Free Newsletter
FDA cracks down on search-engine ads
Everybody knows Internet advertising is hot. Traditional media is watching its share of ad dollars decline again and again. Meanwhile, the digital domain's share is growing. Right now, pharma has between 5 percent and 10 percent of their marketing budgets in digital, and the share is growing, DMNews notes.
But Internet advertising has its pitfalls. Lately, FDA has cited a series of drugmakers for online video that didn't weigh in heavily enough on the side effects and risks of drugs. And now, the agency is cracking down on search engine ads. You know, the briefer-than-brief liners that pop up when you google "migraine" or "congestive heart failure" or "insomnia."
Fourteen companies, including Biogen Idec, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche--basically a who's who of pharma--got warning letters from the FDA about those "sponsored links." There's not much room to maneuver in that sort of space, as you know. And the links are just that--they go to the advertised drug's website where plenty of information is available. But still, FDA didn't like the fact that Biogen's Tysabri search engine ads--e.g., "A Multiple Sclerosis Treatment That's Different from the Others"--didn't mention the drug's connection to the potentially fatal brain infection PML. And FDA thinks Sanofi's search links "misleadingly suggest Plavix is safer than has been demonstrated."
This spate of warnings surely won't be the last. And it points out the pitfalls of online advertising, where the forms and approaches are quite different from the traditional 30-second TV spot or two-page magazine ad with plenty of space for fine print. Figuring out how to market effectively online--and satisfy the FDA, too: That's going to be a challenge, but one the industry has to meet, and soon.
- see the DMNews piece
- read the Wall Street Journal story
Related Article:
Big Pharma's Top 13 Advertising Budgets
Comments
Tracy, glad you're covering this issue which should have all marketers outraged. Warning letters without published guidelines is ridiculous. There are easy ways around this (eg, use vanity url's and don't mention drug name) but these tactics are less transparent and helpful to e-health consumers, not more helpful. FDA needs to buy a clue.
What about ads on health sites??? That seems more problematic.
there are clear regulations published by FDA that state you can not state drug name and indication without stating side effects. the regs do not address every possible medium where this information may be published but rules do exist nevertheless and have for some time.
My faith in the U.S. Government just got a little boost! At least the FDA, I was beginning to wonder if public safety was even on their "to do" list.
Have been complaining about this since the "White powder" scare post 9/11. My parents were living in Bocca Riton,FLA at the time. They are elderly and would have purchased anything over the internet to protect against the scare. I believe it was CIPRO or something like that being advertised. She is one to believe it if she reads it on the computer. From me to you to them, THANK YOU!
Ron L. King
Post new comment
Paid Research Reports
- Stakeholder Opinions: Vaccines in Emerging Markets (Asia) - Opportunities in China, India, South Korea and Taiwan
- Big Pharma Performance Before, During and Beyond the Global Recession
- Optimizing Lifecycle Management: Maximizing commercial lifespan through label expansion and combination products
- The CRO Market Outlook: Emerging markets, leading players and future trends
- Pharmaceutical Sales Force Effectiveness Strategies
- Commercial Insight: Influenza Vaccines and Antivirals - The pandemic's long-term impact





