Allergan's My Chronic Migraine Commercial
Beginning in 2012, the commercial linked above began circulating on
major television networks. With a cursory look, the advertisement seems to be
an unremarkable public service announcement (PSA) defining chronic migraine and
providing a resource through a website called mychronicmigraine.com by which
more information on the matter can be found. What is rhetorically interesting
about this health artifact is that the commercial is not actually a PSA, but
rather an ad produced by a pharmaceutical company, Allergan. In my analysis, I
took a look at direct-to-consumer advertising by pharmaceutical companies that
takes the form of a PSA in addition to two rhetorical moves made by Allegan
through the taglines used during the commercial.
In the 21st
century, the public is constantly bombarded by advertisements. All segments of
the market place have felt the effects of traditional advertising becoming less
and less effective and have had to come up with innovative ideas on how to
reach their target audience. One way that the pharmaceutical industry found to
do this was not through advertising their product, but by bringing the
condition that their product treated to the forefront of pubic awareness. This
strategy causes an upswing in the number of patients asking about the condition
and consequently spikes sales of treatments for the condition. Allergan used
the My Chronic Migraine ad to boost sales of their product, Botox, which is
used to treat migraines. The only way that Allergan is tied to the commercial
is by a small, brief appearance of the company’s name and logo at the end of
the advertisement, which could make it seem as if the ad is unsponsored.
Unsponsored ads, or PSAs, have inherent ethos with the public, which Allergan
is deceptively using to raise Botox sales.
There were two taglines used in the commercial. The first
promised, “Knowing this thing
you’re going through has a name means knowing that you can find treatments that
are right for you.” This line uses medicalization to persuade the viewer that
relief from an illness can be found just by naming it. Following this line of
logic, diagnosis is health, which can lead to implications of increasing
amounts of money spent on diagnostics and treatments. The second tagline
stated, “Go to mychronicmigraine.com to find a headache specialist, and don’t
live a maybe life.” This line uses neoliberal pressures to persuade the
audience that they can and should be improved.
Discussion
questions:
1.
How
can pharmaceutical advertisements masquerading as public service announcements be
harmful to the public?
2.
How
can medicalization’s promise that naming an illness means healing the illness
affect the patient-doctor dynamic?
3.
What
other health related issues lend themselves to neoliberal pressures of health optimization?
Why is the push to always improve health so persuasive in today’s culture?
Since I am going into the pharmaceutical sales field this summer, I have given a lot of thought about the way companies advertise their product. Also, I have looked into the way that these companies use PSAs to interpellate, or call forth a certain type of patient. To answer your first question, pharmaceutical advertisements that use PSAs are harmful to the public because they cause society to believe a greater problem exists from normal conditions. For example, I might see a PSA about symptoms of fatigue, stress, and sleepiness. I would think oh wow I really have these common, everyday symptoms especially around finals time. Maybe I do have this disorder that is being medicalized by this PSA. Then I would proceeded to talk to my doctor about getting put on a medication for these symptoms. Prior to my visit, the doctor would have been reached by pharmactuical companies that want him or her to prescribe their medication. More particularly the company that put out the PSA. In conclusion, the doctor will be most likely to give the patient the drug that was created by the PSA.
ReplyDeletePSAs can sometimes be harmful to the public because they interpellate one to take action of a disorder he or she might not have. He or she just come across the PSA at the right kairos when he or she has these common symptoms. Then he or she would be taking a medication that isn't necessary for him or her. I believe that if society was more critical when listening to a PSA that they would be less harmful to the public.
In response to discussion question 2, I think medicalizing an illness can both improve and possibly hurt the doctor-patient relationship. It can help because patient's tend to feel more satisfied after receiving a diagnosis. Patients learn to trust their doctors a little more when a diagnosis is made simply because they (the patient) did not come up with the diagnosis. Putting a name on their symptoms allows the patient to accept what the doctor says as the truth and to further trust them in regards to treatment options and next steps. If treatment is a positive option, then the dynamics of the relationship can change for the better. As Segal pointed out, the doctor-patient relationship has changed over time from the doctor being an authority figure to him/her being a partner with the patient. Making a diagnosis is the doctor's part, and following through with treatment is both the doctor and the patient's responsibility.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I also think making a diagnosis and expecting treatment can harm the doctor-patient relationship. If the patient associates a diagnosis with treatment, s/he might expect for his/her illness to actually be treatable; and this is not always the case. If the patient puts all of their trust in the doctor, then they will be let down if certain treatments do not work (or do not work fast enough).
I personally suffered from migraines as a kid, so I know how it feels to want answers from my doctor(s) and not get them. Even though I was young (and not as educated as those who would respond to your ad), I expected my doctor to have the answers and treatment to make my migraines stop. I never received a specific diagnosis, and I think it would have made me feel better if I had (even if it was devastating). It is easy to understand why one would want to name his/her symptoms because they're not left wondering "What the heck is wrong with me?"
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think you made a really great argument here. Although I don’t recall ever actually seeing the advertisement, the way you described it makes it seem inherently misleading.
ReplyDelete1. As you stated in your post, unsponsored advertisements, or public service announcements, carry a substantial credibility with the general public. When pharmaceutical companies create advertisements that appear to be PSAs, then, this credibility becomes tainted. If individuals are not paying close attention to Allergan’s advertisement, they will probably assume it is unsponsored, and thus think the drug is essentially being promoted by the government. In turn, individuals will be called into patienthood. If the government says I have a problem, then it must be common and normal. In reality, however, this message is actually being delivered by a company trying to make a profit by selling their product (“medicine as business”).
2. This is a question that we have definitely explored throughout the semester. As we learned, a common metaphor within the realm of health and medicine is “diagnosis is health.” When individuals are able to receive a specific diagnosis for a problem, they often feel relieved to know that it actually exists. This affects the patient-doctor dynamic significantly in regard to the persuasion that occurs within their interactions. If a patient wants to hear from their doctor that they have a named problem, then they will very likely act in a manner to persuade their doctor that they do indeed have it. This is extremely relevant to the concept of interpellation, in that we take on certain characteristics, symptoms, etc. that are expected of a certain diagnosis.