Here's a quote from a story about celebrity endorsements of anti-depressants in today's New York Times.
"Such campaigns are similar to pitches for drugs to treat erectile dysfunction, also a sensitive topic, said Mark Bard of Manhattan Research, a health care marketing firm.
'It's more like, "Let's open the discussion," ' Mr. Bard said. 'You don't know Lorraine Bracco personally, but you feel you can identify with her more than just a generic actor that comes on the screen.' "
"Open the discussion?" If that's the only descriptor you'd use for those excruciating Cialis ads that mention a certain four-hour-long side effect, give me a break. I have never, not once, seen a commercial for Viagra or one of its new competitors where the name of the drug was not mentioned. Over and over.
But that's advertising; mention your product a lot and connect the image on screen of happiness, fields of flowers and, now, celebrity, with that product. Honestly, is this reporter so naive as to believe there has been a broad campaign of "condition awareness" for Bob Dole Disease without specifically mentioning the drug in question? Or that, if there has on the part of celebrities, that the advertisers aren't completely aware that half their campaign rests on using the media to connect the celebrities to particular products?
This is not rocket science. I wish the NYT was a little more savvy.
No comments:
Post a Comment