Roosters, real people, conflicts of interest, and stuff, oh my

September 5, 2008 – 12:24 pm

While the rest of the blogosphere focused on GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, pharma bloggers concentrated on industry matters. The rooster-themed, nonbranded commercials for Ambien CR caught some attention, as well as Pfizer’s new, celebrity-free commercial for Lipitor, featuring real patient John E. The decision by one psychiatry journal to reveal conflicts of interest in its editorial board also attracted notice. This is going to be a short one, folks, as I’m still dealing with the aftereffects of a medical emergency with my husband (he had a seizure two weeks ago and the I.V. push of Dilantin in the ER caused some potentially serious problems; he’s getting a doppler reading of his arm today to make sure there are no clots). I am sure you can all understand.

UPDATE: The doppler was done, but the results are awaiting the doctor’s interpretation. Officially the diagnosis is phlebitis, and it makes me wish that I had insisted that the ER use fosphenytoin instead of phenytoin intravenously.

Ambien CR’s anonymous fine-feathered friend

When I saw the first of the “Silence Your Rooster” commercials during the Olympics, I figured it was for a sleep drug, but didn’t go look at the Website at the time. Since then we have all learned that it’s for Sanofi-Aventis’ Ambien CR.

John Mack at the Pharma Marketing Blog called the rooster-themed ads “politically incorrect” because the rooster bothers the male and female sleepers in different ways. “Each ad is gender-specific (except for the rooster, which I presume is always a cock): the sports (basketball), car and drummer roosters awaken male sleepers, whereas the vacuum cleaner, hair dryer, and phone roosters awaken female sleepers,” he observes. “The idea is that worry about our daily activities keeps us awake at night. Showing men worried about sports, cars, and creative outlets and women worried about vacuum cleaners and hair dryers is a bit politically incorrect, wouldn’t you say?”

Now that you mention it, Mr. Mack … By the way, although he noted that Sanofi-Aventis had put up the clips on its YouTube channel, there’s nothing there now. You can only see the clips now on TV or on the campaign’s Website. Bummer. I was looking forward to the YouTube spoofs!

At the Wall Street Journal Health Blog, Jacob Goldstein looks at the new trend of unbranded ads, which began with Pfizer’s Chantix. Ed Silverman at Pharmalot also picked up the article from the Wall Street Journal that Mr. Goldstein referenced, observing that the ad is part of a trend of unbranded campaigns for drugs that have had a checkered past. Pfizer’s new ads for the smoking cessation drug Chantix also do not name the drug and direct the viewer to a Website, MyTimeToQuit.com.

Rich Meyers at World of DTC Marketing has some observations about unbranded advertising, revealing that he had actually worked on an unbranded campagn for Lilly’s Sarafem when he was at that company. “Unbranded advertising can be a great way to raise awareness of medical conditions to your target audience and get them into physicians or have them go online to do more research about treatment options,” he says. (I don’t remember the unbranded Sarafem campaign at all, but sales of the drug, which is just another version of the active chemical in Prozac, were not all that great and now Sarafem is marketed by Warner-Chilcott.)

Mr. Meyer likes the Ambien spots from an ad-person’s standpoint. “…although I thought the creative could have been a little better, I applaud the brand team as these spots are ‘out of the box’ thinking and a great integrated online and offline campaign,” he says. He is critical of the Chantix spots, though, which he observes have been running ever since the appearance of media reports linking the drug to suicides. “Last time I checked the dictionary transparency did not mean hiding from the truth,” he says.

What Mr. Meyers doesn’t like about the unbranded ads in general, however, is that at the moment pharma marketers should be doing everything they can to get back into consumers’ good graces, “This continued end around approach assumes that a majority of consumers are stupid and will not put 2 and 2 together …”

He also wonders at the rationale for running the ads. “Did someone on the brand team ask, ‘Since we have so much negative publicity, let’s pull the branded ads and substitute the unbranded ads?’ he asks. “If so, then this is a clear indication that there are still a lot of bad marketing people out there who lack good judgement and have forgotten why we are in this business.”

Bob Ehrlich at DTC-in-Perspective wonders if the rooster is better than Rozerem’s beaver, and comes to the conclusion that it is. “A mysterious rooster is a nice future icon for extended use across all media,” he says. “It is also fairly easy to interpret once you realize it is for Ambien. It takes a little less psychology training to understand than did Lincoln and the beaver.”

He also makes some jokes about it, at Congress’ expense. “The use of the darkly comedic rooster may arouse the wrath of Congressional watchers who recoil from uses of non-serious spokespeople or in this case spokesfoul,” he says. “One must admit the mischievous rooster does not have the scientific credentials of the usual DTC on-camera doctor. So, expect the usual criticisms about making drug products less serious. Remember this is the drug that supposedly caused Congressman Kennedy to crash his car into a Capitol wall at 3 in the morning. I assume Ambien marketers debated the fallout potential from using the rooster and decided it was worth the risk. The rooster will not likely have to appear to testify in front of Dingell and Stupak although he might make more sense than many Congressmen.”

Overall, the new campaign works for him, Mr. Ehrlich says. “It is cute, buzz worthy, and expandable,” he says. “I would not use such an approach for a cancer drug, but for a well-accepted sleep aid I have no problem.”

Lipitor ads take realistic approach

Burned by the Robert Jarvik celebrity scandal, Pfizer’s new spots for Lipitor are celebrity-free, observes Mr. Silverman, quipping, “File this under fanfare for the common man.” Jacob Goldstein at the Wall Street Journal Health Blog also writes about the new campaign. Both Mr. Silverman and Mr. Goldstein tell us that the new spokesman for Lipitor is John Erlendson, a 58-year-old talent agent from California, who didn’t start taking Lipitor until he suffered a heart attack.

Rich Meyer at World of DTC Marketing says the new Lipitor campaign is spot on. “That clink you heard was the clutch giving way with the new Paradigm shift,” he says. “The new Lipitor campaign is excellent and spot on for an audience that is confused about all the news around high cholesterol and medications that may or may not work. Add to that the recent death from Tim Russert and a lot of people are asking their physicians what medication is right for them and which medication is best to prevent CV problems. More often than not that medication is going to be Lipitor.”

Bob Ehrlich at World of DTC Marketing thinks the new ad is meat and potatoes, creatively speaking. “It is safe, logical, and easily understandable,” he says. “I assume it tested well with consumers, but I suspect most easy to understand ads do. I am afraid; however, it looks somewhat like a concept board. It may lack the stopping power of some of the earlier Lipitor campaigns. Will this commercial stand out among the many other Rx ads on the evening news?”

He does add that the new spots will keep Lipitor’s name out there and not get Congress angry, and would extend into different demographics with different people. “The football analogy, given the start of the season this week, would be ball control,” Mr. Ehrlich says. “Run the ball, no fumbles. This commercial is ball control.

In another look as to what effect the new spot for Lipitor could have on ROI, Peter Pitts at DrugWonks writes about the study out of Harvard that says DTC ads do not produce a Pied Piper effect in patients. “Will this study stop the Congressional Pied Pipers who keep piping up about the dangers of DTC?” Mr. Pitts asks. “Stay tuned.”

It’s time for more …

Now to get to the items that I couldn’t get to Friday.

Journal takes aim at editorial conflicts

Ed Silverman at Pharmalot picked up the announcement from Ronald Pies, the editor in chief at Psychiatric Times. Mr. Silverman pointed out a report from the Integrity in Science Watch program about the move. “Meanwhile, the ISW points out that top editors of psychiatric journals often have such ties and include - guess who? - Pies,” Mr. Silverman writes. “There’s also Robert Freedman, editor in chief of the American Journal of Psychiatry, Jan Fawcett, medical editor of Psychiatric Annals, and Alan Gelenberg, editor in chief of the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. Click on the links and you’ll find they receive education grants or consulting fees from drugmakers that sell psychiatric meds.”