Talk:Direct-to-consumer advertising

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 September 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Butter121, Maus0792, Stephaniesin, Praveenniper05.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rothschild.e.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
I added some text from the public domain source at http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-9219/consumer.htm. The site notes at http://www.ericdigests.org/about.html, "ERIC Digests are in the public domain and may be freely reproduced and disseminated in any format. On the Web, it is permissible to link to Digests or to post copies on other sites without express permission. LarryQ 11:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a section specific to the pharma industry, with a few references, and also made the financial services section separate. It seems like it would be better to have this be related to Pharma/Health. Enviropearson (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone should look into the difference in regulations for over the counter medications and prescription medications Enviropearson (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I added Brazil as a country that allows direct to consumer advertisement of drugs, since even in TV we have everyday this kind of publicity. I think it was never been not-legal, but it would be weird not to put a year. I put 2008 since in this year we had a new regulation on the subject. I don't know how to edit, so I have trouble with the references. I meant to give this reference, from the national agency that controls drugs in Brazil: http://portal.anvisa.gov.br/wps/wcm/connect/076f3080492dd932afe8bf14d16287af/Legislacao_Propaganda_Consolidada_marco_2011.pdf?MOD=AJPERES 201.22.33.143 (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I strongly recommend removing Brazil and Hong Kong from the Countries list. DTC advertising typically refers only to Rx drugs and not OTC (over the counter) drugs. Most countries allow marketing for these drugs albeit with somewhat stronger regulations than other CPG (consumer packaged goods) products. I work in pharma marketing so track these things. Brad Einarsen (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Facelift
I gave this entry a facelift with some pertinent data, added good references, expanded. It should be ok now. Thanks. (Osterluzei (talk) 06:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC))

Other countries?
I believe Germany also allows advertising in the case of OTC drugs: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arzneimittelwerbung Exceptions exist for sleep medication and psychological problems — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.89.226.146 (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Possibly fraudulent advertising approach
I am a senior. I am neither a doctor nor lawyer, and I do not spend my days glued to the television. However, I ask the question how can the approach taken by the advertisers be not biased and misleading. The typical format used, and nearly all follow the same pattern, is 1) to present educational or technical statements about the drug and its actions of treatment or disease conditions (say 30 seconds in length), followed by 2) a lengthy seems like 2-3 minutes long voice over reading of the possible side effects and disclaimers to consult your physician. Throughout 2) you are given some shots of a beautiful elderly > 65 years old couple doing some wonderful, enjoyable, and / or romantic thing together that just makes you heart bubble over warm / melt. So the viewer is being psycho manipulated by association of all things warm and wonderful with this drug. The commercial is educational but it is also manipulative.  Please explain why this is allowable or even legal. There are many forms of propaganda (some might call it brainwashing)... educating about pharmaceuticals should not be on of them. Danleywolfe (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Portugal
Portugal also allows DTC. This commercial, for example, shows often in TV. Notice that, like in Brazil, this is non-prescription advertisement.Rpmcruz (talk) 07:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Pharmacy Student Edits
1. Add a section with current changes that are being proposed for drug advertisements 2. Add more background information on the type of advertisements: product claim ad, reminder ad, help-seeking ad 3. Rephrase “The rhetorical objective of direct-to-consumer advertising is to directly influence the patient-physician dialogue in order to increase sales of a particular pharmaceutical drug” to sound less opinionated? 4. Summary of what the actual FDA regulations are on DTCPA + its impact 5. Possibly add a country where DTCPA is not allowed and what their system is like (ex. Great Britain)

Maus0792 (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)Maus0792

For point 5, I would recommend talking more about the only other country that allows DTCPA advertising on prescription drugs, which is New Zealand. Additionally, it seems like some countries allow advertisement of OTC products. That might be an easier thing to tackle than picking one country that doesn't have DTCPA since most countries do not allow DTCPA. -Ling

Pharmacy Student Peer Reviews
Peer Review by Group 26:

1) Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify... Yes. I have reviewed each edit line by line and thought they were objective and as neutral as possible. Furthermore, there were efforts to rephrase sentences that were not neutral. I think you all nailed the neutrality part. I suggest group members to go over the edits again and look for grammatical errors. I also suggest the table under "Types" to be edited to standardize Product Claim and Reminder so that only one phrase is used: either "Provides medication name" or "Provides name of the medication". Great job everyone!! :) OuCarol (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

2) Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify... The section, "FDA regulations of the DTCPA in the United States" lacks citation. There is also a redundancy with introducing viewers to "the following link" in which there are actually two separate links listed.WikiJAllen (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

3) Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify… Though the group did not make edits to the opening paragraph of the article, they did add information about the FDA. In the first reference to the FDA (the mention that links to the FDA wikipedia page), there is no abbreviation included but the abbreviation is used throughout the article. I think it would be helpful if the group defined the abbreviation for the FDA by adding "FDA" in parentheses after its first mention in the opening paragraph. I'm not sure if the table in the "Types" section is an appropriate table use based on wikipedia's styling manual. It may be easier to read if this information was in a list rather than a table. For example, "Product Claim Advertisements: provides medication name, at least one FDA-approved indication, safety information, and benefits". The external link in the content of the 'FDA regulations of the DTCPA in the United States' section should be included at the bottom of the article under in the external link section.Dana89511 (talk) 07:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

4) Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify...

