Well, this does seem like a head scratcher. First of all, I have always wondered why there is such a lack of packaging design for drugs. There is a little effort on the identity side, you do see logos for the major prescription drugs, but there is not enough exposure to create any brand recognition.

Regarding the "patient channel" in hospitals, I think it's just one more manifestation of the consumerism driven culture of America. You have thousands of people laying in bed feeling like shit and the best solution they can come up with is a fricking channel selling them brand drugs? That is way screwed up. But then again, there is also the Golf Channel.

Lately in Chicago's buses and trains I have seen a lot of ads encouraging people to use generic drugs instead of brand name drugs. I think at fault here are these brand name drugs that make you feel like you are going to die if you don't use their products. That's effective advertising. For them. And when it comes to your health you obviously want the best stuff, and generic drugs don't have the budgets to advertise on TV and let you know they work too.

>i wonder how realistic the marketing messages could be within such an incestuous relationship.

I don't think there is a lot of wondering to do. It is quite obvious that the message will be quite realistic. But not for the consumer.

First off, I think it should come as no surprise that the pharmaceutical industry is a dirty industry.

As to the questions raised, I think I may have some answers. In Canada, it is still illegal to advertise a drug's name/brand and its effects. In order to get around this, drugs push their brand name with vague, happy, associations. Pretty, independent girls for birth control drugs and strong, confident guys for viagra. Then, they purchase separate spaces for "public service announcements" about health "problems" such as impotence, with phone numbers to institutions owned by the company. Its the same thing on television, the Viagra ads are particularly funny, with Queen's "we are the champion " as the soundtrack and all these business men(and their wives) running around the neighbourhood deliriously happy. The add ends with a big picture of their purle pill, and that's it.

There was quite a controversy in the local paper here when they ran a half-page "article" about the "dangers" of springtime allergies and a half-page ad for an anti-allergy drug directly below it. When questioned, the marketing manager responded that they are now selling advertising "environments" to their clients and that he saw no problems with it. Many of the editorial writers felt quite differently, made their sentiments public, and one even lost his job.

Ah... media concentration and consumerism, gotta love it....

most recently and most disturbingly to me, i found out that some testing laboratories are now owned directly by marketing firms.

i guess those labs won't be working on breakthrough treatments for, say, malaria—or any other ailments that mainly afflict people with no money. but they're all over toenail fungus.

they ran a half-page "article" about the "dangers" of springtime allergies and a half-page ad for an anti-allergy drug directly below it.

I've got magazines with entire sections like this, but they always have something like "PAID ADVERTISING" at the top of each page, which while not as apparent as it really should be, at least acknowledges what's going on. I assume this is either required, or some sort of generally agreed-upon policy with mags.

but they always have something like "PAID ADVERTISING" at the top of each page

Yeah, you would expect as much. But the article was in the same headline and body font as their regular articles, treated EXACTLY the same way. In fact, the argument goes that it was an actual article, written by the paper's staff. Just so happens that it fit into the ad's "environment".

i think i misstated my concern on this issue. i really feel like this sort of advertising represents a small portion of the commodification of design that's happened over the past decade or so, to the point that design is actually being used on a wider scale as a tool for lying to the general public—which relates closely to some of the questions raised in an earlier thread about booze'n'smokes (which i can't find right now...anyone got a link?).

everyone seemed quite vocal in their opinions regarding lending their craft to the marketing of tobacco or alcohol, but nobody's said anything about their skills being used for medical marketing. takers?

Every day during the local montreal TVnews broadcast, they break for about 3 minutes to show this woman, every day, the same woman, talking about healthy eating, and excersising, and what kinds of minerals and vitamins our bodies need. Then it cuts immideately afterwards to an add for "Jamieson" a "vitamin" company which uses a sort of "traditional" look in their packaging and markets to older women. Their adds show an older woman talking about how she used to be young, then cut to a much younger woman, a stunt double if you will, who is excersising. I think that these adds, and the packaging are all aimed agressively at middle aged women.

>everyone seemed quite vocal in their opinions regarding lending their craft to the marketing of tobacco or alcohol, but nobody's said anything about their skills being used for medical marketing. takers?

Well, unlike alcohol and tobacco, drugs can cure people. So, I would say yes. But with like any other product the way that you go about it is what matters. You could do some great and effective medical marekting if you do it right. If you try to screw up people and mess with their heads, then it's the marketing firm's fault, not the product's.

Funny enough, this month's Reason has a note that a groups of researchers in Massachussetts did a study on direct-to-consumer drug advertising(TV ads specifically, I think), and found that a fairly large percentage of people had received treatment for serious conditions as a result of asking about medications.

Interesting.