The Fine Print: Direct To Customer Advertising
...utilities bills and the usual assortment of flyers and mailers. Real estate agents. Home Tuition. Toys ‘R’ Us. That’s all fine and good. Now what’s this— Viagra? Claritin?
This is the crux of the recent debate on major pharmaceutical firms who use direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising techniques to sell their product. DTC advertising is not a new 21st century phenomenon. In the decades before the Internet, where the practical means of mass communication were largely limited to the phone and the daily post, DTC mailers sold everything from home appliances, part-time courses, toys and comics and more. So why now the furore against the latest tide of DTC mailers to flood our mailboxes?
Certainly, this debate has to do with the nature of the product advertised. In this case, these pharmaceutical firms are selling drugs and medication, for illnesses ranging from diabetes to penile dysfunction. These are serious drugs to be prescribed for serious ailments. General-use home appliances and toys, other products commonly sold via DTC techniques, are largely safe to use to the ordinary layman consumer. By comparison, drugs like Viagra and Vioxx are not—they usually have potent side effects and ought to be prescribed upon diagnosis and recommendation of a qualified doctor or physician. Compare this to the shelves of a toy store and a pharmacy. Where in a toy store, any child or parent are free to pick up and buy any toy they want. In a pharmacy, apart from general medication like Panadol, other serious drugs are sold only if you are able to produce an official prescription from your doctor. This standard is upheld in today’s brick-and-mortar stores. Surely, this must apply to DTC selling as well.
Three major stakeholders round up this issue—the consumers, the doctors and the pharmaceutical firms.
The consumers are the patients, suffering from illnesses that...
View Full Essay