-There do not appear to be any instances of overt plagiarism or copyright violation. Furthermore, the recent additions seem to have appropriate citations and attributions. The only exception is under the heading "Countries Permitting DTC." New Zealand is listed as a country that permits direct to consumer advertising, but no attribution is listed. Jacob.robertson.ucsf (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

5) Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? If not, specify…

- I think this group can definitely say they reached their goals from what was posted on the talk page and what they presented. They added a ton of substance to the wiki page and used proper sources, while keeping formatting similar to what I have seen on wikipedia over time. One thing that caught my eye though was the addition of the FDA sections (it felt bulky and focused). I was thinking those can be subsections and have the overhead subject be, for example: 3. DTA in: 3.1 United States 3.1.1 FDA Regulations 3.1.2 etc ...this would springboard other contributors to start adding about different countries (New Zealand, Brazil) once we have moved on from the assignment. Let me know what you think --Edward Jierjian (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Jierjian (talk • contribs) 21:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review by Group 9:

1) Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify...

I thought that all of the edits seemed very neutral to me and that you only presented the facts. As a side note of some other things I noticed, DTCPA is defined in the article later on after it is used (under "History"), so I would suggest defining it the very first time it comes up. Also, under the "FDA - Challenges to DTCPA Oversite" section, it says "DTPCA within the United States...", but should be DTCPA - the C and P are just switched. Great edits! -Colleen mccann (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

2) Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify...

Original edits to this page contained several well-cited references that were freely available. However, there was the addition of one link that did not open to a legitimate website when clicked, and there was an incomplete citation with the date missing. These have since been fixed. --Dumbpepper (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)Dumbpepper

3) Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify… For the most part, the edits my peers made in the article were pretty much consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style. I have added my minor suggestions to make the article as a whole more consistent with the Wikipedia’s manual of style:

- Wikipedia’s manual of style: Quotation makes should be straight instead of curly Edits to be made: •Section: Disease mongering o“Advertisements display “unfortunate facts of life” like wrinkling or baldness as a disease to be treated with drugs […]” oMake sure to change to straight quotation marks (")

- Wikipedia’s manual of style: Apostrophes should be straight and not curly Edits to be made: •Section: FDA regulations of the DTCPA in the United States o“FDA’s Office of Prescription […]” o Make sure to change to a straight apostrophe (') •Section: Doctor-Patient Relationship o“This leads consumers to direct their doctors’ visits […]” o Make sure to change to a straight apostrophe (')

- Wikipedia’s manual of style: When you list via bullets or numbers, you should consistent grammatical form throughout the list Edits to be made: •Section: Countries permitting DTC o The 3rd bullet that list Brazil is not consistent with the other list. There is elaboration for this particular bullet, but there is none for the others. I would either just simply take out the information and use a reference link like the others, or add more information for the other bullets for: New Zealand, United States, and Hong Kong

- Wikipedia’s manual of style: If you want to list links in the article, it should be consistent. External links should also not be listed in the article’s body; it should have their own section at the end of the article called “External Links” if necessary Edits to be made: •Section: FDA regulations of the DTCPA in the United States oOnly this link was hyperlinked https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/PrescriptionDrugAdvertising/default.htm oWhereas this link was not hyperlinked https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDER/ucm090224.htm o This link should also be hyperlinked o Or, simply remove the links from the body of the article and make another section called “External Links” at the bottom if you believe that it is necessary to keep this link for the quality of the article Grracelee (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

4) Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify... There doesn't seem to be any evidence of plagiarism. However, in the section labeled "Countries Permitting DTC," the listing of New Zealand does not have an appropriate citation listed. Additionally, the entire section of the "FDA regulations of the DTCPA in the United States" lacks any citations. In the section "FDA-Challenges to DTCPA Oversight," the sentence: "DTPCA within the United States is regulated by the FDA. Under their oversight they may enforce regulations and take action against those who do not abide by the DTCPA rules" lacks citations where they are needed. Overall, the citations themselves seem to be from appropriate sources where they exist but there are large sections that still need citations. JenniferKaiser2020 (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

"Undue weight"
I'm not sure if I understand these cleanup tags. Which topics are given "undue weight" in this article? Jarble (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

TV
The problem I see with this article right now is that DTC advertising is no longer just a pharmaceutical issue, it likely was when the article was written but in 2019 this also referes to TV advertising and the article needs modifying to reflect this. there are abundant sources for what I am saying. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 10:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This term is specifically associated with the pharmaceutical industry. ViperSnake151   Talk  15:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)