Latest News

Ehrlich on Creative

Cosentyx Lasts

June 3, 2020 0
It is great to have a campaign that lasts. Too many advertisers change their ad executions too quickly. Consumers benefit by seeing a good campaign kept on air. It takes a long time to establish brand recall and keeping continuity of a campaign helps with brand and ad awareness.

Cosentyx, from Novartis, is one of my favorites as an enduring campaign for psoriasis. It is not the only one. Humira also has done a good job over the years. Cosentyx is particularly good at finding a memorable theme. They found a few words to headline their integrated media message. “See Me” and “Watch Me” are four words that convey the essence of their message over the last four years.

It is very easy for DTC brands to want to advertise all their benefits and over complicate the message. Consumers want the bottom-line benefit in language they can understand and remember. Cosentyx found the emotional cue so important in good advertising. In the initial ad back in 2016, Cosentyx showed real sufferers who felt they were judged by their disease and visible symptoms. They wanted people to see them and not their disease.

This “See Me” was therefore born as an enduring psoriasis campaign. Cyndi Lauper was added to the mix of real sufferers which was an interesting celebrity use. Usually a celebrity gets their own ad but, in this case, Cosentyx added Cyndi to the mix of regular folks.

Cosentyx has stuck with the “See Me” message in all media formats. It is successfully adopted in print, digital, and video. Cyndi Lauper is still integrated into the mix of real patients four years later. She is not the star of the ads, just a memorable celebrity who is one of many sufferers profiled. 

Cosentyx figured out that psoriasis makes sufferers feel more than physical problems. The condition creates an emotional separation as patients feel other people see the disease, not the person behind it. This is a brilliant insight that makes the ads so effective. I do not expect this idea will ever become old and Cosentyx can run with the “See Me” and “Watch Me” for years longer.

The latest psoriatic arthritis ads use “Watch Me” as the main tag. They show real patients who have had enduring relief and are saying watch me control this disease. The takeaway is that Cosentyx has been around long enough to be a trusted drug that works. I applaud Novartis and their agency Hill Holliday Health for creating a campaign that is enduring and unique.
Bob Ehrlich
Chairman
DTC Perspectives, Inc.
Submit a Campaign to Ehrlich on Creative

Bob Ehrlich

Ehrlich on Creative

Rinvoq A New Approach

May 28, 2020 0
Rinvoq, a new drug for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), is on my creative radar this week. The AbbVie drug has an interesting 60 second spot that debuted earlier this year. There are several elements that I think are done quite well. First, the benefits are well explained with a voice over and supers for emphasis. Second, there is a clear demo of how RA attacks the body. Third, and I think most unique for DTC, is how the fair balance is introduced. 

Fair balance is often presented as a quick voice over and supers that sometimes is confusing because it is integrated with the benefit discussion. In Rinvoq, there is a clear transition between the benefits and fair balance. At exactly the 30 second mark a new voice over announcer takes over. The benefit section has a female announcer and the fair balance is voiced by a male voice. I am not sure this has been done before but clearly the consumer is helped by such a distinct transition in voice overs.

Research has shown that fair balance is actually seen positively by consumers. Therefore, why not do what Rinvoq does by clearly presenting the risks and side effects instead of trying to hurry through them as many ads do? Consumers deserve to hear the balance in the same tone and manner as benefits. It gives them reassurance that the drug maker is not trying to confuse them or minimize the risks.

I also like the logo of a swirl that is part of the brand name super. Having some logo to aid brand recall is important. It can give consumers an alternate way to describe the band to physicians. It also can connect the brand identification in print and digital media. Memorable devices used in the past, like the Prilosec Purple Pill and the walking bladder from Myrbetriq, exemplify the idea of alternate brand identification.

Rinvoq shows an ad can add unique elements while still using a fairly standard DTC approach. This vignette approach is done in most DTC ads because the drug industry is heavily constrained by FDA regulations and by nature formulaic. Here we have scenes of a female photographer on safari and a female renovating a house with a sledgehammer. These are probably not what most RA sufferers do,but Rinvoq is trying to show strenuous activities are possible after taking Rinvoq to control RA.

