Got your attention with the first two, didn’t I? And that’s the point behind celebrity spokespeople pushing health campaigns. NASCAR driver and lingerie ad model Danica Patrick is now promoting an online “screener” for COPD or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
John Mack gives details on his Pharma Marketing Blog, where he put together this photo montage.
But Mack also raises important questions about the “screener.” He writes:
“The campaign points out that “COPD is the 4th leading cause of death in the US” and “an estimated 24 million Americans are affected” and “over half of them don’t even know it.”
In fact, I didn’t know that I MAY have COPD! But thanks to the COPD POPULATION Screener, which the DRIVE4COPD campaign urges every one to take (see the DRUVE4COPD Web site), I now know it and will talk to my doctor about it, which is the goal of DRIVE4COPD.
You too can find out if you MAY have COPD by taking a simple 5 question test! I had no doubt that I would score high enough to be at risk because:
1. During the past 4 weeks, I DID feel short of breath “a little of the time,” like when I had to shovel some snow, and
2. I DID cough up some “stuff,” such as mucus or phlegm, but “only with occasional colds or chest infections,” and
3. I HAVE smoked at least 100 cigarettes in my ENTIRE LIFE, though I quit smoking about 30 years ago, and
4. I agree (but not STRONGLY agree) that I do less than I used to because of my breathing problems, and
5. I am a man of a certain age (but I won’t say how old).
This is not the first time that I have taken such a screening test without any idea who came up with the questions or how the answers determine whether or not you have a medical condition.”
I, too, took the “screener,” entered the healthiest answers possible, yet still was told by the website:
Don’t wait. Call your doctor today to make an appointment if you may be at risk for COPD.
That’s ridiculous. But that’s what happens with the “Let ‘s SCREEN for everything” marketing mentality that has sprouted wings (and now NASCAR wheels!) in the good old USA.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments (2)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Toni Brayer, MD
February 6, 2010 at 1:06 amPharmaceutical Advertising rules:
1. Use a scantily clad woman or a celeb (better two for one)
2. Make her look sexy and fun
3. If it is for erectile dysfunction or prostate, use a handsome man
with gray hair and show a woman too.
4. Ask ridiculous screening questions that will be answered “yes”.
5. Tell the reader to mention it to the doctor
6. Profess that you are educating the public
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like