Why do some drug advertisments not include the function of the drug whils others do?

February 16, 2004 5:41 PM

In the U.S., some televised prescription drug ads tell you exactly what the drug is for. Others only allude cryptically to the drug's function. Still others just show a middle-aged, sweater-clad couple enjoying a sunset on a beach. Or Mike Ditka. Why?
posted by stonerose to health & fitness (10 comments total)

This seems like more of a philosophical question rather than a technical one... besides, isn't the answer obvious? What should the ad say? "Hey, limpdick! Buy this! It MAKES YOUR PEEPEE HARD!"
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 5:43 PM on February 16, 2004

because it's selling to people who get upset about seeing a breast (with nipple covered) during superbowl.
posted by andrew cooke at 5:45 PM on February 16, 2004

If the ad states the drug's benefits, it must also state side effects. If the ad just tells you to visit a website, or alludes cryptically to the drug's function, then no side effects listing is necessary.
posted by punishinglemur at 5:47 PM on February 16, 2004

I think it's rather clear at this point that the nipple in question was not, in fact, covered. It had a barbell through it and a sunburst nipple shield thingie around it.
posted by beth at 5:47 PM on February 16, 2004

...so, they'll only tell you the drug's function/benefits if they're comfortable telling you that it may cause baldness, impotence, genital rash, and diarrhea, possibly at the same time.
posted by punishinglemur at 5:48 PM on February 16, 2004

sorry. change that to "they're selling to people who think the exact details of the nipple cover during the superbowl are important".
posted by andrew cooke at 5:52 PM on February 16, 2004

more from the FDA about TV or "direct to consumer" advertising [which is illegal in Canada] an article that ends with this chestnut

"A drug company won't play fast and loose with the rules because its most important asset is its reputation with the American people."
posted by jessamyn at 5:55 PM on February 16, 2004

'cos Ditka is God?
da bears da bears da bears da bears
posted by keswick at 5:56 PM on February 16, 2004

What punishinglemur said. This December Slate article about the Levitra foolball-through-the-tire ad provides some relevant info ... plus a straight-faced denial from a spokesman that the imagery is suggestive.
posted by pmurray63 at 7:25 PM on February 16, 2004

The god I believe in isn't short of cash, mister.
posted by NortonDC at 7:59 PM on February 16, 2004