back to your question, would you accept the money from the nonprofit while also accepting the money from Purdue? I think at the time, the marketing agency publicist didn't fully understand the addiction, the addictive elements of the opioid. So they could honestly say that like, we're not marketing drugs, we're marketing a medication.

I think that's fair. And if they're marketing it as non addictive, and then working with the addiction control society or whatever that was, like, that kind of does go hand in hand. You're like, we're promoting this non addictive quote unquote, solution to pain. And then we also want to cure addiction. So it's a core focus. Yes. Yeah. Okay. I can see how they reason that. Fair enough. So that's kind of the history of leading up to like where we are now. So I'm going

to throw some facts at you and some numbers. These are going to be not fun. Yeah, these are going to be not fun numbers. Where are we now? Americans pay more for drugs and medical devices than any other country. Like price point? Or do we just consume more consume? Oh, does that surprise you at all to me? It didn't. But not our diets terrible are the way we take care of ourselves is terrible.

You know, when I lived in Europe, all the all the like, I didn't see any old fat people, like they were all like still fashionable and skinny and doing everything healthy. Even down to like our portion sizes, like when you order at a restaurant and you just get huge shit, like I can totally see that we're just we're just not surprised to you. No, it didn't.

But I think there's also something that you're not taking into consideration is that the US is US is only one of two countries that allow direct to consumer pharmaceutical message marketing. Wow, what's the other country? What would you do? That is a good guess. New Zealand. Oh, weird, huh? Interesting. Yeah, that's so and that is that is the crux of it right there.

Like to consumer. Yep. Yeah. And here's and here's the thing. It's like pharmaceutical companies come at it from the angle will like, and this is God, what we see time and time again with all of these medical topics that we cover like Theranos, Elizabeth Holmes, like 23 and me, let's give the information to the consumer. They deserve the information they deserve to have the rights to make their own informed decisions. But this is so problematic. So problematic. Let's unpack

direct to consumer ads that we're currently so they come in three forms. Product claim ads. These ads talk about a drug, the condition it treats and its risks and benefits. Reminder ads. These ads remind people about the drug's name, but do not talk about its uses. And then the third direct to consumer ad is and I guess this is kind of like not necessarily add one of my trying to say this is more like the messaging. Yeah, the consumers. And then the

third kind of message is help seeking ads. These ad talk about a disease or condition without discussing specific drugs. So it's like, do you have COPD? Which for fuck's sake, for like 10 years, I thought I had COPD because I kept seeing these ads. And I still think I have mesothelioma. You know, I'm like, I'm like, it's happening to me. Yes. Yeah. These companies spend the bulk of their budget on TV about $4 billion. Then magazines follow a close second with about $1.5 billion spent in

magazines. And then newspaper and then radio and then billboards, movie theaters and other types of advertising took up a few million dollars combined. I had a knee jerk reaction to this. Why do you think companies are using this more traditional marketing approach? These are traditional avenues. Because the older demographics are the ones by going to the doctor and buying pills, right? And that's what they consume. Yep. Yep. They are not using Facebook. They're not using Instagram.

They're not using YouTube. They're using these very traditional sources of media, which is like keeping these traditional sources of media alive pretty much. I also think there's an element of restrictions. Facebook can read every word that you put in your ad, right? Like automatically, like your messaging, because they walk that line so, so hard. Your messaging has got to be doubt TV. They, like, you just put the ad in as long as it doesn't do anything crazy. They'll

take your money, you know? Yeah. You know, I just kind of like thought, I had a side thought for a second is like, can you imagine this amount of money being fed into Facebook? Like how dangerous, how dangerous Facebook could potentially become if they started accepting these billions and billions of dollars? Scary. Like, yeah, we can't even get Facebook to take over. We have, if you have home

in your name, you're classified as a housing ad like Facebook's. Yeah. But if they started taking it, and honestly, like it kind of makes sense for Facebook to start doing it because the demographic is shifting to where the pharmaceutical companies want it and can, you know, consumption is up. And well, around their last leg, honestly, older millennials are like close to their 40s now. And Gen Xers, these are the people that grew up with technology. And so the demographic is

