BrandweekNRX

Pfizer Country Manager Uses Socialist Newspaper to Condemn DTC Advertising

You read that correctly. According to Peter Rost, Pfizer's country manager for Sweden, Niklas Prager, has written a column for the left-leaning Aftonbladet in which he says that direct-to-consumer drug advertising "is a bad model for Sweden" because "Pharmaceuticals are too important to be treated like any other product."

If you want to read the whole thing, first learn Swedish and the click here for the full download. (Rost, of course, is from Sweden and still speaks with a straight-from-Central-Casting Scandinavian accent.)

Two things to think about:

1. Prager obviously isn't interested in making himself popular with CEO Jeff Kindler, whose U.S. unit is the second highest DTC spender of all drug companies (I think) and brings in roughly half of Pfizer's entire global revenues.

2. Only the U.S. and New Zealand allow consumer advertising for drugs. Why are foreigners so aghast at American DTC? Travel outside the country and you'll see non-Americans roll their eyes and laugh scornfully at all the ads for cancer medicine and bladder-control products on American TV screens, as if those items could be picked up at the supermarket. I once sat next to a drug marketing exec on a plane from New York to London and he told me that American drug advertising was regarded as so excessive in the UK that it had actually nixed the chances of UK drug companies being allowed to conduct similar promotions.

In other words: While Prager's position sounds heretical to us, he's actually the normal one in this equation. It's us in the U.S. that are out of step with the rest of the planet on this issue.

The Myth That Won't Die: Big Pharma Is Cutting Back on Adspend

Yet another survey comes out today that purports to show that the drug business is  "embracing online media to build relationships with consumers and is cutting back on traditional broadcast and print media to promote drugs."

Regular readers will know that the myth of declining traditional adspend is an old saw on this blog.

This latest claim is from Dendrite, which claims that "national TV, spot TV, radio and direct mail will top the list for decreased spending."

There are, of course, a couple of slightly larger "surveys" of drug company adspend. One is called Nielsen Monitor-Plus (disclosure: Nielsen owns this blog) and the other is Nielsen's main competitor, TNS Media Intelligence.  And both of those companies say that DTC adspend is still going up.

Yes, the percentage increase is in slight decline -- but now that DTC spend is about $4.5 billion a year, you would expect that. The actual dollar increases are still huge.

And yes, there have been some high profile examples of companies reducing their spend, such as J&J. But as I pointed our earlier this year, J&J is going against the flow of dollars, not with it.

The reality is that as brands move through their patent-controlled lifecycles, their spending waxes and wanes. Some larger spenders may pull back. But the underlying trend is that many more smaller brands will come on to the market, more than making up the shortfall.

It is true that online may take up more gross dollars and a larger portion of the marketing mix pie. But the idea that traditional DTC is in decline is plain wrong.

Why the FTC Should Investigate Bayer

Back in January, Bayer paid a $3.2 million fine to the FTC after the feds caught the company making "unsubstantiated claims" about One A Day Weight Smart vitamins. The FTC said Bayer had failed to provide competent or reliable scientific evidence that its vitamins helped people lose weight.

The most interesting part of the settlement said this:

"Bayer is prohibited from violating the FTC order and from making unsubstantiated representations regarding the benefits, performance, efficacy, safety, or side effects of any dietary supplement, multivitamin, or weight-control product."

Lo and behold,  the National Advertising Division yesterday put out a statement indicating that Bayer was again telling untruths about its One A Day brand.

"The National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus has recommended that Bayer Healthcare discontinue durational claims and modify the name of its All-Day Energy multivitamin," the NAD said. (All Day is part of the One A Day line, according to the NAD.)

Bayer made these claims about All Day:

“Specially Formulated to Support Energy All-Day Long.”

“Complete multivitamin specially designed to support an Active Mind and Body All-Day Long,”

...among others. The NAD didn't even like the brand's name, which of course suggests that the product lasts all day.

Bayer vowed to appeal and said the company “believes that the decision of the NAD was in error. Specifically, the NAD’s recommendation that Bayer modify the name of its product is inappropriate and is inconsistent with the NAD general rule that, absent extrinsic evidence that consumers have been confused or misled, the NAD will not require an advertiser to change a company product name simply because a challenger speculates that it might be misleading. Bayer requests referral of this decision regarding its product name to a panel of the National Advertising Review Board.”

Bayer has to appeal the decision, because if it accepted the decision then it would be an admission that it had once again made the "unsubstantiated claims" that in January it agreed not to.

In its probe of whether Bayer is flouting its January agreement with the government, the feds might also want to look at Bayer's recent history of advertising missteps.

In March the NAD ruled that Bayer was making unsubstantiated claims about its Ascensia diabetes brands.

And in June Bayer agreed to discontinue ads for its Aleve brand that the NAD also found to be unsubstantiated.

(It begs the question, is there some sort of company-wide advertising ethics problem at Bayer? Time for some refresher seminars from the HR people, I think!)

If you think this is a storm in a teacup, let me draw your attention to this statement in the January statement from the FTC: "The FTC acknowledges the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus for its referrals of some of these cases."

In other words, if Bayer loses its new One A Day appeal at the NAD, then it lands on top of the FTC's in-box in Washington. And those guys are going to be very interested if it turns out that it took Bayer only seven months to break their agreement.

Why Is J&J Still So Excited About Its Failed Sex Pill?

For years, J&J has been trying to get dapoxetine on the market -- it's a drug for premature ejaculation.

The FDA rejected J&J's application to put dapoxetine on the market two years ago. Despite that, J&J is still pushing the  compound, hoping to get approval in Europe.

Why? A recent story in the WSJ has some of the answers. Here's the main one:  "dapoxetine could generate world-wide sales of $600 million by 2011, according to Morgan Stanley."

What is not mentioned in the story, however, is what everyone else who is familiar with dapoxetine is thinking: if the drug was approved, there would be a huge market among recreational users, many of whom would combine it with Viagra (et al).

It's ludicrous to believe that ED drugs are used only by people with legitimate medical conditions. Indeed, AIDS activists have complained that Viagra is used too often by crystal meth addicts trying to counteract the effects of their drug.

Obviously, J&J would never mention any of this in its promotion of the drug. It wouldn't have to.

I can't wait to see the launch TV ads for dapoxetine (if the FDA ever comes around). How exactly this fits in with J&J's "family doctor" image, I have no idea ...

One last fact about dapoxetine: in trials for this drug, men were timed having sex while the woman they were with held a stopwatch. Aside from the hilarity -- isn't that slightly unscientific? It's a bit like giving the rats control of the maze.

Another Day, Another Impertinent Analysts' Note About Pfizer and Nektar

Regular readers are already aware that this blog has been following the saga of Exubera (start here and feel free to click backwards), in which Pfizer managed to launch a bong-like new diabetes drug that no one wants. (Given the burgeoning scale of diabetes in the U.S., this is a bit like standing in a rainstorm and somehow failing to get wet.)

Today, once again, WR Hambrecht analyst Andrew Forman chimes in. He follows Nektar,  Pfizer's  bong supplier:

"As for Nektar (NKTR: Buy), which found yet another new low yesterday, we are introducing what we are calling our 'grassroots' catalyst: sooner or later, shorts are going to cover; sooner or later, DTC begins. Well, this 60s hit which we realize we may be only a few out there may recall including, we suspect, Nektar's new CEO, is worth humming about now if Pfizer actually launches DTC (which at ADA we had heard the week of July 17 may coincide with a new NKTR low), which might be a catalyst for shorts to cover. Of course, our Exubera calls have been too soon with many investors selling before it was too late. It may be too soon to buy, but now too late to sell ."

You have to admire his persistence. I'd love to see him elaborate on why he thinks Pfizer's DTC is going to make Nektar's stock go up. Exubera has been on the market for months now. Sales reps have been detailing it for that long. The diabetes community is already familiar with it and its many flaws. It's hard to see how ads on TV are going to make all those people turn around and say, "You know, what? I was completely wrong! I really do want to huff from a bong before every meal in a restaurant!"

J&J's New Corporate Blog: Is It Any Good?

A little over a month ago J&J started a new corporate blog, written by Marc Monseau, whom Brandweek readers will recognize as one of J&J's pr execs. It's been given the snappy title of JNJ BTW.

This effort came shortly after J&J hosted a dinner for bloggers to pick their brains about how the blogosphere works and how J&J should deal with it.

As I reported here, one idea was to give all 120,000 J&J staffer their own blogs on which they could berate and praise their employer as they saw fit.

Instead, unsurprisingly, J&J has given only Monseau a blog. (119,999 blogs to go then!)

So, is it any good?

Short answer: John Mack, Peter Rost, Ed Silverman, Jack Friday, and the folks at Internet Drug News won't need to worry about losing their jobs any time soon.

Long answer: Monseau's blog is turning out to be a revealing look at those topics that J&J refuses to reveal. The highlights:

"Anyone working for a large corporation will appreciate that there are many internal limitations on what we say and how we say it."

"We may not always be able to talk about product-specific issues, news from our operating companies or issues that fall under regulatory or legal constraints. But we’re going to do what we can to talk openly, directly and to the best of our knowledge."

"Johnson & Johnson is well-known for its aggressive acquisition strategy, and as such, there are often rumors circulating about whether we are going to make a bid for company X, or do a deal with company Y. When asked about these rumors, I almost always have nothing to say. We just don’t comment on rumors and speculation. Period."

"For those of you who have been following Johnson & Johnson, you know that we tend not to discuss the details around pending legal matters in the media. I’m extending the approach we have used with the MSM to this blog. Just as my colleagues and I generally don’t respond to specific allegations raised in lawsuits from the media, I’m unlikely to do so on JNJ BTW."

What good is a blog that focuses so heavily on discussing the things it won't discuss?

Well, true. But even a dribble of information is better than none.

Think of it this way: One of the reasons TASS and Isvestia were so closely read in the West during the Cold War was that the publications were as interesting for what didn't appear in them as for what did. If a rising star communist official's name suddenly stopped appearig in Soviet news accounts, Western intelligence could deduce that he had fallen out of favor with the Politburo. Or been killed. Judging by this item, Christine Poon won't be getting an icepick in the head anytime soon.

NJN BTW is similar: It's a handy guide to the topics that J&J finds so controversial it dare not speak their name: So far, that's lawsuits, acquisitions, and "internal" corporate matters.

There you have it: JNJ BTW is the Pravda of J&J.

Will Seinfeld Curse the Relaunch of the Today Sponge?

In a design column this week, I discuss the relaunch and the trendy new package redesign of the Today Sponge, made famous on an episode of Seinfeld. You can read it here. (If you want to see the fancy pictures, including prototype designs that weren't used and the original packaging, you'll have to buy the magazine.)

Two things are interesting about this launch:

1. This is the third company that has owned the brand. It's been through Wyeth, Allendale and is now at Synova. The first two had only middling success with it. Wyeth got sales up to $25 million but chose to eject the business rather than keep it when their factory ran into a problem. Allendale wrung $2 million in sales from the Sponge after it had been off the market for many years.

2. Every exec I've ever spoken to about the Sponge has raved about what high awareness it has among women, thanks mainly to Seinfeld.

What is the link between these two factors?

A cynic might suggest that the Seinfeld ep has actually hurt, not helped, the brand, because the entire show revolves around the notion that the Sponge is being taken off the market. As Synova evp-sales/marketing Joann Armitage told me, "Our biggest challenge is making sure people understand that it is in fact on the shelf again," said.

Understanding that challenge might be the key for Synova. Because, as the previous two companies found out, simply being famous isn't enough to beat the Seinfeld curse.

J&J Agency Review: Omnicom Not Getting Everything It Wanted

A short while ago I suggested that Omnicom's media agency, OMD, was perhaps not the favorite in the contest to handle J&J's $3 billion ad buying duties that certain Wall Street analysts thought it might be. Lo and behold,  just before the holiday BWNRX's sister pub, Adweek, broke news that J&J was divvying up creative ad duties for a bunch of its OTC brands -- and Omnicom was only getting a part of the action.

Adweek states:

Omnicom Group's BBDO here picks up Splenda from Alchemy and Monistat and Stayfree from McCann, while WPP Group's JWT here gets Band-Aid and Reach from McCann, a J&J representative confirmed. The sixth brand, K-Y, leaves McCann for Mother here, the rep said.

Just because the creative duties are split doesn't mean the media will be also, of course. OMD could still end up with all the media marbles, as suggested by Bear Sterns. But it won't be because -- as Bear Stearns hinted --  because OMD won a prize at Cannes.

In fact, things are looking a little gloomier for OMD right now. Adweek sez: "In the end, sources expect the business to be divided among at least three agencies. A decision could come as soon as this week."

So work that into your earnings estimates, BS wonks.