"You see, until 1997, drug companies were required to include massive amounts of information about a drug's potential side effects and risks in any ads for it. The amount of information required could fit in, say, a full-page magazine ad - but it was far too much to squeeze into a 30- or 60-second TV spot. That meant pharmaceutical ads were, while not banned, almost unheard of on television."
"That move birthed an advertising boom for the ages. In 1996, the year before standards were loosened, drug advertising in the United States totaled $600 million (about $1.2 billion in today's dollars). In 2024, that number was $10.1 billion. In the first five months of this year, drug ads accounted for 24% of all ads on evening network and cable newscasts. (The upside to an aging audience, one supposes.)"
"Trump wants to roll back to the old rule, again mandating that exhaustive list of risks - which would make TV advertising all but impossible again. It's a very reasonable idea. The United States is one of only two countries to allow prescription drug ads on TV. (Hello, New Zealand!) Few people would miss the erectile dysfunction ads, or trying to guess what storehouse of digital surveillance data made YouTube decide you're the perfect target for eczema treatment."
Until 1997, pharmaceutical ads had to include exhaustive side-effect and risk information, which made TV advertising impractical. The FDA's 1997 rule change allowed a "brief summary" of major risks, enabling a dramatic surge in TV drug marketing from roughly $600 million in 1996 to $10.1 billion in 2024. Drug ads now account for about 24% of evening news advertising. The current proposal would restore the old exhaustive-disclosure requirement, effectively ending most TV prescription drug ads. Public support for restricting such ads appears strong, with a June poll showing 75% in favor.
Read at Nieman Lab
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]