The Southern Ontario/WNY Radio-TV Forum / Canadian Radio Drug Ads Just Keep Getting More Ridiculous

**Posted by RadioActive** April 9, 2025 7:24 am

I don't necessarily blame the copywriters - it's the absolutely stupid Canadian laws that are to blame. As I understand it, you can advertise a drug, but you can't tell anyone exactly what it's for. That results in the idiocy of those Wegovy spots.

The latest example makes a mockery of the entire thing. It's for another diabetes/weight loss product called Rybelsus. The thing takes place in a diner, where several patrons are discussing the drug, endlessly repeating the name of the medication and at one point, one of the characters says, "Yeah, it's a pill that..." at which point a rather loud noise drowns him out completely so you can't hear what it's for.

The idea of advertising is to promote a product's benefit to you. These spots don't allow for that. (Not that the U.S. rules are better - you can say what it's for, but you have to list every single potential side effect from headaches and diarrhea to death, usually at a unlistenable sped up pace so fast you can't hear any of them.)

They really do need to change the rules here. Either allow the commercials to say what the drug is for or don't promote it. As it currently stands, it's a waste of airtime that doesn't deliver the message it was created to do. Not sure about you, but I don't go to my doctor to ask about some random pill or shot when I have no idea what it's for.

The whole idea is just absurd. But hey, if the manufacturers want to waste their money, I guess it's great for the radio stations' bottom lines.

**Posted by Shorty Wave** April 9, 2025 7:39 am

The Rybelsus radio spot basically lifts the audio from their TV commercial and the rather loud noise that covers what the drug is for is a coffee bean grinder, but you don’t get that from the radio spot as it is a visual in the tv spot. They do need to change the rules for this type of advertising, it would make them less annoying, maybe!

**Posted by mace** April 9, 2025 7:47 am

Now there are a whole series of ads where the people either say You know, I've thought about it and I'm going to ask or Yes, I asked about [the product] and now I know. Did they take the drug? We don't know. Did it work? We don't know and of course, we will never know what ailment it is meant to cure.

**Posted by Jody Thornton** **Online!** April 9, 2025 7:55 am

RadioActive wrote:
They really do need to change the rules here. Either allow the commercials to say what the drug is for or don't promote it. As it currently stands, it's a waste of airtime that doesn't deliver the message it was created to do. Not sure about you, but I don't go to my doctor to ask about some random pill or shot when I have no idea what it's for.

Add to that, the sped up tag lines at the end of spots for car dealerships, Princess Margaret Lottery, and the like. Usually there are conditions that the advertiser is required to tell you, but they do no want to say, so it's sped up and crammed in. Right there, that tells me that the advertiser aspires to deceive in some way or the other. So the content should be read at proper speed so it's clearly audible. I also think that extra time should be allowed for it the tag line, beyond 15, 30 or 60 seconds that is not billed to the ad client, since this is a requirement, and therefore takes away from how the air time was desired to be used.

Does that make sense?

**Posted by Shorty Wave** April 9, 2025 8:00 am

Makes sense Jody, although I think that people don’t pay attention to the sped up legal lines, so why bother with this annoyance at all.

**Posted by mace** April 9, 2025 8:02 am

Jody Thornton wrote:
RadioActive wrote:
They really do need to change the rules here. Either allow the commercials to say what the drug is for or don't promote it. As it currently stands, it's a waste of airtime that doesn't deliver the message it was created to do. Not sure about you, but I don't go to my doctor to ask about some random pill or shot when I have no idea what it's for.
Add to that, the sped up tag lines at the end of spots for car dealerships, Princess Margaret Lottery, and the like. Usually there are conditions that the advertiser is required to tell you, but they do no want to say, so it's sped up and crammed in. Right there, that tells me that the advertiser aspires to deceive in some way or the other. So the content should be read at proper speed so it's clearly audible. I also think that extra time should be allowed for it the tag line, beyond 15, 30 or 60 seconds that is not billed to the ad client, since this is a requirement, and therefore takes away from how the air time was desired to be used.

Does that make sense?

To me it sounds logical and makes perfect sense, which means not gonna happen.

**Posted by Paul Jeffries** April 9, 2025 8:17 am

RadioActive wrote:
Not that the U.S. rules are better - you can say what it's for, but you have to list every single potential side effect from headaches and diarrhea to death.

