Why did this make me giggle?
Sep. 3rd, 2008 05:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jenk"Consumer advertising for prescription drugs had a negligible impact on sales of products studied by Harvard Medical School researchers -- in a finding that may confound both advertisers and their opponents.
The study may undercut the arguments of opponents of such ads, which have been allowed almost nowhere outside the U.S. [...] But the study also raises the question of whether the pharmaceutical industry's $4.8 billion annual spending on such ads is a waste of shareholders' money." — WSJ
This is different from previous studies which found that as ads are aired, prescriptions go up. However, this study actually had "a control group of patients not exposed to American drug-company ads".
Who? French-speakers of Quebec ("a group of North Americans who spend less than 5% of their television-watching time tuned to U.S. channels") were compared with the English-speakers in other provinces ("where residents are estimated to spend about 30% of their watching time on American channels.")
The results?
(And, of course, there's always John Wanamaker's axiom: "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half.")
The study may undercut the arguments of opponents of such ads, which have been allowed almost nowhere outside the U.S. [...] But the study also raises the question of whether the pharmaceutical industry's $4.8 billion annual spending on such ads is a waste of shareholders' money." — WSJ
This is different from previous studies which found that as ads are aired, prescriptions go up. However, this study actually had "a control group of patients not exposed to American drug-company ads".
Who? French-speakers of Quebec ("a group of North Americans who spend less than 5% of their television-watching time tuned to U.S. channels") were compared with the English-speakers in other provinces ("where residents are estimated to spend about 30% of their watching time on American channels.")
The results?
[D]uring two major ad campaigns -- for Amgen Inc.'s Enbrel arthritis treatment and Schering Plough Corp.'s antiallergy drug Nasonex -- there was no change in the difference between per-capita usage in Quebec and English-speaking parts of Canada. During a third campaign -- for Novartis AG's Zelnorm, a since-withdrawn treatment for irritable-bowel syndrome -- usage in English-speaking Canada went up briefly over Quebec but soon settled back.It does make for an interesting approach for the study, but I would think the US population spends more than 30% of their TV-watching time watching US channels...one can only watch so many BBC imports. :)
(And, of course, there's always John Wanamaker's axiom: "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half.")
