Cart (0)
VIDEOViagra Commercials Face Stiff Opposition
Congressman stands firm against Pfizer.
 |
|
Fortunately, US Representative Jim Moran feels your pain. For the second time in 4 years, Moran has introduced a bill that would “"prohibit as indecent the broadcasting of any advertisement for a medication for the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED), and for other purposes."
The “Families for ED Advertising Decency Act” would ban companies like Pfizer (PFE), maker of Viagra, and Eli Lilly (LLY), maker of Cialis, from advertising their drugs on television between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.
The advertisements are “an intrusion into our daily lives that I believe has become inappropriate," Moran said in an interview with CNN. "There is a saturation of the television airwaves with these ED ads, and they have gotten more pervasive, more blunt, and less subtle."
In other words, Moran doesn’t have any beef with the drugs, just with how openly society is talking about them. Perhaps that’s why the bill allows for “product placement or other display or mention merely of the trademarked name or generic name for such a medication.”
In Moran’s legislative world, it’s perfectly acceptable for Viagra to play a pivotal role in advancing the plot of, say, My Name Is Earl. What’s not okay is for any ads for the drug to appear during commercials - the time when kids are, you know, really tuning in.
Passage of the bill could pose a serious challenge to how pharmaceutical companies allocate their advertising dollars.
In 2007, Big Pharma spent over $5 billion on advertising, with ED drugs making up a significant portion of that total. Eli Lilly spent over $150 million promoting Cialis, according to Consumer Reports. Pfizer spent over $80 million on Viagra. Both campaigns were clearly effective, with Cialis bringing in over $450 million in sales - though Viagra, with over $820 million, easily outstripped it.
That means for every ad dollar spent on Cialis, Eli Lilly earned $2.99; Viagra, $9.93.
(Incidentally, GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) return on advertising for Valtrex, a herpes medication, blew both ED meds out of the water—a whopping $15.78 per ad dollar! It’s enough to make you fall in love with herpes all over again.)
Moran is certainly no stranger to the pharmaceutical companies; in 2005, he introduced similar legislation. At the time, Moran met with the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a lobbying group, and told them that if the companies voluntarily eased up on the ads, he would ease up on the bill.
“We said, 'Sure.,'” said Austin Durrer, an aide to the Congressman, to AdAge. “But the ads have been increasing, and we've been getting feedback from a lot of people."
Chief among those “people” are certainly moms - a constituency no smart politician or rational human would dare upset. On the truly frightful website Mommywarriors.com, one maternal soldier offers this telling complaint:
“We were all watching the Yankee baseball game this afternoon and enjoying some quality family time when the infamous Viagra commercial came on. My kids are into the jingles and they all started to sing along…ViVa Viagra, Viva Viagra, Viva, Viva, Viagra!
“When the commercial ended, my husband and I just looked at each other with a relieved look on our face. We had dodged the bullet once again. The kids didn’t inquire about ‘if your erection lasts more than 3 hours to please consult your doctor.’ “
Well, Mom, that’s probably because the kids already know all about ED. Oh, do you really have to ask? Shush. Now go back to watching Desperate Housewives - I hear that Lynette and Tom agreed to sleep with each other every night for one month, and Tom’s probably gonna need a little lift.
For more on the little blue pill that could, check out Hoofy & Boo's always astute report.
The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opinion about the performance of securities and financial markets by the writers whose articles appear on the site. The views expressed by the writers are not necessarily the views of Minyanville Media, Inc. or members of its management. Nothing contained on the website is intended to constitute a recommendation or advice addressed to an individual investor or category of investors to purchase, sell or hold any security, or to take any action with respect to the prospective movement of the securities markets or to solicit the purchase or sale of any security. Any investment decisions must be made by the reader either individually or in consultation with his or her investment professional. Minyanville writers and staff may trade or hold positions in securities that are discussed in articles appearing on the website. Writers of articles are required to disclose whether they have a position in any stock or fund discussed in an article, but are not permitted to disclose the size or direction of the position. Nothing on this website is intended to solicit business of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Minyanville management and staff as well as contributing writers will not respond to emails or other communications requesting investment advice.
Copyright 2011 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
