CAMPAIGN REPORT ON HEALTHCARE: An ad boom approaches - Despite being constricted by regulations, drugs companies are determined to find ways to communicate directly with their end users. Karen Yates reports

Ever since science took over from religion, doctors and patients haven’t talked very much. Like the chosen ones of a mysterious sect, only doctors were allowed to pronounce on the secrets of good health, while their obedient patients looked on in silent awe.

Ever since science took over from religion, doctors and patients

haven’t talked very much. Like the chosen ones of a mysterious sect,

only doctors were allowed to pronounce on the secrets of good health,

while their obedient patients looked on in silent awe.



But all that is changing. The increasingly powerful drugs companies are

forging ahead with plans to speak directly to end users, thus ending

their dependence on contact with doctors.



The revolution began in the US, where a two-year experiment allowing

drugs companies to advertise prescription-only medicines direct to

consumers for the first time, has just ended. It was a phenomenal

success. Agencies found their coffers swelling by a staggering dollars

1.3 billion in the first year from the new campaigns generated. The

medical establishment was unperturbed, and the drugs companies

discovered that their audience was not a few fusty physicians fumbling

through a trade magazine, but rather anyone with money to spend.



On this side of the Atlantic, the revolution has been more modest.

Companies are not allowed to advertise prescription-only drugs direct to

consumers.



Instead, companies advertise a medical condition and refer consumers to

their doctors. Called symptom advertising, it’s an effective back door

into advertising prescription-only drugs. Many people put up with

symptoms that they don’t realise can be fixed by medication. By telling

them that they can be helped, and by directing them to their doctor,

companies can, without mentioning a single brand name, raise sales of

their product.



Of course, it may only be worth doing if a company has the market leader

or sole drug in the category. And it has to be done carefully because of

the myriad of laws governing advertising drugs in the UK.



The first campaign of this type in the UK raised awareness of nail-bed

fungal infections. This was created by Herman Beasley last year, and

backed by Novartis, which produces treatment for such infections. The

second was more mainstream in character, crafted over a number of years

by Saatchi & Saatchi for Pharmacia & Upjohn. A few weeks before the

awareness campaign on poor bladder control broke, Saatchis contacted the

medical profession, making sure doctors knew about Detrusitol, which, in

some cases, can help to control it.



’DTC handled wrongly can be a publicity nightmare. You need to get

healthcare professionals on board: that’s a lesson we learned from

similar campaigns in the US. If you push people into doctors’ surgeries

demanding a particular drug, you will get a backlash,’ Paul Tredwell,

managing partner at Saatchis, explains. So, phase one involved talking

to the doctors, and it was only phase two that launched to the public.

This took the form of prime-time TV ads and a UK magazine blitz

referring people to their doctors, with an 0800 number for more

information. Less than three weeks after the campaign broke, 24,000

calls had been received on the hotline and a quarter of these people

filled in questionnaires about their condition.



Next into the DTC fray is Procter & Gamble, which is joining with the

National Osteoporosis Society to run a campaign about this debilitating

condition, which occurs in as many as one in three post-menopausal

women.



P&G manufactures Didronal, a drug that can relieve the condition.

Meanwhile, Pfizer-owned Viagra is in talks to find an agency for a

Europe-wide ad campaign.



There’s still a long way to go, however, before symptom campaigns become

the genuine advertising of prescription drugs. An EU directive forbids

such advertising, and is not due for review for some years. But,

although the battle is far from over, drugs companies have won some

minor skirmishes in the war to talk directly to consumers.



Take the British Medical Journal website, for example. Initially the

Medicine Controls Agency gave the website the go-ahead. The BMJ reasoned

that anyone can wander into a public library and pick up a copy of the

BMJ with all its drugs advertising anyway, and the MCA gave way.

However, it then reversed its decision, telling the BMJ that its website

contravened the code of practice because a member of the public could

stray on to the site.



The second fight is not over yet. It involves NHS Direct, an initiative

aimed at taking pressure off primary healthcare services. Instead of

calling 999 for non-emergencies, for example, members of the public can

call NHS Direct or visit the website and get advice and reassurance

about their complaint from professionals.



But advertising this service has been a problem because of an arcane law

designed to prevent ’quack’ doctors from taking advantage of the sick.

The radio and TV advertising codes forbid advertising a service offering

advice or diagnosis of a medical condition. Discussions are in progress

and the regulatory authorities are said to be close to reaching a

compromise.



Finally, with all this activity by drugs companies, TV stations, notably

Flextech, are considering the launch of TV channels dedicated to

health.



Such a channel would run information on health, funded by advertising

from drugs companies. To the medical establishment, this is nothing

short of heresy. To the drugs companies and healthcare agencies,

however, it will be just one more step on the way to finally meeting

their consumers.