Why the Bayer-Yaz Settlement Will Not Change Drug Advertising Forever
Former Pfizer vp Dorothy Wetzel popped up in Ad Age today claiming that Bayer’s corrective ad campaign for Yaz birth control “will cause drug companies to get way more conservative” with their advertising. “They’re going to test and test and test their spots, and ultimately the advertising won’t be as effective.”
In fact, this is not what the effect of the Yaz fiasco is going to be. The back story: a coalition of state attorneys general and the FDA have forced Bayer to yank a TV campaign that suggested Yaz could be used for acne and PMS.
The Wetzel comment comes in an article that claims:
A sea change is coming to the $5 billion direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical-advertising category in the wake of the Food and Drug Administration’s decision to force Bayer to run corrective advertising for one of its brands.
This is wrong. The Yaz situation is relatively unusual and its effects will be extremely limited. Here’s why.
First, it’s not specifically Bayer’s ads that triggered this situation. Rather, Bayer is in this position because it broke a previous legal agreement from 2007 over the drug Baycol. That agreement was based on allegations that Bayer used deceptive advertising to market the cholesterol-lowering drug. So the only companies who have much to fear from the states-FDA coalition are companies with pre-existing legal agreements.
Second, the agreement is not terrifically onerous, and simply binds Bayer to do things that most drug companies are already doing. Here’s the meat of the new agreement:
Bayer [is] to submit all future Yaz television commercials to the FDA for approval prior to airing, to comply with all the FDA’s recommended changes to the advertising, and to clearly and conspicuously disclose the symptoms for which the FDA has approved the advertised medications.
Most companies are already copying their ads to the FDA. Complying with changes requested by the FDA is virtually automatic. And clearly disclosing the symptoms for which the drug is approved — well, that’s pretty much the definition of regular drug advertising.
Third, the handful of companies that have been in this situation before have not caused sea changes in the advertising of drugs. Eli Lilly’s marketing of Evista has been under the control of the DOJ since 2006 — and hardly anyone noticed. Same with Cephalon and its marketing of Actiq, Provigil and Gabitril.
At the end of the Ad Age article, John Kamp of the lobbying group Coalition for Healthcare Communication claims the agreement “could open a new chapter in the history of government attempts to censor pharmaceutical marketing.”
Er, no. Not unless your company is determined to push the envelope in its marketing, and most drug companies’ campaigns are so heavily vetted by lawyers that that’s the last thing you can accuse them of.
- See previous BNET coverage of Bayer and Yaz:
- Bayer’s Advertising for Contraceptive Yaz Was “Misleading
Jim Edwards, a former managing editor of Adweek, has covered drug marketing at Brandweek for four years, and is a former Knight-Bagehot fellow at Columbia University's business and journalism schools. Follow him on Twitter or send him an email.
BNET User Analysis