An Ad Guy’s Solution to Cutting Healthcare Costs

When you look at the rising cost of healthcare, there is a whole lot of blame to go around.

But one villain has gone unnoticed: The ad regulators.

I was recently watching television, when an ad for Cialis came on the air. It was probably the 1,000,000th pharmaceutical ad I had been exposed to, but it was the first time I was really struck by how much legal copy was being thrown at me. The disclaimers literally took up half of the 60-second spot, informing me of every possible side effect that might (but probably won’t) occur if I took the drug. After about 5 seconds, I just tuned out the announcer and watched the b-roll footage of a man and his partner sitting in two separate bathtubs in the woods.

Magazine ads are no different. For every one page of ‘advertising’ there are two pages of mice-type disclaimers.

The pharmaceutical industry  is the only industry that is this regulated in regards to full disclosure. Heck, even the warnings on cigarette packages aren’t that detailed.

Which got me to thinking. Is all that extra copy (and extra expense) really necessary? I understand that the government wants to protect its citizens. But if nobody is listening to the “disclaimers” on TV and nobody is reading the 4-point-type treatises in magazines, why have them?

Wouldn’t it be better to just say “serious side effects may occur” and lead them to a website that details them?

Just think what it would do to cut costs. TV buys would be cut in half. Print buys by two-thirds. And drug companies could save millions upon millions of dollars that could be earmarked for research or passed along to the customer. Either way, it’s a win.

And if we don’t have to watch two old folks in a bathtub? Well, that’s a win too.

If you would like to ask us about our healthcare marketing experience, contact us today.