shifting into the, we spend all of our time in the digital media space. And I do want to say, too, that it's not that Facebook isn't accepting this money. Like they, they, they're still running. They're still running ads in the digital space, but it's not as prevalent as the media and as the newspapers and all of that good stuff because that's where their demographic is. But I am very interested. Let's circle back to this exact podcast 10 years down the road. Yeah, I make a mental

note of that. Sure, I'll put it in my calendar. But they also, yeah, I also like sometimes I spy on fax news and like, see what they're up to and watch them like hate watch them. Every commercial is pharmaceutical commercial, every single one. And that was a, that was a call out too. It was the big four companies, CBC, NBC, ABC and Fox. Those are the big companies that are accepting this money, which are relentlessly go back to the power of media. I mean, we've covered that a lot.

Go back to any of our podcasts covering actual media and the detriment of that. And you'll understand why this money is a dangerous is playing a dangerous role. So I want to start talking a little bit about the ads themselves and the impact that they're having. So in the late 1990s, the US Food and Drug Administration regulated these ads by stipulating that they present a fair balance between the benefits and the risks. So that's why you see these ads that's like, they

cause diarrhea and death. You will get a boner. So, but here's where this backfired. And I think you'll get a kick out of this. Okay, so this is a study done by Harvard and SAT. I'll get back to that. Okay, I'll get back to that. Across six experiments comprising more than, comprising of more than 3,000 US participants, they found that when drug commercials included all side effects, so both the major death and the minor diarrhea, consumers judged the overall severity to be

lower than when they were exposed to only the major side effects. So this led consumers to prefer the drug more and more and made them willing to pay more for it. Does that make sense to you? Do you understand that? Yeah, yeah. So, and then in the messaging you lead off and I'm thinking back to like all the side effects because I try to pay attention. I'm so curious why they, like, how they throw it in there and how they talk about the side effects when in these commercials. And

they do, you're exactly right. They start off with the major ones, but then they end with the minor ones. So those are the ones that kind of like, the major ones are just kind of thrown in the middle. So you're just kind of like taking them all in. But when you add the last couple are the ones that you'll remember. Not only that, it's not only that, but it's the presentation of information overload.

Yep. So it's called argument dilution bias. And here's an example of this. And I'm going to present two separate options and I'm going to test you. Yes. One, one, uh, pill A. Yeah. Tim spends about 31 hours studying outside of class in an average week. That's one, that's one example. Okay. This is another example. Tom spends 31 hours studying outside of class in an average week. Tom has one brother, two sisters. He visits his grandparents

once every three months. He once went on a blind date and shoots pool about once every two months. Based off of those two examples, who do you think studies more? Who do you think has a higher GPA? Tim or Tom? Tim, the first guy. You played right into my cards. Yeah, because you just focus on Tom, person twos extracurricular activities, right? Like they both study the same amount,

but like all the extracurriculars, you're like, Oh, he must be busy. You know, like, yes, but they study the same amount 31 hours studying, but you're not given the information of what Tim does in his extracurricular. Tim, there's only, he only studies 31 hours. What the fuck is he doing with the rest of his hours? He's doing, he's doing the same amount of things that

Tom is doing. You're just not presented with that information. So, uh, when research, when presented with these options, Tim, like you said, was rated as having a significantly higher GPA than Tom. And the irrelevant information around Tom's grandparents and his casual play of pool diluted the value and the importance of the relevant information in his study habits. Fascinating. It is. And I think this goes into storytelling, right? As marketers, we're storytellers too,

and we have to do it in a very brief, brief window, right? Like a scroll and add 30 seconds, we have to tell a story. And you know, my philosophy has always been just as much like when you're crafting a story, the information you put in is important, but just as important is what do you leave out, even if you're writing a novel, right? Essentially, like you are choosing what to exclude from that story, right? To have the reader or that person focus on the important parts.

Um, and so exclusion and inclusion are vital to any storytelling mechanism. Yeah. But the interesting piece of all of this is kind of like counterintuitive to what you would think. It's like, if I just present a handful of, um, severe side effects, people are more inclined to, uh, not buy into those versus if I presented every single side effect from A to Z. People were like, fuck it. I'm not going to get like 90, but that's not going to happen to me. All of those

things are not going to happen to me. Yes. Yes. But if I was just like, oh, this might cause death, I'm like, nah, I'm out. Yeah, I'm good. Yeah. I'm with you. I'm with you. It's like, that's, that's a fascinating tactic. I know. And we, it's being, it's used in every single pharmaceutical commercial, right? Like, I don't know one that just doesn't like pepper in. So, so while the fact that you while the food and while the FDA kind of imposed this law, that was like, you have to present all

benefits, both good and bad. It totally fucking backfired. Cause it was like, jokes on you, consumers are more likely to buy it when we list every single major and minor side effect of it. So, um, and I'll go into a couple other case studies in one experiment. Participants heard an audio commercial for a Simbalta, a drug that treats depression, depression. Half of the participants heard the original commercial, which was 78 seconds. And then the other half heard a shorter commercial

that removed the mention of three minor side effects. Those who heard the commercial in its entirety rated the drug lower in its overall severity of side effects. Wow. So that was audio. We talked about visual and now they also did the study with a magazine ad too. So, you know, like all of that fine print, like nobody fucking reads that. So in addition to the lower overall assessment of severity, it increased the attractiveness of the drug. Okay. So Americans also

have a high level of confidence in these ads when it comes to drug dangers. About 76% feel drug companies adequately explain side effects in risks according to the survey by Harvard and stat 76% believe drug companies three out of every four people if we're using pharmaceutical language. Think that they're being forthright with their information. Yeah, I have nothing else to say. I feel like our silence says it all. I mean, I mean, incredible manipulation, right? Like

incredible manipulation. I know that there's all these historical just facts that these companies are just pushing these I know drugs. I know people still are like, Oh, yeah, at least they're using bullshit science. They're conducting bullshit, bullshit research that favors them in the studies yet three out of every four people still believe that they are telling us the truth.

And get this, according to Kantar media, two thirds of adults take some kind of action after seeking seeing sorry, seeing a drug ad and about 40% make an appointment with their doctor 40% of people make an appointment with their doctor after seeing one of these ads that we have just joked about 40% that is massive dollars. You know what it is, Caitlin? It's like I said, it's the most brilliant call to action and ask your doctor, ask your doctor if this is right for you, you know,

like brilliant, absolutely terrible, awful, CD evil, but brilliant. Yeah. So just to this is kind of my last thought or not last thought, but last fact for you. For every dollar spent on advertising to consumers, sales of prescriptions, drug prescription drugs rose $4 and 40 cents. So the ROI is one more. Four to one makes sense. Four to one. I mean, that's why they keep doing it. And that's why these fucking companies spend two thirds of their budget on marketing and one third of their budget

on research and development. Like it's, it's, yeah. Yeah. And so I actually have the 10 most advertised drugs. This was in 2015. So wow, this is outdated. So maybe we'll keep this out. Okay. But I do want it. Did you find anything about the b roll, the psychology and the reasoning behind the happy? We talked about it, the moms running through fields. Like, is there anything I see it in two and maybe let me toss it to you. Like I see them in twofold where obviously the b roll,

the happy people jumping in a lake, the vanilla white dad just like doing dad things. And then the other one is like more like graphics, like, you know, graphic heavy, like showing the condition or showing something that's going wrong and showing a little animation, like a fun approachable animation of how the pill works and how it can help. Do you have any thoughts on their reasoning? Why they do? I think the animation makes it approachable. But why this b roll, when you're

talking about disease, like what is your thought if you're creative director? What's the, what's the reasoning? It's such a distraction method. It's like, you're watching this woman walk through the farmer's market with a smile on her face with her children and the visuals are so much more impactful than what is actually being said over the b roll. I think that's my most obvious answer. I didn't have any, I don't have any research to support that. Yeah, I think, I think you're right.

