An interesting recent piece of news was that sponsored link advertisements for pharmaceutical products have declined more than 50% following a spate of Warning Letters from the US FDA. According to various new articles published on March 26, 2009, the Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications (DDMAC) of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sent warning letters to 14 major pharmaceutical manufacturers identifying specific brands as being in violation of FDA fair balance guidelines. The letters stated that sponsored link advertisements for specific drugs were misleading due to the exclusion of risk information associated with the use of the drug.
Most of these companies quickly removed their sponsored ads for these products and others not specifically mentioned in the letters. As a result, the number of sponsored links for pharmaceutical brands has dramatically declined as manufacturers changed their strategies to ensure compliance.
This illustrates neatly what we have been pointing out for some time; there is nothing special about the Internet as far as regulation is concerned. Advertising on the Internet is governed in the same way as advertising using any other medium, and non-compliance with the rules that govern advertising will be dealt with similarly.
This poses a challenge on a number of levels for the companies concerned. The very nature of sponsored link advertisements mandates brevity. In a magazine you can have your ad on one page and the list of warnings in small type on the next page or two, but how is this to be handled in a sponsored link of 25 words or even fewer?
This isn’t the only problem with on-line ads. They might be a common sight to US-based consumers but on a global stage they are unusual. In fact the only countries that I know of where direct-to patient advertising is permitted are the USA and New Zealand. Other countries such as the UK specifically prohibit advertising of Prescription Only Medicines to non-health professionals. This places the onus squarely on the regulated company to make sure that they target their adverts correctly otherwise they risk action from other regulatory bodies and not just the FDA.
For more on this topic see the Business & Decision webcast "Controlling Life Sciences Promotional Activities on the Internet"
Most of these companies quickly removed their sponsored ads for these products and others not specifically mentioned in the letters. As a result, the number of sponsored links for pharmaceutical brands has dramatically declined as manufacturers changed their strategies to ensure compliance.
This illustrates neatly what we have been pointing out for some time; there is nothing special about the Internet as far as regulation is concerned. Advertising on the Internet is governed in the same way as advertising using any other medium, and non-compliance with the rules that govern advertising will be dealt with similarly.
This poses a challenge on a number of levels for the companies concerned. The very nature of sponsored link advertisements mandates brevity. In a magazine you can have your ad on one page and the list of warnings in small type on the next page or two, but how is this to be handled in a sponsored link of 25 words or even fewer?
This isn’t the only problem with on-line ads. They might be a common sight to US-based consumers but on a global stage they are unusual. In fact the only countries that I know of where direct-to patient advertising is permitted are the USA and New Zealand. Other countries such as the UK specifically prohibit advertising of Prescription Only Medicines to non-health professionals. This places the onus squarely on the regulated company to make sure that they target their adverts correctly otherwise they risk action from other regulatory bodies and not just the FDA.
For more on this topic see the Business & Decision webcast "Controlling Life Sciences Promotional Activities on the Internet"
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment