The switch to unbranded advertising when the brand is associated with side effects

Feb/19/2008 05:37 Filed in: Current DTC
screenshot_01
What do you do when the Food and Drug Administration says it is "increasingly likely" that Pfizer Inc.'s smoking-cessation drug Chantix may be tied to serious psychiatric symptoms ? You of course decide to pull the branded ads and go with unbranded advertising. That is exactly what Pfizer has done with its "my time to quit" campaign. Very clever but a stupid move by Pfizer marketers who think that the public is too stupid to get the connection.



Chantix maybe linked to some side effects that far outweigh the benefits of giving up smoking. There has been a lot of "buzz" about it on the Web and of course in the media. Then I notices that the branded ads had all but disappeared and were replaced with the unbranded ads. Deceptive advertising and a nice end run with all the transparency of a block of steel. This is so stupid and ludicrous that it's laughable. Shame on Pfizer marketers ! Of course they could use the old "we're trying to educate smokers" tag line but when you product has some serious side effects this explanation is laughable at best. This is of course a way to lay low when your brand has a high association with negative side effects with the target audience. And how does Pfizer feel when people are drawn in by this unbranded ad only to find out that it is a camouflage campaign for Chantix?


Once again pharma marketers prove that they have very little respect for informed and educated consumers. Notice to Pfizer: This is the information age and people can see right through your charade.
|