Like it's, but it's so tacky, right? Is it, it's like a lame attempt at subliminal messaging? I know, but it has to be working because what 40% of Americans then make an appointment with their doctor. Yeah. So it is totally subliminal messaging and it is. It's so cheap. Not in production value, but like it, it's cheap. It's just like the tactic. Like I think there's so many different ways that you could approach it, right? I think direct to consumer are my overall note from our episode

today is direct to consumer pharmaceutical marketing needs to go. Like we are not the experts. We've talked about this in the health field. We are not the experts of our own body. Doctors spend 12 fucking years learning the ins and outs, hands on training nurses as well, certifications left and right. These people are busting their ass to know what to do in the situation. Yeah. Stop fucking making decisions for yourself. Just go there, find a doctor you trust. You'd like talk to them,

you know, like, did you just say talk to your doctor? Yeah, go ask your doctor if talking to him's right for you. Talking to them. I'm so sorry. That was a Freudian slip where I called the doctor to him. That was my bad. My bad. See, like my fault. Shoot. I mean, I think there's also, I am such a big believer. The only power that I have as a consumer is where I spend my money. And I will fight this and my voting power, right? Yeah, I can vote and I can vote with my dollar. Yep. And

please just if there's anything that you take away from our podcast is vote with your dollar. I mean, that is why I'm a vegetarian. That is why I do not eat fish. That is why I, you know, there's, there's, that is why I do not purchase fast fashion. Like you as a consumer hold so much power, everyone, you really do. And it's up to you to figure out where you spend your money because these really evil companies are nothing without you. They are nothing without you. So I just want

to say don't ask your doctor. It turns out I don't have COPD, even though the companies would like me to believe I do, you know, I don't have fucking shingles, even though like you see a rash pop up and you're like, see Alice would be right for this. Yep. Yep. I'm so, I'm so on board and I'm glad we're ending with that too is voting with your dollar. And just my last note is like, you know,

the Republicans always are like, these companies are going all liberal, they're appealing. But you know why they're standing up for gay rights and coming out against Roe v. Wade decisions is because the dollar. Yes. Right. They know their customer base if they take a stance or don't take a stance in the case of Disney, where it's just kind of like, yeah, they lose the power of the dollar is

everything these corporations. So yeah. Home Depot. So Home Depot, their owner and Hobby Lobby, their owner, like actively fights against anti transgender laws or actually actually fights for anti transgender laws. So it's like when I have the option to go to Home Depot or Lowe's, I'm going to Lowe's. Because I don't support that. And so I don't know, I just have to say like, do your research on who these companies are funding. Yeah. And I can arson in the Hobby Lobby. So I

just go in and burn the place to the fucking god. I've never stepped foot in a Hobby Lobby. I have no idea. Let me take that back. Michaels all the way. Are they some of the products? I guess. No, you're not crafters. So you we have no say in this argument. Anyway, anyway, sorry for the last tangent. You made it through for the rest the whole entire episode. We needed to lighten it up talking about pharmaceuticals. Yep. Caitlin, do you have any notes on our Facebook group upcoming?

No, I just want to say that we will post some behind the scenes on our Facebook group manipulating the podcast. And that's where you can find all of our coverage. And for the latest episode, it drops 8am Tuesdays. Yes, it does. And please, please rate us. I don't care. You can give us one star and tell us we're beautiful or five stars and tell us we need to go to hell. I don't care about the system. Let us know some feedback. Caitlin and I are in this bubble. We're just

talking to each other. We get like anecdotal. My mom's the only feedback I get. I need some outside feedback. I need somebody to give me the real deal. Where can we get better? Where can we make this more informative to you? Or if you love it, five stars, I mean, and you know, I'll give you a little virtual high five, but yes, please review the show. Let us know what you think. Have a great day. Go ask your doctor if listening to another manipulating the masses podcast is

right for you. The answer is yes. Go watch our previous episodes, listen to our previous episodes, watch, I guess, we're now on YouTube. Oh my God. Do you ever stop talking? Nope. Bye.