Analysis:
 |
| Screenshots of Phil Mickelson in Enbrel TV commercial advertisement |
- · Links to video clips of both Enbrel commercials featuring Phil Mickelson:
·
On average, American
adults are exposed to around an hour of advertisements a day through different
media outlets like television, the internet, or mobile devices.
Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs has become
increasingly popular in the last couple of decades, and there has been an increase
in the use of celebrity endorsers in these advertisements. Pharmaceutical
companies in the US use these persuasive advertisements to promote their drugs
by informing the audience of what they are and how they can help the
consumer. For this reason, I chose to
rhetorically analyze two direct-to-consumer television commercials for the
prescription, drug Enbrel featuring professional golfer Phil
Mickelson, who suffers from psoriatic arthritis.
·
In my rhetorical
analysis, I make the following arguments and the intertwined implications:
a)
Both the pharmaceutical
companies, Amgen and Pfizer (who together branded Enbrel), and the chosen celebrity endorser, professional golfer
Phil Mickelson, act as rhetors for this rhetorical artifact.
b)
How both of these
rhetors use different rhetorical strategies like the proofs of ethos and pathos, to inform and persuade the target audience of television
watchers by making them aware of the Enbrel
brand while also piquing their interest in the bio-pharmaceutical drug and
persuading them to seek more information on it, since it cannot actually be
purchased without consulting a doctor and getting a prescription.
i) Ethos is high in regards to the credibility of large
pharmaceutical companies that have put out successful and helpful drugs in the
past, and also in regards to Phil Mickelson’s personal testimony being an
active patient treated regularly with Enbrel
for his psoriatic arthritis.
ii) Pathos is used through the general likeability and
popularity of Phil Mickelson, who had recently won the Masters when he was
diagnosed with the disease and started promoting Enbrel.
c)
How the persuasive
message of the advertisement leads to the possible medicalization of minor
aches and pains that people may self-diagnose as a more serious disease that Enbrel could help them treat.
i)
Additionally, how
self-optimization and interpellation stem from this persuasive message that
makes average American consumers seek out further information on the drug.
·
Discussion questions:
a)
What are rhetorical
strengths and weaknesses of having a famous athlete as a rhetor for a prescription
drug commercial?
b)
Should the use of
celebrity/athlete endorsements in health/medicine rhetorical artifacts be looked
into by officials since they have a direct effect on the wellbeing of average
American consumers?
I think that direct-to-consumer advertisements should absolutely be regulated by officials whether a celebrity endorsement is used or not. Endorsements are just another tactic of advertising used to persuade audiences. No matter what strategy is used in pharmaceutical commercials, the public must be critical consumers of these advertisements because, like the discussion question mentions, it does affect the wellbeing of average American consumers. This is because of the implications of bringing medications to consumer awareness. More money will be spent on diagnostics and medications. Doctors may be persuaded to prescribe medicine that is unnecessary. More Americans will be living on medication when there may not be any need for it. All of these are reason as to why direct-to-consumer ads should be regulated.
ReplyDeleteI think having famous athletes as rhetors for prescription drug commercials affects people in different ways. For some, it may persuade them to look into or buy the product, but for others it completely turns them off to the product. As for strengths of having one, the audience can see that the advertisers discussed and made a contract with a celebrity to endorse their product, which may seem more reliable than a commercial for a new prescription drug a person has never even heard of. Many people trust celebrity endorsements, especially if they like the particular celebrity, and are completely persuaded to try the products. On the contrary, there are weaknesses to this as well. Lots of consumers see having famous athletes as rhetors in a commercial as a scheme, and don't trust that the athlete has even touched the product. I cannot say for sure the terms of using celebrities in commercials, but I cannot imagine that all of these endorsers actually use the products. Having famous athletes in commercials for prescription drugs can also raise the issue of if they are using this drug, and what if something goes wrong with it? What if there is a terrible medical situation with the drug for an average person, is the celebrity still tied to it? Many prescription drugs end up being taken off the market because there are too many negative side-effects. A celebrity endorsing one of these prescriptions could alter their reputation.
ReplyDeleteI think these endorsements should absolutely be looked into by officials, because as you said, they affect real people's lives. It's important that a celebrity endorsed advertisement doesn't end up being for a prescription medication that harms anyone who tries it.
I have always been heavily against the pharmaceutical industry simply because of the lengths they will go to sell a product designed to help people at an astronomical price, even when it is relatively the same drug as the store brand version of the medication. There is great strength in using an athlete for a prescription drug commercial, because athletes are often regarded highly as the epitome of physical fitness. By advertising the weakness of someone who has achieved so much athletically, it takes advantage of the self-optimization mentality that we as a society are socialized to fall prey to. There are relatively few weaknesses as far as the pharmaceutical industry is concerned, because it is more the celebrities image being associated with the product. Endorsements are nothing more than another source of income for celebrities, so I do not feel that they should be looked into. However, if the person were a medical professional, I would have a different opinion. In the end, the celebrity is only selling their image and opinion to the people, rather than a product or factual claim. It should be the American consumer's job to be skeptical of these endorsements, not necessarily any regulating officials.
ReplyDeleteI believe that having an athlete as a rhetor for a prescription drug is very advantageous for the company. Like Robbie said, athletes are typically viewed as the highest level of health and fitness, and for a big name athlete to attach his or her name to a health product is a very powerful persuasive tool. It is dangerous though for the consumer when an athlete has been tied to a bogus product. And although there is this danger, it should be the consumer's responsibility to make educated and informed decisions. If they are buying and consuming a product strictly because a person's name or face is connected to it without looking into the potential consequences then I just feel sorry for them.
ReplyDelete