So I guess you can say a meat and potatoes creative approach can still be unique when you add in interesting visual and voice elements. In this case, Rinvoq has created an excellent ad by adding in interesting elements throughout including the oft neglected fair balance portion.
Bob Ehrlich
Chairman
DTC Perspectives, Inc.
Submit a Campaign to Ehrlich on Creative

Bob Ehrlich

Ehrlich on Creative

A Time For Hope Through Science

May 20, 2020 0
Dear DTC Colleague,

The first campaign I have chosen to discuss is corporate. Normally I will focus on brand or disease information campaigns. In this case and at this time, however, it is highly appropriate to discuss the new Pfizer spot on research for COVID-19 which first aired April 15. The campaign is a powerful statement on what research scientists at Pfizer and other private and public institutions are doing to battle COVID-19.

The 60 second campaign is themed around the phrase “Science Will Win.” The creative device here is showing vignettes of scientists conducting research. An authoritative announcer narrates the reassuring story that society has faced disease and pandemics in the past and won and will again. What is very interesting is the term Coronavirus or COVID-19 is never said. The ad starts with scenes of people with masks and empty store shelves. We don’t really need to hear the disease name as it is obvious to all of us what the ad is referencing.

“With Science Will Win, we sought to create hope by reinforcing our commitment to scientific collaboration and our pledge to use our resources to battle against and ultimately end the pandemic,” Pfizer’s Dana Gandsman, Senior Director, Reputation Communications told DTC Perspectives.

Why is this ad good? At a time when the Pharma industry is facing so much criticism over the price of drugs, it is inspiring to hear that the drug makers are likely to give us hope for an eventual return to normalcy. The role of drug makers as heroic saviors of mankind may have seemed disingenuous to many Americans in the past. When PhRMA ran its excellent industry campaign a few years ago promoting its research it was probably seen cynically by many critics. Industry has argued that clinical research will suffer under price controls. That argument was difficult to make successfully as politicians and consumer advocates constantly criticized drug company pricing and profits.

The new Pfizer ad is coming at a time when industry probably does have the admiration and support of most Americans. Pfizer does not try to explicitly promote its own company in this ad. In fact the only company mention is in the super at the end of the ad. Pfizer has been in the news for its COVID-19 vaccine development with a German partner and the possibility of a vaccine available by year end.

Drug makers have a huge opportunity to drastically change their image. Gilead just donated all of its existing Remdesivir doses, the first drug proven to treat COVID-19. I am sure a vaccine will be priced very favorably and will not be a huge financial win for the drug industry. Will Bernie Sanders still hate us? Yes, but hearing him still talk about drug company profiteers seems odd and out of touch. The lesson from COVID-19 is we need the power and, yes, profitability of private industry to keep us safe.

Pfizer and Grey, who is the agency behind this ad, deserve credit for producing an ad that gives accolades to every research scientist at all of the companies working on cures. This is not a time for self-promotion as we are truly all in this together. Will ads like these change the feeling about drug companies? I expect that if one of these companies produces an affordable vaccine or cure within a year the image will improve dramatically. Will consumers get back to complaining about high drug prices? They will, but drug companies will build up a lot of goodwill if normalcy returns because their investment in science won over the virus.
Bob Ehrlich,
Chairman
DTC Perspectives, Inc.

Bob Ehrlich

DTC-In-Perspective by Bob Ehrlich

DTC in Perspective: Importing Canadian Drugs?

August 2, 2019 0
The Trump administration wants to allow Canadian drugs to be imported to give consumers lower prices. This is also supported by almost every Congressional Democrat and many Republicans. It sounds great to allow American consumers to buy cheaper drugs from Canada and is already happening somewhat through online Canadian pharmacies. Consumers can generally save 30-50% and in some cases by a lot more.
So why is this tactic going to fail? First, drug makers do not want to sell to Canadian distributors just to have those lower priced drugs come back to the United States. They happily will sell what Canadian consumers need but will not allow much more than that to be sold into Canada. Drug companies know some Americans buy Canadian drugs but that is a relatively small amount. Once that reimportation gets to be a big business drug companies will restrict what Canadians can buy.

Bob Ehrlich
“The American people will demand a price solution…”
-Bob Ehrlich

Second, the Canadian government has already said they have experienced drug shortages and will not allow Canada to become an exporter of drugs if their own citizens face problems filling prescriptions. Drug makers will not allow their golden goose US market to be destroyed by a Canadian end run. Drug makers always have the option of not selling a drug in Canada if the approved price is too low. That could deprive Canadians of getting access which is not a good scenario.
Unfortunately for drug makers it looks like there will be some system of price indexing or outright price controls in the future. There is no strong support from either party for drug makers charging US consumers more than other developed countries. While Republicans are more friendly to drug makers, they cannot convince their constituents that it is fair to pay significantly more than the French, Canadians or Germans. While they know innovation is funded by US profits, that is a hard sell for voters having trouble affording rising health care costs.
What is the solution? Drug companies must self regulate their desire to raise prices beyond inflation. Any increase beyond that is difficult to defend. American consumers need to get a tangible benefit paying a premium price. That could be faster access to new drugs, and more price support during the introductory period to prove the value of the premium drug. While the industry’s ad campaign explaining the wonders of drug research is good, I am afraid it is insufficient to assuage concerns that Americans pay too much.
The best solution is to have one developed market price for a drug with Canadians and Europeans paying more and Americans paying less. Why would other governments agree to that? There would have to be some benefit in allowing drug companies higher prices in price-controlled markets. That could be through trade concessions in other categories. Any fair price system would take a massive negotiating effort between the drug industry and multi government regulators. Perhaps over time an index system could work as long as the drug industry could make substantially the same returns.
Another solution is to extend patent expirations in exchange for lower prices. Also, any system that speeds approval can be leveraged against high drug prices. What needs to be done is a pragmatic approach that balances need for innovation with lower prices. Saying that drug companies are greedy will not get to a workable long-term drug strategy. American consumers will not benefit if mandating lower prices leads to a cut in vital research.
What I do predict is the drug price issue cannot be successfully fought much longer by lobbyists. That can no longer be the main strategy of drug makers. The American people will demand a price solution as this ire is being stoked in every political debate. Unfortunately, the proposed solutions will not be favorable to drug maker profits. One of the ways to mitigate profit impact is to increase demand. DTC could be a beneficiary of that demand-based strategy. If drug prices are forced down, I would expect drug companies to increase marketing budgets to grow their user base and retain those users.
After so many years of drug prices debates, 2020 looks like the time action will be a reality. Of course, the extent of price action depends on who gets elected. The Sanders/Harris/Warren plan is highly punitive for drug makers while Biden and other moderates will go softer. Trump is not far from moderate Dems on his plans so drug makers will get hurt whoever wins in 2020.

Bob Ehrlich

DTC-In-Perspective by Bob Ehrlich

DTC in Perspective: Chantix Goes Slow Turkey

February 22, 2019 0

I have been in the DTC business a long time. After seeing the excellent Ray Liotta ad I might have predicted the next version would use Joe Pesci or Robert De Niro. Chantix instead cast a wild turkey as its star. Who says DTC can’t be creative?

Bob Ehrlich
“Chantix breaks out with the creative…”
-Bob Ehrlich

In what will be a very memorable spot Chantix takes the “cold turkey” expression literally by casting a turkey to represent a person who quits smoking with Chantix. The story line is that Chantix allows you to gradually quit smoking by decreasing the urge and thus you don’t need to go cold turkey but go slow turkey as the spot is named. In a world where much of the DTC Ads have become boilerplate style, Chantix breaks out with the creative device here. Sometimes using a character to represent a brand is risky. It works well when we get an Aflac Duck. The question a brand and agency must wrestle with is will using a character diminish the serious nature of an Rx drug.

For DTC we have had a number of such character representations. Digger for Lamisil, the walking bladder for Myrbetriq, a dancing stomach for Prevacid are some DTC examples. The risk is that patients who suffer from disease may not like seeing their problem in character terms. Some diseases are clearly inappropriate for creating such treatments. I doubt cancer ads would contain a singing Lung.

For Chantix I love the use of the turkey. After seeing so many testimonial ads in DTC, it was certainly attention getting to see a turkey sitting by the pool dumping its ashtray. The ad was so different from Ray Liotta that I had to go back and make sure I was seeing correctly. Yes, that was Chantix.

Sometimes an attention getting character might have stopping power but dwarf the message. In this case the Chantix story still came through well and the creative just replaced a human with the turkey in situations like lounging by the pool or mowing the lawn. I give Pfizer a lot of credit for approving a story board so different from the traditional user testimonial. Ray Liotta was very effective but so is the turkey. The agency should be applauded for recommending it as it is not always easy to bring something so different like this to the client.

My concern is that Ray may want to whack the turkey for taking over as spokesperson. A Goodfella hates rivals. I do not know how long this turkey creative can last. After all there is no saying like cold squirrel or cold cow. I am afraid the pool out potential may be limited but that depends on the acting range of the turkey. That said if the turkey is meant to get potential Chantix users to get engaged this ad will do that very effectively.

Bob Ehrlich

DTC-In-Perspective by Bob Ehrlich

DTC in Perspective: The Assault on Drug Makers Widens

January 18, 2019 0
Drug companies are under renewed attack. There is yet another new bill in the Senate to end the tax deductibility of DTC ads. The latest is from Elizabeth Warren, who will use drug companies as a campaign talking point about corporate greed. The bill would end all forms of tax benefits for any media type.
We also see the House scheduling hearings on how drug companies price their drugs. We can expect harsh treatment of drug CEOs who will be called to Washington to be attacked by Congress in public televised hearings. Another idea floating in Congress and HHS is to peg US drug prices to Europe. Congress will say that this is a fair way to set US prices as Americans should pay no more than the Germans.

Bob Ehrlich
“DTC could be a sacrificial offering to the critics…”
-Bob Ehrlich

According to a study by Deloitte, all this vitriol is happening as R&D return on investment is down to a paltry 1.9% last year. So critics want drug companies to develop drugs to fight disease with price controls and crappy returns on their R&D investments. Drug companies are in a no-win situation. The critics say drug makers make too much money and are raising prices too fast based on inflation. Yet the data shows they are having trouble recovering R&D investment. Critics want drug companies to improve health outcomes but want to prevent drug companies from free market pricing.
Drug makers are an appealing political target for both parties. Some of the criticism is valid. Drug makers have taken prices up too far too fast. A little prudence is called for if drug makers want to prevent the political hammer from dropping. On the other hand, their dilemma is how to fund that R&D while still providing decent returns to investors. Europe and Canada are getting a free ride off of American consumers. No one expects the average Parisian to volunteer to pay more. Riots in Paris over fuel costs show no chance Europe will help out on drug price support.
So here we are. What is the solution to this mismatch in drug prices? Clearly drug companies are risking draconian measures from Congress. As Dems turn left you can bet they will attack drug companies more vigorously and might even get Republicans and Trump to agree. Nothing will happen quickly but this time may be different. I am afraid it is entirely possible that DTC could be a sacrificial offering to the critics who vastly overestimate the power of DTC ads to create demand. DTC works but is not the driving force in building brands. That advertising, however, is the public face of the drug companies and critics blame DTC for raising demand for premium priced drugs. They think that keeping the information from consumers will keep prices down.
Congress and HHS will try to cajole drug makers to slow down increases. They have already decided to mandate list price be part of consumer ads. Next may be ending the tax deduction for advertising. After that price controls are a real possibility. The Democratic candidates for the 2020 Presidential election will all have a plan to nationalize health care and they will all include price controls in that platform. With Trump as anti-industry as they are we can expect violent agreement that drug makers will be targeted.
So to my colleagues in DTC advertising, buckle up and expect new regulations geared at making DTC harder to execute. I do not expect a ban, but FDA and Congress will be looking for ways to make all our professional lives more difficult.

