The Southern Ontario/WNY Radio-TV Forum / RFK Jr. Threatens To Ban All Drug Ads On U.S. TV

**Posted by RadioActive** May 28, 2025 7:44 am

As odious as the guy is, that might actually be a good thing, if nothing else just to get those awful spots for drugs you've never heard of (and their sped up list of side effects) off the air.

But any such move would come with serious consequences for a broadcast industry that's already reeling from decreased viewership and advertising.

According to the linked article, when the government banned cigarette ads (remember those?) back in the 70s, the networks lost up to 50% of their revenues. So it's not a small thing.

"A restriction on drug ads would have a significant impact on the industry, particularly the four big broadcast networks: ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox. ABC generated $355 million in revenue from drug company commercials in the first four months of this year, according to iSpot, a company that measures TV advertising. Pharmaceutical advertising makes up 11% of all national TV ad spending."

RFK Jr.’s Vow to End TV Drug Ads Threatens Broadcast Networks

**Posted by mace** May 28, 2025 9:29 am

I will say this. The U.S. tobacco companies knew how to market their product extremely well. The ads have been gone for almost 55 years. Yet I can still remember the tags lines just as clearly today. Winston tastes good like a [clap,clap] cigarette should, LSMFT- Lucky Strike Means Fine Tobacco, You're in Marlboro Country, Tareyton smokers would rather fight than switch [featuring man/woman with a black eye] Oh the disadvantages of smoking Benson & Hedges. Apparently, their cigarettes were longer than other brands product.

**Posted by SpinningWheel** May 28, 2025 10:38 am

RadioActive wrote:
As odious as the guy is, that might actually be a good thing, if nothing else just to get those awful spots for drugs you've never heard of (and their sped up list of side effects) off the air.

But any such move would come with serious consequences for a broadcast industry that's already reeling from decreased viewership and advertising.

According to the linked article, when the government banned cigarette ads (remember those?) back in the 70s, the networks lost up to 50% of their revenues. So it's not a small thing.

"A restriction on drug ads would have a significant impact on the industry, particularly the four big broadcast networks: ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox. ABC generated $355 million in revenue from drug company commercials in the first four months of this year, according to iSpot, a company that measures TV advertising. Pharmaceutical advertising makes up 11% of all national TV ad spending."

RFK Jr.’s Vow to End TV Drug Ads Threatens Broadcast Networks

I read where the only countries who allow US-style drug ads on TV are the USA and New Zealand. I would be happy to see them gone, or at least the last 1/2 of the commercial used to specify side effects.

**Posted by RadioActive** May 28, 2025 10:56 am

Worth noting that I heard a new spot on Canadian radio for Wegovy Wednesday morning. You may remember the last one which was so awful, it was pulled only about a week or so into the campaign. This one is a little better, and there's no one singing anything. But because of the regs., it still doesn't tell you what it's for.

The dumbest rule ever in Canadian media. I'm hardly going to ask my doctor about a pill if I have no idea what it's for, A waste of ad dollars if you ask me.

**Posted by bbqguy1962** May 28, 2025 10:57 am

RFK jr vs the pharmaceutical lobby - that should be fun.

**Posted by Binson Echorec** May 28, 2025 11:29 am

RadioActive wrote:
Worth noting that I heard a new spot on Canadian radio for Wegovy Wednesday morning. You may remember the last one which was so awful, it was pulled only about a week or so into the campaign. This one is a little better, and there's no one singing anything. But because of the regs., it still doesn't tell you what it's for.

The dumbest rule ever in Canadian media. I'm hardly going to ask my doctor about a pill if I have no idea what it's for, A waste of ad dollars if you ask me.

Somewhat disagree. I prefer the Canadian approach - at least it directs you to speak to a professional first. There is far too much of "Dr. Google" in society.

The US style seems geared toward getting you to take the medication asap and even offering how to get it cheaply via co-pay - the subtext to me is: "we just want you on it, we don't care if you need to be". Rifling through the potentially serious side effects at the end only heightens that.

**Posted by RadioActive** May 28, 2025 11:31 am

I get it, but I just can't see the point of advertising a product if you can't tell the people you're trying to reach what it's for or what it does.

**Posted by Binson Echorec** May 28, 2025 11:43 am

They're building brand awareness - so it's not a total waste of ad dollars. I can find out what it does later, I just need to have the name in my brain.

I don't own Apple product but I'm fully aware of their brand. That's a win in marketing speak.

**Posted by arc23** May 28, 2025 1:48 pm

Don't we all just Google it? I even watch TV with my tablet open; that's what Canadian commercials are really asking us to do.II don't think we would care ifs a minute please If We would really care. The only one I remember in the pre-inte.rnet days was ROGAINE Even thougofhave a full head have hair an,d was a kid back then I do remember I had fun asking the doctor what Rogaine was

**Posted by The Weed** May 28, 2025 2:22 pm

Good thing you didn't ask about Cialis or Viagra

**Posted by paterson1** May 30, 2025 2:13 pm

Prescription drugs are not supposed to be advertised at all. The US is one of the very few countries that allows it but then you need to contend with 30 seconds of possible side effects, some of which are worse than what the drug is supposed to help. Also in the US there have been many reports of people insisting to their doctor to prescribe such and such a drug to them, even though it won't help them or is not necessary.

The drug manufacturers in Canada obviously want to advertise their prescription products and have found a loop hole with repeating the name, but not saying what it is for. This really isn't a Health Canada "stupid rule" but a situation that the manufacturers have brought on themselves. They must be ok with it and must be getting some results since they have been promoting this way for years.

**Posted by newsguy1** May 30, 2025 2:33 pm

According to the ads I hear on the radio for the past year or so, all you need to cure anything is New Nordic.
It cures liver disease, regrows hair, reduces weight, and even cures macular degeneration, a previously incurable eye disease.
Best of all you can buy the products at Shoppers, Rexall and Jean Couteau (whatever that is).
Seriously, though, I don't believe how it is remotely legal to advertise these phony drugs.
If I ever meet these Ass#@%& I'd like to punch them right in their Nordic faces.