John Mack’s Pharma Marketing Blog is always an entertaining and informative read.
Last week he posted what he stressed was NOT an attack on pro golfer Phil Mickelson. Mack explained he’d already done that – back last August when he asked, “Is Phil Mickelson Shilling for Enbrel?” and in another post just a few weeks ago.
This time, Mack criticized: “the ‘non-branded’ disease awareness campaign just announced by Pfizer & Amgen, the companies that bring you ENBREL.” He posted the web screen shot displayed above, and wrote:
“In case you missed it, I circled the “money shot,” which is not Phil hitting the ball in the hole, but the prominent link to a “treatment option.” The link, of course, leads directly to the branded ENBREL website. Surely, this biologic compound that has a LONG list of things you need to tell your doctor about before taking (eg, “if you live or have lived in …the Southwest”) is NOT the first treatment option one should consider!
Amgen and Pfizer have teamed up (ie, given money to) the Arthritis Foundation and the National Psoriasis Foundation — patient groups — to form the “Joint Smart Coalition,” which is responsible for the “On Course with Phil” campaign.”
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
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