Bob Ehrlich

DTC-In-Perspective by Bob Ehrlich

DTC in Perspective: Consumer Price Information in DTC Ads

October 22, 2018 0
We all know the final price patients pay for prescription drugs is as complex as determining whether life exists on other planets. In no other consumer category do users have no idea what the product will cost. We all can estimate the price of a Mercedes, a four bedroom house in our neighborhood, a new suit, a jug of Tide, or a gallon of gas. We may not be exact but we would get reasonably close. Prescription drugs are unique in that an advertised product can cost $50 a month or $50000.
We would have no idea from watching the DTC ad whether that drug is the $50 or $50000 product. Even our doctor would not know because 72% say in a study by Deloitte they have inadequate price information. Congress wants to remedy that by requiring DTC advertisers to put price information in DTC ads. Consumers widely support this idea and it is from Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, at 83%, 72%, and 73% respectively. HHS Secretary Alex Azar is going ahead with the new policy of requiring price disclosure in drug ads.

Bob Ehrlich
“DTC advertisers will face a new FDA guidance on price disclosure.”
-Bob Ehrlich

Of course, that idea is fraught with problems. It is a well-meaning solution but would cause a raft of other problems. We all know the out of pocket cost of our drugs is dependent on our insurance coverage, our deductible/co-pay, formulary status, treatment protocol, and availability of similar drugs. That means you could pay nothing for a $100000 cancer drug, and more for your $100 a month depression drug. Consumers would benefit from knowing what they would actually pay, but that is not possible to do in a voice over or super on screen.
What insurers and government payers really want to do is discourage DTC advertising of expensive drugs. They think that by forcing price disclosure, the premium price drugs would be advertised less because those drug companies would face consumer backlash once price is part of the advertisement. I have wrestled with the positives of adding price to a DTC ad. I can see some benefit giving a heads up to a potential patient that the premium priced drug may cost a lot and therefore may not be covered or restricted to use after cheaper alternatives have been exhausted.
On the other hand, a patient may misinterpret that price as being unaffordable and not pursue further even though it might not cost them much in the end. I come back to the conclusion that discussing price in the ad would probably confuse consumers more than help them. If I were a policy maker I would focus on the doctor by giving them tools to determine likely out of pocket cost for their patients. They already have the patient insurance information so determining coverage status and final cost should not be too difficult to estimate.
I understand the reason insurers and government payers dislike DTC Ads for expensive drugs. It is a legitimate argument that some of these drugs might be only marginally better than cheaper treatments. DTC Ads create demand and put pressure on payers to cover those drugs. An insurer is placed in a tough position of being the “bad” guy by not covering the latest drug. While that may be a consideration, the restricting of advertising is not the best solution. Insurers need to make their case on comparative efficacy to both doctor and patient. Insurers and patients should not want to pay for drugs with minimal incremental benefit. That case is better made downstream from an awareness DTC ad.
DTC advertisers will face a new FDA guidance on price disclosure in the next few months. It will be just a super or voice over stating the list price for a one month supply. This whole exercise is political and unfortunately will not help consumers. What might help more is the drug industry decision to offer comprehensive price information on their branded web sites announced 10/15 by PhRMA. I doubt any drug maker will drop DTC over this requirement although it may give the highest price drugs some cause for concern.

Bob Ehrlich

DTC-In-Perspective by Bob Ehrlich

DTC in Perspective: Drug Prices in DTC Ads? Bad Idea Gets Traction.

September 5, 2018 0

The Senate recently passed an amendment to a larger health care bill that requires drug prices be disclosed in DTC Ads. The Durbin amendment was adopted with bipartisan support. It really just gives HHS a million dollars to study a way to require the disclosure. What is clear is this idea has strong support from President Trump, Congress, HHS Secretary Azar, and the American Medical Association. So, like it or not, the drug advertisers may be forced to add some price information to ads.

Bob Ehrlich
“Drug makers may be forced to add… price information to ads.”
-Bob Ehrlich

On the surface, that list price disclosure seems reasonable. We see MSRP in car ads, so we know whether it is a premium or economy car. Not that we don’t know that already but it is not unreasonable. For cars, we know we will likely pay somewhat less than MSRP but we do know the range a Mercedes will cost us. Congress thinks consumers deserve to know the price of drugs they see advertised. To Congress that seems like it would help consumers decide if this advertised drug should be considered.

Drug pricing is not like car pricing. Consumers pay much less than the list price and sometimes pay nothing for the $50000 drug for cancer. Admittedly, drug pricing is a Byzantine process that confounds most of us. Each insurance company, PBM, and government payer negotiates prices. Each consumer depending on their insurance pays a different price no way near the list price. Sometimes the consumer would pay out of pocket more for their OTC cough medicine than the $50000 cancer drug.

So how should drug companies disclose drug prices? If the list price is not anywhere near what consumers pay, then how does disclosing it help them? It does not. It helps insurance companies in making DTC more difficult for drug companies to execute. The knowledgeable legislators know that if they force drug makers to talk about price that may discourage them from doing DTC Ads for expensive drugs. Drug makers advertising the $100000 cancer drug may decide that DTC is not worth trying to explain the complexities of drug pricing or face the barrage of criticism for having a sticker shock price.

I think this is the real reason for this amendment. Embarrassing drug companies they hope will put a chill on DTC for cancer drugs, biologics for arthritis, Crohn’s, and other new premium drugs. Of course, all drugs will face a guidance on how pricing needs to be discussed. Somehow FDA will make disclosure a time consuming step in a DTC ad. That will add 10-15 seconds to the ad and may make them difficult to execute. Their hope is to get drug companies to stop doing DTC.

So the good news is it will take FDA a while to study and draft guidance for disclosing price. This lag may allow the powerful advertising lobby to show how impractical this disclosure requirement will be. My guess is we may have some compromise that speaks in terms of ranges of price. That is something like “most patients will pay much less than the price listed depending on your insurance coverage.” Or, drug makers may be able to say “the average price paid by consumers is x.”

It may be illegal to require drug makers to disclose price under commercial free speech grounds. I am sure the advertising lobby will argue this inhibits commercial speech. They would have a strong case based on precedent.

My advice to the agencies is to be ready to deal with adding some price statement but I am sure it will be a few years before FDA can figure out how best to do this. They research everything they do and that will take a long time to study. DTC price disclosure sounds great but is just a bad idea that will not help patients.

Bob Ehrlich

DTC-In-Perspective by Bob Ehrlich

DTC in Perspective: Chantix Goes with a Goodfella

June 29, 2018 0

The latest Chantix smoking cessation DTC television ad is featuring my favorite wise guy actor Ray Liotta. Looking a little grayer and heavier Ray is still the iconic member of the De Niro/Pesci crew from Goodfellas, maybe only slightly behind The Godfather in my favorites list. Ray is also in my favorite baseball movie Field of Dreams, portraying the leader of the dead baseball players returning to Kevin Costner’s cornfield.

Ray’s lifelong bugaboo was getting to stop smoking. Pfizer is using him to promote Chantix and rather than just being a paid announcer he is actually a real patient, still paid handsomely I assume. I like him in this role. Usually I wonder how much a celebrity adds to a drug pitch. Do potential users really care that a Hollywood type uses a drug? There have been very effective celebrity campaigns, Sally Field for Boniva, Jennifer Aniston for Dry Eye, Phil Mickelson for Psoriatic Arthritis to name a few.

Bob Ehrlich
“Ray got my attention.”
-Bob Ehrlich

A celebrity campaign needs to get the audience to believe that the celebrity actually uses or really believes in the drug advertised. There are some celebrities who endorse anything and pushing garlic pills, grape juice, reverse mortgages, might hurt your credibility when pushing a cancer treatment. Drug companies need to be very careful that the celebrity chosen has limited exposure as an endorser of health products.

Ray Liotta, to my recollection is not a serial endorser. In fact I do not remember him doing any commercials. That is a good first step. Can I Imagine Ray Liotta having a smoking habit? Sure can. Is Ray credible saying he has had a lifelong problem stopping smoking? Yes. So far so good. What is interesting about the campaign is that Chantix has been on air for years with regular folks pitching their success. Maybe they felt they needed to reinvigorate the story and potential customers would stop and re-engage after all the years of real patient testimonials. Ray got my attention, maybe a bit less than Joe Pesci would have, but any Goodfella is better than none.

I do not know if this is a one off use of a celebrity for Chantix or the first in a series. One thing we know is Hollywood is likely full of smokers, and addicts of other less than legal substances. No credibility issue with Ray having a smoking addiction. I am sure Pfizer will be very careful vetting their celebrity candidates. With all the problems of celebrity reveals on past sexual harassment/assault it is important to do your homework. I think they have chosen well here. Congratulations to Pfizer and their agency for a well done celebrity campaign.

Bob Ehrlich

DTC-In-Perspective by Bob Ehrlich

DTC in Perspective: Botox DTC Targets Men

June 1, 2018 0

Allergan’s Botox is going “Brotox” in its latest DTC campaign. That term is not mine as I borrowed it from a Forbes article. Men, yes, we men are a vast untapped market for smoother skin. As I age, my frown lines are forming, and why not try to look better. For me being the frugal sort, I will personally pass and learn to love my new post 60 visage and save my money.

For those men interested in starting on the cosmetic road to rejuvenation Botox has decided to talk to you directly. From the actors in the DTC spot, it looks like the target are 40-50 year olds who are concerned about maintaining their youthful looks. A Matthew McConaughey type in an expensive suit is seen adjusting his tie as the announcer says, “details make the difference”. Another scene shows another professional who seems to be an architect while the voice over says what Botox is indicated to improve. A third actor is shown jogging while the indications are further discussed.

Bob Ehrlich
“Botox is going ‘Brotox’ in its latest DTC campaign.”
-Bob Ehrlich

The tone of the ad is that men who get Botox are not vain, just fine tuning their details which make the man better. The closing tag line is “The details make a difference; the man makes them matter.” I interpret that to mean this will not transform you, but just give you the little edge to boost your confidence. These men are already successful, and Botox will help them continue that on that track.

Why are men a DTC focus? It has everything to do with the huge market that is under developed with men. Botox is trying to get them to see cosmetic treatment as something that is perfectly normal and not just for Hollywood stars. They want to show that refining those little facial details is just another step in grooming and dressing well. In other words, real men can use Botox. The number is not yet big but growing fast. According to Forbes it was 400,000 in 2014 but grew over 300% in the last ten years.

So, Allergan sees the benefit in investing in a DTC campaign to make Botox more acceptable to men. That is not easy because the historical and cultural male image is to be accepting of those signs of age. The weathered face of the macho man is ingrained in our heritage. John Wayne and Charles Bronson would not use Botox. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards also a no. Maybe Matthew McConaughey and George Clooney would. So this effort is to get the 40 year old male to see cosmetic dermatology in a new light. The wear their baseball cap backwards generation will likely view these Botox tune-ups differently from my generation. Hey, why not if that is how you want to spend your discretionary dollars.

I still drive a Honda, buy most of my clothes on Amazon, and never will pay for first class air. Sorry Allergan but no Botox for me. Fortunately for them I am a dying breed of male. Goodbye Charlie Bronson and that weathered face. Smoother is in.

Bob Ehrlich

Newer Posts

Older Posts