Commentary

I'd Like A Prescription Against Prescription Meds TV Ads

by Maarten Albarda , Featured Contributor, August 29, 2025

Whether you lean right or left, everyone can probably agree that Oh-Oh-Oh-Ozempic is advertising too much. Our current Health and Human Services Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has long criticized the practice of allowing pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers, which is legal only in the United States and New Zealand.

Despite RFK Jr's public position, imposing a total ban would face significant legal hurdles, including challenges related to corporate free speech. And there is a hefty lobby investment from the pharma industry.

According to the website Open Secrets, $16+ million was spent by Pharmaceuticals/Health Products PACs to candidates in the year 2023-2024, of which $7.1+ million went to Democrats and $8.8+ million to Republicans.

So any changes are likely to be complex and slow, if they happen at all, and we will have to continue to suffer from overkill in ad breaks for the foreseeable future.

How much overkill, you ask? Here is a stat from eMarketer:

Approximately 1 million people in the United States have ulcerative colitis (UC), or around 1.0% of the population, though overall irritable bowel disease (IBD) estimates are higher, with some sources placing the total number of adults living with IBD (including UC and Crohn's disease) as high as 3.1 million. That is still a very small percentage. Yet ad spend for medicines for this category is ranked at number two, three and six on the above table.

In the U.S., around 31.6 million people (roughly 10% of the population) have some form of eczema. According to the National Psoriasis Foundation, approximately 8 million people, or roughly 3% of the population in the United States, have psoriasis.

Critics of pharma advertising often state that pharma ads routinely overemphasize benefits, only partially inform its audience, and create “pressure to prescribe” for doctors when there are cheaper, non-branded alternatives available. But given this is a marketing and advertising platform, let’s look at it from that angle.

I am going out on a limb here to say that if you are targeting less than 10% of the U.S. population, you have no reason to be spending money on broad-reaching media like network, cable or streaming TV. These are among the most expensive touchpoints you can buy as a marketer. Yes, it lends prestige and still delivers probably the most powerful connection with consumers, but the amount of waste these brands are willing to absorb seems out of proportion. Especially when there are much more cost-efficient alternatives available, even for video ads.

If conversion is your metric to apply, I am going to guess those numbers also look bad for TV/cable/streamer networks. But the most important metric -- “sheer, unfiltered hatred for the overkill frequency of these ads and the seemingly unlimited funds to advertise” -- is perhaps the most important one. If I was in charge of one of those brands, I would be a contrarian and schedule differently, both in choice of platform as well as frequency. But what do I know?

advertising, consumer experience, government, legal, pharma, politics, tv

3 comments about "I'd Like A Prescription Against Prescription Meds TV Ads".

Check to receive email when comments are posted.

Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, September 2, 2025 at 10:26 a.m.
Maarten, I must say that I'm surprised by this one.

You state that if you are an advertiser targeting only 10% of the population you don't belong on TV as it's too expensive and there;s too much waste. Applying that logic what about banks or financial services? Or sports cars? Or luxury hotels? --to name a few. Shouldn't they all drop TV for the same reasons? And what if the medium you select--say TV--sends 30%+ of its ad impressions to that 10% you are targeting?That's not all that bad--is it?

Just because only 1-2% of all consumers currently have a given disease is that group the only target of a pharma advertiser whose product is a remedy for said illness? What about those who will eventually get the disease or who have family members and friends suffering with it? Shouldn't they be reached ? And what about the doctors and other medical practicioners who deal with the disease--don't they watch TV?Shouldn't such "influencers" be covered?

Finally, TV is not at all overpriced if you factor in ad attentiveness--especially cable. Indeed, cable is still the bargain basement for advertising that is actually seen. Would you recommend digital display ads--that almost nobody reads as a substitute? Don't say podcasts as their CPMs are higher than cable by a wide margin.
Reply

Maarten Albarda from Flock Associates (USA) replied, September 2, 2025 at 10:36 a.m.

Hi Ed: I am sorry, but yes, some other categories might also be better off elsewhere. But my point is not just the fact that they are buying a very broad reach medium, but they are also buying at at a volume that becomes obnoxious. Plus... if they did not spend that money on TV ads, it just might lower the cost of medicine by 0.01% (sarcasm!).

Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, September 2, 2025 at 11 a.m.

Maarten, the pharmas are not even 10% of all TV--linear plus CTV----ad spend. Of course they bunch up on CNN, The Fox News Channel, MSNBC, etc as these deliver mainly 65+ audieces at rather low CPMs, I might add. And, I agree, that bugs me also. But the solution for most viewers is the traditional oe--just ignore the ads by leaving the room, shanging channels, muting thec sound or simply paying no attention. An average consumer actually watches only a handful of TV commercials per day. So what if three or four or, maybe, five of these are pharma ads? It's not as horrible situation as some think.

As for the mass reach issue, most of the other options also are mass reach platforme--radio, OOH, digital display, social media, and none have the impact power of TV. So why should a pharma advertiser switch to them? Better targeting? For most pharmas TV is the ideal targeting medium--as much of its audience tomnage goes to folks who are sick --or about to become sick.