"Might include side effects, such as hallucinations of The Grim Reaper or The Headless Horseman coming to get you."

PJ

**Posted by Chrisphen** April 9, 2025 8:19 am

I remember when the 'sped up' voice tech was introduced - around 2000 IIRC - it was sold as an innovative way of conveying more 'informative' copy to an audience.

Uh, no.

**Posted by mace** April 9, 2025 8:40 am

At the beginning of the Academy Awards broadcast, didn't John Moschitta Jr. come out and read all the legal mumbo jumbo rather quickly which was super fast. His FedEx ads were legendary.

**Posted by paterson1** April 9, 2025 9:55 am

What is even more ridiculous is the fact that on news channels in Canada most of the ads are now for life insurance, reverse mortgage programs, or a prescription drug that have limitations on how it can be advertised like what it is for.

In the US on their news channels it is all about insurance, endless long drug commercials that have more potential serious side effects than benefits, and these ads are even longer now since they can't speed up the warnings at the end of the ad anymore.

I have noticed that a few US drug commercials are going more the Canadian route and telling viewers to talk to their doctor to see if the drug is right for them and not listing side effects and detail what the drug is for. Makes for a much shorter (and cheaper) ad.

In Canada prescription drugs are not supposed to be advertised at all. The drug manufacturers have got around this by advertising the name but not saying what the drug is for, so you ask your doctor. These ads technically shouldn't be on at all.

**Posted by Binson Echorec** April 9, 2025 10:56 am

Jody Thornton wrote:
I also think that extra time should be allowed for it the tag line, beyond 15, 30 or 60 seconds that is not billed to the ad client, since this is a requirement, and therefore takes away from how the air time was desired to be used.

Does that make sense?

Yes and no. I get where you're coming from but extending spot lengths to :18, :33, and :63 equals a nightmare for syndicated programming breaks. Also, this approach would mean the broadcast outlet loses that much more "content time". Advertisers need to adjust their copy to fit the 15/30/60 benchmarks. If there is information that must be included, then adjust the copy appropriately so that all requirements are met.

It would be nice if broadcast outlets were more firm with their clients and pushed back about this but they're desperate for every dollar they can get.

Overall I prefer the Canadian approach: "The name of the drug is _____. Ask your doctor for more info." This at least points me toward seeking a professional opinion.

Contrasted with the American approach: "The name of the drug is _____. Beware you may be subject to effects such as sudden loss of eyelashes, irregular internal bleeding, lengthening of one arm over the other, and death. Call for a free sample." It's like they just want you on the drug so they can make a few dollars.

Last edited by Binson Echorec (April 9, 2025 10:56 am)

**Posted by betaylored** April 9, 2025 3:55 pm

You'd think the marketing departments of the pharmaceutical giants would come up with better names for their inventions. They once created a medicated spray for jock itch and called it "Clutch."
Rybelsus makes me think of RibaldUs.

There are all kinds of rabbit holes to wander down on YT and one of the most fun: all the spoof and parody commercials for drug products.

A few are in questionable taste, pun not intended, like this Ozempic for Ramadan ad from SNL.
https://youtu.be/8-RETLnHNpM?si=MqWh5BK3IQ4R8CU2

This SNL sketch gets the job done and actually does some good by pointing out that the side effects of some medicine can be deadly.
https://youtu.be/VByZc4Hn7pI?si=kzwo_BchTeHTgEbS

Last edited by betaylored (April 9, 2025 4:00 pm)

**Posted by RadioActive** May 11, 2025 7:27 am

**Posted by BowmanvilleBob** May 11, 2025 8:00 am

betaylored wrote:
You'd think the marketing departments of the pharmaceutical giants would come up with better names for their inventions. They once created a medicated spray for jock itch and called it "Clutch."
Rybelsus makes me think of RibaldUs.

There are all kinds of rabbit holes to wander down on YT and one of the most fun: all the spoof and parody commercials for drug products.

A few are in questionable taste, pun not intended, like this Ozempic for Ramadan ad from SNL.
https://youtu.be/8-RETLnHNpM?si=MqWh5BK3IQ4R8CU2

This SNL sketch gets the job done and actually does some good by pointing out that the side effects of some medicine can be deadly.
https://youtu.be/VByZc4Hn7pI?si=kzwo_BchTeHTgEbS

And of course, who can forget this classic from E-Trade: