Don't all those ads advise "Ask your doctor about ..."? You can't just run down to CVS and buy a 30-day supply of Ozempic.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
National Advertisers and 55+ radio audiences
- Thread starter davideduardo
- Start date
But---and here's the thing:
The ads make you aware they exist and that they are FDA-approved options for your care. You don't have the power to buy them. The drug companies in this case are literally adding to your information sources rather than you flying completely blind and relying on a doctor who may never mention it to you because of time constraints, patient load, or favoritism toward another drug company.
I'm not saying Big Pharma has pure motives, but the end result is better for the consumer.
Thanks for the info. I'm actually considering a 2025 Subaru Forester for my next car.As I said earlier in the thread, while advertising for audiences 55 and older is not hopeless, older people do have brand preferences based on experience of perhaps 30 years or so of trying "the next best thing". It does take more ad money to convince them to change.
Part of the reason Pontiac died 2010 was that there wasn't a line of people habitually buying shiny new Pontiacs. The last one was 15 years ago. Statistically, the odds of anyone still driving a 15-year-old Pontiac being in the new car market is really, really low. And if they do, they're old enough to know Pontiac's gone, but that its sister divisions of GM---Chevy, Buick and Cadillac---are still with us (and these days likely to be under one roof).
I'm 69. The last Pontiac I even looked at when buying a car was in 1979, and that was spurred by my getting one as a rental car, not by any of their advertising.
"Love. It's what makes a Subaru a Subaru" has been a very successful ad campaign for the brand. Now, in addition to the additional exposures needed to convince 55+ buyers, we need a new age-specific ad campaign for a group of people (and again, I'll be 70 on my next birthday) that, on average, might have two more car purchases left in their life?
Also: The average age of a U.S. new car buyer in 2024 was 60.
The average age of a Subaru Forester (its best-selling model) buyer? 62.
Subaru Knows Its Forester Buyers And It Could Backfire On Them
Subaru, known for its deep understanding of its buyers, has designed the new 2025 Forester compact SUV with them in mind. However, this strategic move could potentially disrupt the Japanese automaker's market dynamics.www.torquenews.com
What I found out by doing some research, not by Subaru ads, is that the infotainment system has been updated to use Android Auto without plugging in the phone, and that it will automatically connect to what I was listening to previously without having to go through the whole pairing process each time. That's exactly what I've been looking for.
I'm in your demo, and what I care about is functionality, not fluff.
The lawyers make sure of that!
As an automotive journalist, I'll just note that the vast majority of new vehicles have wireless Android Auto and Apple CarPlay that do just that.
Not that I'm attempting to dissuade you from the Forester, but if you want to widen your search, it is by no means a Subaru exclusive.
Here's my review of the 2025 Forester, published May 7:
All New, Instantly Recognizable: The 2025 Subaru Forester Hybrid
The Forester enters the hybrid world.
www.mikehagertycars.com
So does marketing. The point of the ad is for the viewer to ask their doctor.
It's no different from "If you don't see Van de Kamp's at your grocer, ask for it." They're basically saying if your doctor hasn't told you about this treatment for your condition, ask.
The doctor can say no. Ideally, he or she will explain why what they're prescribing is the better choice. And again, the patient ends up with more information.
That's the point. The advertising is ALREADY being regulated. No need for an outright ban. Other than to control free speech.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
Because those are the regulations that properly require disclaimers. And -- as I said previously -- such advertising makes for a better doctor/patient dialogue because the patient is made aware of alternatives and can bring those up at their next appointment. As has been said ahead of this post, it is still going to be the physician's call as to whether or not to prescribe ... as it should be.
Isn't free speech protected in the public square, not on the government allocated airwaves?
It's protected in both. Radio and television's existence depends on the First Amendment.
I've had a good impression of the Forester for awhile, as you seem to, and now the infotainment update makes me even more likely to consider it.As an automotive journalist, I'll just note that the vast majority of new vehicles have wireless Android Auto and Apple CarPlay that do just that.
Not that I'm attempting to dissuade you from the Forester, but if you want to widen your search, it is by no means a Subaru exclusive.
Here's my review of the 2025 Forester, published May 7:
All New, Instantly Recognizable: The 2025 Subaru Forester Hybrid
The Forester enters the hybrid world.
I want to improve my gas mileage but don't think I put enough miles on the car to make the hybrid worthwhile.
I'll keep looking before I make a decision. Thanks for the info.
Then why can't you use the F-word on broadcast radio? And why can't you advertise liquor?
There is no ban on the specific word. Here are the rules:
Obscene, Indecent and Profane Broadcasts
Federal law prohibits obscene, indecent and profane content from being broadcast on the radio or TV.
A lot of it has to do with context. Several political officials said the F word during testimony broadcast on radio & TV. No fines,
A 40% improvement in your fuel economy is not insignificant, but the hybrid is $3,210 extra. That's a call you'd have to make, penciling out fuel savings over the length of ownership.
As Robert W. Morgan said, "You can say anything on the radio. Once."
The airwaves are (in theory) owned by the public. Broadcasters are licensed to use them to serve the public interest. In exchange, there are regulations intended to better serve the public.
Since the service is over the air and can be received by anyone with a radio, indecency and obscenity have been regulated ever since the Communications Act of 1934. As Big A says, there's no clause that specifically says "don't say ****", and you might be able to get away with it in some circumstances and some hours of the broadcast day.
The prohibition of hard liquor advertising goes way back and, frankly, I think is outdated. However, if you strip that, then the ban on tobacco advertising gets problematic.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
File under "pile on" to make the point stronger: Here are some more useful pharmaceuticals currently advertising that have been proven effective against whatever malady they were designed for (because if they weren't, they would not have gained FDA approval and be able to advertise at all):
Skyrizi (psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis)
Rexulti (depression)
Dupixent (excema, asthma, COPD)
Rinvoq (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis)
Caplyta (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder)
Jardiance (which I happen to be presently taking, as my nephrologist works to prevent my chronic kidney issues from also causing a stroke; it is also used to treat type-2 diabetes and heart failure)
Vraylar (bipolar disorder and depression)
I wonder if Senator Sanders' constituents suffer from any of those conditions. I suspect more than just a few of them do.
I think it boils down to this:
Pharmaceutical advertising is critical to both big pharma and the media that profit from it. The rest of us, not so much.
Then there's the line between legitimate drugs and the snake-oil that so populates the airwaves. It's another important source of revenue for broadcasters, no? Is that a good thing for the rest of the population?
Pharmaceutical advertising is critical to both big pharma and the media that profit from it. The rest of us, not so much.
Then there's the line between legitimate drugs and the snake-oil that so populates the airwaves. It's another important source of revenue for broadcasters, no? Is that a good thing for the rest of the population?
But as I said, all of that snake oil stuff, such as balance of nature, wouldn't be affected by the ban.
The prescription advertising is important to the public IF they're concerned about certain symptoms.
There is a three prong test to determine indecency or obscenity. It takes all three to be deemed indecent but only one to be obscene!There is no ban on the specific word. Here are the rules:
Obscene, Indecent and Profane Broadcasts
Federal law prohibits obscene, indecent and profane content from being broadcast on the radio or TV.www.fcc.gov
A lot of it has to do with context. Several political officials said the F word during testimony broadcast on radio & TV. No fines,