Pharmaceutical and DTC Advertising

       For Jess Myrick’s guest lecture, we discussed the topic of health communication and ethics. According to Healthy People 2010, health communication can be defined as “the art and technique of informing, influencing and motivating audiences about important health issues. Health communication includes disease prevention, health promotion, health care policy, and the business of health care as well as the enhancement of the quality of life and heath of individuals.” As a side note, Healthy People 2010 is a program of nationwide health-promotion goals set by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. 

       During her lecture, Jess discussed the myriad of ethical issues that have arisen within the medical industry. One of which I wish to discuss further is pharmaceutical advertising/marketing.

       The United States is one of only two countries (the other is New Zealand) which allows direct pharmaceutical advertising to consumers. In Europe, for example, it is illegal to advertise pharmaceuticals in magazine and other media outlets. But in the United States, where the advertising culture is seemingly dominated by massive companies, it is commonplace to see advertisements for pharmaceutical drugs during every television commercial break or throughout a magazine. As Jess read in class, during 2004 the pharmaceutical industry spent $57.5 Billion on promotion with $4 billion of it going to direct-to-consumer advertising.

       Direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising of prescription drugs has increased rapidly in the United States during the last two decades, but it is a very controversial method. It is a form of advertising that is directed towards patients rather than healthcare professionals. Previously, prescription drug makers promoted their products only to health care professionals who were expected to interpret drug information for their patients. However, during the 1990s, drug manufacturers began targeting consumers which affected how professionals interacted with their patients. According to ABC news, opponents of DTC advertising say that ads are often not for life-threatening and treatable diseases, but rather for lifestyle problems. Opponents also cite “ethical issues when a doctor accepts promotional products from pharmaceutical companies.” In fact, a study conducted by the National Institute of health showed that DTC advertising is likely to increase the request rates of drugs and that real-life and long-term safety is at risk.

      Individuals on the others side of the debate say that pharmaceutical ads “inform consumers about important, yet treatable health conditions and encourage doctor/patient dialogue.” They see that lower-income consumers gain valuable information and consumers get an improved quality of care.

       Yet, I believe that pharmaceutical advertising needs a dramatic change in what it presents to the public. I also believe that DTC advertising should entirely be banned. These advertisements take advantage of the consumers and are intended to put pressure onto the professionals. Larry Woodard, CEO of Vigilante, a New York-based advertising agency, says that he would like to see “pharmaceutical companies take a bigger role in promoting health prevention with more community and faith-based efforts.” On the matter, he also mentioned that because drug companies receive taxpayer subsidies, their marketing efforts would “ring more true if we could believe they really have our best interests in mind.”

       The future of pharmaceutical advertising and the direct-to-consumer form is a complicated and uncertain one.  Companies are facing tighter adverting restrictions from the FDA, due in part to their questionable ethics, as well as the evolution of new media which brings competition. Instead of relying on print or television advertisements, consumers are now researching health information online, on such platforms as WebMD. In fact, in 2008, over 145 million U.S. adults looked up health information online as individuals saw these websites as “independent, objective medical resources.”

       On a last note, it is my hope that as technology evolves and pharmaceutical companies face competition from new sources of health information, pharmaceutical advertising will become ethical better. DTC advertising is not safe for consumers and should be more rigorously regulated by the FDA.

Other Sources Used:

- http://www.businessinsider.com/has-webmd-become-synonymous-with-big-pharma-2012-10

Citizen Journalism: A good development for journalism?

              

               Citizen Journalism is a recent journalism phenomenon that has given the public a different meaning of receiving the news. The idea of citizen journalism is that ordinary people without professional journalism training are now able to use modern technology to capture events and globally distribute them over the Internet via blogs, video sites, etc. Through this, individuals are able to create, augment or fact-check professional journalists and the media on their own or with a group. Mark Glaser of PBS writes of a few examples of how citizen journalism is being used: “for instance,” he said, “you could fact-check a newspaper article from the mainstream media and point out factual errors or bias on your blog or videotape a newsworthy event and post it to YouTube.”

                For the average person, this should be considered a great development in the field of journalism. I, for instance, was quite impressed with social media and similar sites during the revolutions that brought rise to the Arab Spring. Without the modern day technologies and the user-generated content that the people across the world were able to upload to the internet, the revolutions may have never occurred or gotten so much support. Citizen journalism is a monumental step in increasing the globalization of countries and seeing unedited, first-hand newsworthy throughout the world. It is a way for everyone to be involved in the media and of “fulfilling their first amendment right of freedom of expression.” And as technology continues to evolve and publishing platforms become easier and more versatile, citizen journalism will continue to grow and change the way people access their news.

                                             

                But citizen journalism has not received as much praise from traditional journalists. Many professionals believe that “only a trained journalist can understand the rigors and ethics involves in reporting the news.” Additionally, they view citizen journalists with skepticism, especially when they are “proponents of the topics they write about.” This leads to the people saying that citizen journalists don’t hold onto the traditional journalistic value of objectivity. Among other criticisms, professional journalists have been quick to deem citizen journalists as subjective, amateurish and inaccurate.

                One setback of citizen journalism that I do agree with is that unlike professional journalists, they may have never learned of ethics in a formal setting. Responsible journalists research, interview and report “through a lens of ethics.” This issue questions whether it is possible for citizen journalists to cover tragic news stories without sensationalizing them or without re-victimizing the victims. On the issue, professional journalists believe that just because something happened does not mean they should saturate all forms of media with it. There is also the issue of anonymity. Behind the privacy wall of the internet, users remain anonymous. Because of this, individuals are able to upload false information or bad data without any repercussions.

                However, just because professional journalists have an ethical code does not mean that they always consider the code in media. It has become the case that much of network news is viewed as relatively unethical when it comes to reporting. Programs rather focus on visually exciting events or popular culture rather than worldly issues. This is where citizen journalism is beneficial. London School of Economics professor Charlie Beckett said that, “to rely on conventional media would return us to a more closed world because mainstream journalists literally can’t get to some of these stories.” And sure, there is some bad information from citizen journalists, but most of that stuff gets ignored. In fact,since citizen journalism's rise in popularity, there has never been a significant instance when false citizen journalism has had a serious impact.  

                                           

                I’m writing on the subject of citizen journalism because of the discussion in class on new media ethics and the concept of citizen journalism. In class, there were various criticisms of citizen journalism that we discussed. I found myself disagreeing with a few of the criticisms and thought about addressing the benefits of citizen journalism. However, that is not to say that I completely disagreed with the criticisms. As I previously mentioned, there are a few issues with the popularity of citizen journalism. Additionally, I believe that there should be a place for formal ethics in citizen journalism and it is up to these bloggers and other “amateurs” to with objectivity. But as of now, I view citizen journalism in a good light and am excited to see it develop. 

Sources: 

1. http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/street-journalists-as-an-answer-to-ailing-journalism

2. http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/09/your-guide-to-citizen-journalism270.html

3. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/polis/2009/05/05/the-hazards-of-citizen-journalism/

4. http://www.uncp.edu/home/acurtis/Courses/ResourcesForCourses/Journalism/CitizenJournalism.html

5. http://voices.yahoo.com/are-ethics-missing-citizen-journalism-310750.html?cat=9

Deceptive Advertising: Where the FTC is focusing its regulation efforts on

                

Deceptive advertising is one of the few forms of speech that is not protected under the Constitution’s first amendment. To define, it is “Any advertising or promotion that misrepresents the nature, characteristics  qualities or geographic origin of goods, services or commercial activities.” The agency in charge of regulating companies and advertisers which use deceptive advertisements is the Federal Trade Commission. However, companies are still trying to find ways to deceive the consumers. Over the years, the FTC has begun increasing the punishment for companies, especially in the health and fitness industry, who attempt to deceive consumers through their advertisements.

In March of 2012, Sketchers was forced to settle with the Federal Trade Commission for a whopping “$40 million to settle claims that deceptive advertising was used to sell Sketchers’ toning shoes and apparel”. The Federal Trade Commission’s penalty was the largest ever settlement fee given out. The substantial punishment highlights the FTC’s increased oversight of advertisers that use unsubstantiated health and fitness claims to lure unsuspecting consumers. Sketchers was charged with violating federal law by falsely representing clinical studies backing up claims that Shape-Ups, Resistance Runner, Toners, and Tone-ups would help people lose weight, and strengthen and tone their butts, lets, and abdominal muscles.

In trying to appeal to health enthusiasts, Sketchers advertisements had lines saying “get in shape without setting a foot in a gym” and “make your bottom half your better half.” David Vladeck, the director for the FTC’s bureau of consumer protection, said that “Sketchers put its foot in its mouth by making unproven claims. People didn't lose weight, they gained weight. Either shape up your substantiation or tone down your claims.”

It has been a year since the FTC began to step up their efforts in forcing marketers to shape up healthy and fitness claims. Jeffrey Greenbaum, a managing partner with Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, said that “They are sending a very strong message to the big national advertising industry that the free press is over.” This mission began with the FTC’s $25 million settlement with Reebok in mid-2011 for deceptive ad practices. In Reebok’s unprecedented case, they were charged with using a “lack of laboratory tests to prove that its EasyTone and RunTone shoe line would, as they claimed, improve muscle tone and strength in the butt, hamstrings, and calves.” In increasing their oversight on health advertisements, the FTC is now even telling companies that in order to make accurate claims in the future, advertisers may need to get preapprovals by the Food and Drug Administration.

The health and fitness industry seems to have gotten the picture as it now appears that the Federal Trade Commission has turned its focus onto trumped-up green marketing claims. Just one week ago, the FTC “announced the final revisions to its Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims.” These guides, more commonly referred to as the “green guides” helps marketers and advertisers avoid making deceptive eco claims without proof. The reason that these guides have been currently revised is because the last time they were updated was in 1998. Since then, the United States has seen a “green revolution” with a myriad of companies jumping on the eco bandwagon and developing greener products. Companies have a significant advantage over their competitors if they are producing green products. A 2009 study by Green Seal, the nation’s original green seal of approval company, showed that almost 80% of consumers are buying green products.

 

As these guides become more well-known around companies and advertisers, consumers will begin to see a lot less deceptive environmental claims in media. And more companies can expect to receive citations from the FTC for making the unsubstantiated claims. Regarding the new regulations, Christopher Cole, a partner in Manatt Phelps & Phillips, said that “It is certain that the new guides will change behavior among marketers over time. For those who ignore the rules, one can predict that rigorous law enforcement activity will begin soon.”

I wanted to address the topic of deceptive advertising because in class this week, we will be discussing the subject of “Ethics and Persuasion.” I've always been interested in the regulations that are given to companies/advertisers who use false claims because it is a very unethical practice. In the book we read that in order for advertisers to determine the “ethical worthiness of a message”, they need to pass all the levels of “TARES” which stands for Truthful, Authentic, Respect, and Equity. It appears as though the FTC is finally coming around the a more rigorous TARES stance. 

Other Sources Used: 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/01/ftc-environment-idUSL1E8L1MIL20121001?type=marketsNews

http://www.greenerideal.com/politics/us/1003-deceptive-green-advertising/

http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/skechers-settles-deceptive-ad-case-ftc-40m-140577

Kate Middleton: Photos, Privacy, Ethics

 About 10 days ago, the British Royal family was involved in a very publicized invasion of privacy. A French newspaper had published pictures of Duchess Kate Middleton sun-bathing topless while vacationing in a private chateau in Italy. As a response, the Royal family filed a criminal complaint and launched a claim for civil damages. They also attempted to prohibit other publications around the world from also publishing the highly-controversial pictures. But because the "demand" for the pictures was high, and most of the tabloids publishing the pictures expected an increase of profit should they print the pictures, many editors found themselves asking if their actions would constitute as an invasion of privacy and whether it was ethical or not.  

Tabloid journalism has always had a rocky relationship with invading into the private lives of celebrities. The reason behind this lies with money. Tabloid journalism, as the Irish Times puts it, "has nothing at all to do with the public welfare, all is geared [towards] [boosting] circulations and corporate profits at the expense of people's privacy." Since the newspaper in France, The Closer, first published the photographs of Middleton, other magazines such as the Chi magazine in Italy and the Daily Star in Ireland have followed suit. Regarding their controversial decisions and how ethics were involved the Daily Star editor Mike O'Kane told the BBC that "The Duchess would be no different to any other celeb pics we would get in, for example Rhianna or Lady Gaga." Alfonos Signorini, editor of Chi, said that the "shots were a non violation of privacy because they were taken from a public space... the photos are absolutely within the confined of Italian Law." But other papers have taken firm stances against publishing the pictures because they see it as an invasion of privacy and stepping over the line. The Guardian Express newspaper in Las Vegas issued a statement condemning the publications who've published the pictures. The Express said, "Publications like ours can and should promote a boycott of the offending media outlets to let them know that our industry will not condone reckless behavior." 

The question of what constitutes invading personal privacy is one of the fundamental issues of journalism ethics. To define, invasion of privacy is the" intrusion into the personal life of another, without just cause, which can give the person whose privacy has been invaded a right to bring a lawsuit for damages against the person or entity that intruded". As discussed in class, invasion of privacy's place in ethics is that privacy is a natural right of individuals and that "injury can be caused by being seen."  However, while regular individuals have the right to privacy from" "intrusion into one's private affairs, public disclosure of embarrassing private information, publicity which puts him/her in a negative public light, and appropriation of one's name or picture for commercial advantage", celebrities are usually not protected from invasions of privacy because they have already voluntarily placed themselves within the public eye and their activities are considered newsworthy. Thus, although unethical, it is not illegal for these publications to publicize the photos. 

My personal belief is that is a deplorable way for a newspaper to earn money and that if I was making the decision, I would not choose to print the pictures. What makes these pictures so controversial along ethical lines is because of how they were taken. Duchess Middleton was in a private home assuming that she was out of the public eye and that her privacy was completely protected from intrustion. But the photographer who captured the photographs is believed to have been from a side road 500 meters from the pool where Duchess Middleton was sunbathing That should not be a situation where a photographer is allowed to capture things within anyone's personal sphere of privacy. A spokesman for St. Jame's Palace said that "Their Royal Highnesses had every expectation of privacy in the remote house." Duchess Middleton assumed that her privacy was protected since she had not voluntarily placed herself in the public eye. Papers that publish these photographs should be criticized by the public for doing so. By printing these pictures, the publications are showing their ethical views regarding invasion of privacy. And if their reasons behind doing so are deemed valid, then I think that media journalism is on a "very misguided course". 

                                      

The Rise of Online Behavior Targeting

             Since the advent of the internet and its exponentially growing usage, one of the most featured ethical concerns of the internet is that of privacy.  Never before has there been a medium that holds as much personal information about its users as the internet. With the correct skill and knowledge, any individual can get online and hack their way to figuring out specific IP addresses which will subsequently allow them to steal user account information ranging from viewing personal emails to learning bank account numbers.  Yet recently, another concern regarding internet privacy has risen which advertisers are referring to as Internet Geotargeting.

            Essentially, geo targeting is a facet of online behavior marketing used to determine the online location of a website visitor. Internet geotargeting is now the hot trend for advertisers because based off the tracking information they receive, they can determine marketing information about users such as where people live, how old they are, and what their individual interests are. In a 2010 Wall Street Journal article, “The Web’s New Gold Mine: Your Secrets” the author investigated the fast-growing business of businesses spying on internet consumers. 

Numbers Don’t Lie

            A portion of the article addressed the New York Company, Lotame Solutions, and how they use a sophisticated software called “beacon” to capture what people are typing on a website. Lotame then uses this data to package it into specific profiles about groups of individuals and sell it to companies seeking better routes of marketing. Lotame gets so specific with their data packages that companies can even customize what demographic they are seeking and receive the IP addresses of individuals who are, for instance, 21-year-old males who are fans of the Game of Thrones television series on HBO.

                But it is not just Lotame Solutions which is practicing this controversial method of targeting consumers. Online tracking has become a very popular business and hundreds of internet ad networks are constantly following users around the net and watching them to later sell their habits to companies. Even Google, most known for being a search company, is getting into the behavioral advertising businesses. Google has been monitoring its users even as far as noting what they watch on YouTube.  Another internet behemoth, Facebook, was the subject of a  Business Insider study which analyzed how much Facebook is tracking internet activity. The study  concluded that Facebook has over 200 internet trackers around the web which are interested in what users are reading, linking to social media sites, and buying online. 

Mark is always watching

                        It is easy to notice the concerns with this new practice. The level of intrusion into privacy  is unprecedented. The Center for Digital Democracy, which aims for maintaining the personal rights of consumers during the digital age, believes that these companies are attempting to create a science of targeting that learns everything about individuals and manipulates their weaknesses. Other concerns given by critics include that their personal data could be used to discriminate wrongly against them or even exclude them from information and/or opportunities that they might enjoy. And there is always the overarching fear regarding internet privacy that the information gathered by companies could fall into the wrong hands and be used wrongly.

            However, I’m personally in the minority and do not have major issues with this marketing technique. Though, before I explain myself, I would like to state that I don’t necessarily support this new method and I would prefer that advertisers stick to traditional methods rather than more-so invade my privacy. But, there is no doubt that this is the future of advertising. As the internet grows and more corporate giants are being formed from internet startups the revenue from online advertising will also become an industry of massive growth and money. For instance, in 2009, Google collected more than $5 billion in ad revenues. As it continues to invest more in behavioral advertising through online tracking, their advertising revenue stream is surely to increase thereby increasing the draw of online tracking.

            Additionally, most individuals go online for specific reasons and not to just click on advertisements. It will make no difference to me whether or not the banner on Facebook is advertising something that fits to my interests. I would rather have an advertisement for Ski trips in Colorado than for a special coupon on Viagra. I’m more willing to click on an advertisement that fits my demographic than one that doesn’t. Internet companies know this, ad agencies know this, and most consumers probably prefer this. Therefore, I encourage companies to follow the money. In the meantime and as this business evolves, I think it is in our best interests to accept it and continue this conversation by working with companies to address some of the featured concerns while working with them to alleviate the issues and retain the right of privacy for internet users.

            I wanted to research and discuss this controversial debate after the viewing the TED video about phone companies gathering data on their customers and how they create profiles using the information. I had previously been aware of the debate and therefore wanted to research more into the ethics behind this practice. What I found was a massive amount of national news stories and professional sources addressing online tracking for advertising benefits. It is a very interesting debate and one which will be in the public eye for many years to come. As I post in this blog throughout the semester, I will attempt to continue researching the debate and giving my opinion on which side I agree with.