In September this year, the UK implemented new rules regarding pharmaceutical advertising. The aim of the new rules is to protect consumers from misleading advertising and improve the way drugs are advertised to the public.
Many big pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson, produce pharmaceuticals for treating erectile dysfunction (“ED”). One of these drugs is known as Viagra (sildenafil citrate).
The makers of Viagra regularly air commercials during TV sport broadcasts in the UK, trying to hook potential customers onto their drug. However, they’ve been banned from airing these commercials in England since 2012. Why?
Here’s a list of some of the most interesting reasons why the Viagra commercials are banned in the UK.
Misleading Advertising
From 2012 to 2016, the TV airing of Viagra commercials was banned in England. However, the law didn’t apply to other countries, such as Scotland and Wales. This means that Viagra commercials were shown during Sport Relief and Comic Relief during that time, but not in everyday circumstances.
One of the reasons why the TV ban on Viagra commercials was implemented was because of misleading advertising. In 2012, an official complaint was made to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) regarding the following Viagra commercial:
- The ad suggests that users will achieve orgasm from sexual activity.
- The ad doesn’t specify the type of sexual activity that may cause an orgasm.
- The ad implies that the drug will make users more attractive to the opposite sex.
- The ad doesn’t disclose that some individuals may experience adverse effects from the use of the drug.
The OFT subsequently received enough evidence to show that the complaint was “well-founded”. After this, the UK government implemented a complete ban on Viagra TV advertising. Since then, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson have been trying to work out a deal where they could air some form of Viagra commercial once more. In November 2018, they finally received the green light from the National Health Service (NHS) to launch a TV ad campaign in the UK. It was then that they got the OK to start airing these ads on Channel 4.
Improving Public Confidence
When the TV ban on Viagra commercials came into effect in September this year, it wasn’t implemented everywhere. The TV broadcast ban only applied to England, while Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland continued to allow ads for prescription drugs. This meant that there was a chance for pharmaceutical companies to test the waters and see how consumers reacted to their ads. If the reaction was positive, then they could potentially continue to air these kinds of ads.
One of the reasons why the UK government implemented this ban on Viagra commercials was to protect consumers from unsafe drugs. When it comes to pharmaceuticals, the UK takes safety seriously and implemented a total TV ban to ensure that no misleading information was given to the public. Because of this, when the TV ban on Viagra commercials came into effect this year, it had the opposite effect. The ads for Viagra helped improve public confidence in the drug, leading to more people being willing to try it.
Tricky Issues
While most people would agree that pharmaceutical ads can be tricky to gauge the effectiveness of, there are certain types of consumers who may be affected by certain ads. One of these consumers is minors. In the UK, under the age of 18, you need a legal guardian’s permission to buy any drug, including Viagra. This is why Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson’s ads for Viagra might not be appropriate for younger generations.
Even if they wanted to try the drug, minors can’t actually buy it themselves. Only a legal guardian can buy drugs for children. In the event that a minor did want to try Viagra, their legal guardian would need to make the purchase for them. This could put the minor in a bit of a tricky situation, especially if the guardian didn’t have any experience with the drug. It’s not fair to parents or guardians, who could potentially get suckered into buying drugs for their children, which the children could end up abusing.
To avoid this situation, it might be best if the pharmaceutical companies didn’t air these kinds of ads, especially for a drug that has such dangerous side effects. It’s not fair to consumers, who are likely to get hurt by these drugs, if the companies don’t disclose the risks associated with their products.
The point is that while most people would agree that pharmaceutical ads can be tricky to gauge the effectiveness of, there are certain types of consumers, like minors, who might be affected by certain ads. It’s not always easy to determine the right age-group for certain types of ads, especially when it comes to drugs like Viagra, which can have serious side effects. If you’re not sure whether or not to air an ad for a specific drug, it might be best to just avoid it.
No Evidence To Support Claims
One of the issues with pharmaceutical ads is that there’s often no clear evidence to support the claims made in the ad. This is problematic, because it gives the ad an unfair advantage over more established brands. It’s one thing to claim that your drug can treat a certain illness or condition. It’s another thing to prove that claim to the satisfaction of a medical professional. In some cases, the pharmaceutical company might have access to preclinical studies, but nothing more.
If you believe that pharmaceutical ads are unfair, then you have every right to complain. It would be best to avoid these ads, since there’s no guarantee that the claims made in the ad are actually true. It’s a common complaint that pharmaceutical ads don’t provide any clarity regarding the claims made in the ad. It’s not always easy to discern fact from fiction in an ad for a drug, especially when there isn’t any obvious source to verify the claim.
Confusing Advertising
It’s not only the failure to provide evidence to support claims that makes pharmaceutical ads complicated, it’s the fact that the claims made in the ad can be difficult to follow. This makes it more likely that viewers will become confused or misled by the ad. It’s not uncommon for someone to come back from watching an ad for a drug and ask questions about how exactly that drug works. Unfortunately, this happens all the time and it’s very difficult to trace this back to the ad campaign itself. This is why it might be a good idea for pharmaceutical companies to rebrand their drug or come up with new ads for the same drug, to try and avoid this issue.
It’s not fair to pharmaceutical companies to expect them to behave responsibly in their advertising, considering the billions of dollars that they make each year from these ads. Even if they want to be responsible, it’s not always easy for them to do so. If you believe that pharmaceutical ads are sometimes misleading or confusing, then you have every right to complain.
The main issue is that there’s a lack of transparency regarding the claims that are made in pharmaceutical ads. When you consider all of the money that these companies make from advertising, it’s obvious why they’d want to keep this a secret. Nobody wants to be the cause of a person getting hurt or killed due to the ingestion of a drug. That’s a risk that these companies are always willing to take.
If you feel like you’re being misled by pharmaceutical ads, then there’s no shame in asking for clarification. However, if you can’t get any answers from the company that produced the ad, then it might be best to avoid that product altogether.