A friend of mine on Facebook, okay fine, an acquaintance on Facebook recently posted a status update asking "Why are all the men in erectile dysfunction commercials so sexy?" which got me thinking about commercials for prescription medications because the first thing that came to mind was Dr. Kelso's monologue about his experience with the Blue Bombers which was funny but disturbing, and I had to think about something else. Quickly.
Marketing prescription medications has to be extremely difficult. With names like Cymbalta, Pristiq, Zyrtec, and Claritin it's difficult to ascertain which medication is meant for which medical condition. What makes it worse is that the commercials for all of these medications are identical. The person in question has an STD/blood clot/depression/arthritis/flatulence which makes him or her completely unable to perform that day's simple tasks. As soon as the sufferer takes the recommended dosage the clouds clear, symptoms subside, and the entire family is all smiles as they play on the beach/front yard/in the living room for family night. This begs one question.
How do any of these products differentiate themselves?
What I've done here is compiled a list of medications that are all meant to treat different medical conditions. None of these products are competitors of each other. Or maybe they do. I don't know what any of these medications do except for Claritin and that's only because of the product name. It makes sense. Breathe with clarity: Claritin. It's an allergy medication! Or does it break down mucus? It doesn't matter. Because all of the commercials for these products, despite being for different medical conditions, all follow the same basic template. The user has a treatable condition that is preventing him from doing the day's task until he takes the medication and then is able to go on with his day.
Viagra and Cialis, ironically the ones that are for ED where this blog post starts, are the ones that differentiate themselves from one another. I have to believe that this came from proper market research and extensive focus group sessions. First, the Viagra commercials show a middle-aged man presented with a problem, and because the middle-aged man is "experienced" he "knows how to get things done." He easily solves the problem and is on his way but not without sexual innuendo from the narrator.
Pfizer knows their market well. Erectile dysfunction isn't a problem for young adult males, and middle-aged men hate being reminded that they're getting older. Cialis takes a different approach in its advertisements. They show middle-aged couples enjoying a romantic getaway. Cialis is saying in its commercials that the effects of the medication lasts longer than Viagra so couples can wait "until the moment is right." This suggests that users of Viagra were unsatisfied with the duration of Viagra's effects and opted to do the deed when one of the two wasn't in the mood, or not at all.
Viagra uses brand position to sell its medication to men who are experienced and know what to do. Cialis found a shortcoming in how long the effectiveness of Viagra lasts and positioned itself to exploit that shortcoming. I think the reason why nobody looks depressed or upset in those commercials is because they know they will be having sex within the next 30 minutes to 36 hours.
No comments:
Post a Comment