Field Notes Inside an Integrated Communications Agency

We've all become accustomed to using the Web as the resource we turn to first for just about anything – including information about medicines. As an advertising medium, the Web is outpacing television. So drug marketers are racing for the highest position in Google search results. But the landscape is changing fast.

A recent article published in DTC Perspectives breaks down the dilemma. The text ads attached to search results act as qualifying statements that help search engines sort through information. But regulators fear that people will read those descriptions as ads and interpret the text as real information. So the FDA is cracking down on search engine optimization for pharmaceuticals. Now, the string of words that appear under Web site listings in the rankings must include full disclosure of risk information.

This new rule will make it harder for many pharmaceutical companies to reach the top of the search engine ranks. If they have to include the risks and adverse events in the text ads, their key consumer messages will get buried. Many drugs, especially those in the same therapeutic categories treating the same ailments, share the same commonly reported adverse events. The competition to buy and use those descriptors will be large, and consumers will have a harder time finding what they're looking for.

There are ways around this. Pharmaceutical companies can buy text ads that don't include the drug name, then replace the URLs with copy that relates to a specific medical problem. This tactic allows them to get more creative with their messaging, and it might help lower the bidding on certain key words. But it also means fewer people will find their Web sites. Because of this confusion, the FDA is likely to loosen its reins once it learns more about the Web and how people use it. Give it a few more years and the FDA may back off completely.

Until then, pharmaceutical companies have an opportunity to be more clever and have fun with their online ads. And this period of chaos, however temporary, will give some players a chance to grab newfound prominence.

I thought the commercial was a parody of ubiquitous pharmaceutical ads. The announcer starts, "Grow lashes. Grow longer, grow fuller and darker lashes."

Unfortunately it was a real ubiquitous ad. Thank God the FDA has approved Latisse — "the first and only prescription treatment for inadequate or not enough lashes." Seems the same company that brought us Botox — botulism for beauty sake — recently launched a cure-all for wimpy lashes. I'm no alopecia hater. I've even worked on clinical trials for hair growth. Clearly everyone is entitled to eyelashes but this is further proof that elective cosmeceuticals are the growing trend.

Get used to it folks. There's less hassle for pharmaceutical companies in products that focus on lifestyle and not just life. People in wealthy developed regions choose to pay for these treatments. Therefore price pressures and perceptions of health entitlement aren't in the mix. Heck, diseases like Cancer and HIV are just too hard and take too long to research. I only wish the same developed regions wanted to pay for treatments that helped them breathe better, increase mobility or prolong quality of life. Research dollars would flow.

Luckily, I was graced with long, dark, luxurious eyelashes. No Latisse for me. But unleashing a little botulism on a few laugh lines…hmmmm.