In the dubious privacy of a bowling club, two balding, grey-haired men are talking about sex. Their eyebrows raised, their bellies pulling slightly at the fabric of their maroon team shirts, one tells the other how pharmaceuticals have helped him in the bedroom.
“Viagra spanglechuff,” he says gleefully, chuckling with self-satisfaction. “Dip minky Viagra!”
That's the 2007 campaign by Toronto-based ad agency Taxi for the infamous little blue pill. The gibberish is a more creative way of masking content that wouldn't make it onto the airwaves otherwise. But the offending language isn't the sordid details of elderly sex lives – it's the description of what Viagra actually does.
In Canada, prescription drug advertising is strictly regulated, and this kind of regulation, it seems, is on everyone's lips these days. New developments in the advertising laws have called into question how marketing should be legislated in this country.
The creatives at Taxi had to develop “the international language of Viagra” because in Canada, the English language wouldn't do. Ads can state the name of the drug, but Health Canada does not allow them to say what it's for. This kind of direct-to-consumer drug advertising is allowed stateside, however, and one Canadian company took notice.
A legal challenge of the rules governing pharmaceutical advertising in Canada, launched in 2005 by CanWest Global Communications Corp. and supported by other media companies, was put on the backburner recently, and now there are questions as to whether it will be revived.
The court challenge was due to be heard last month, but CanWest requested an adjournment while it seeks to restructure its operations.
“They were looking for advertising dollars,” said Barbara Mintzes of the Centre for Health Services and Policy Research at the University of British Columbia.
The potential boost in ad dollars is nothing to ignore. According to Prof. Mintzes, from 1995 to 2006, $191-million was spent on branded and unbranded drug advertising. By contrast, in the U.S., where direct ads are allowed, the industry spent almost $38-billion in the same time period.
That's a big slice of marketing pie. But the lawyer representing a number of groups opposing the case said the ban on direct ads, which has been in place for decades, must be upheld.
“Decisions about health and medication are decisions doctors are perfectly capable of making without having their conversations gerrymandered by the promotional activities of drug companies,” said Steven Shrybman, a lawyer with Sack Goldblatt Mitchell in Ottawa.
Canada also allows advertising of non-prescription drugs, certain vaccines, and direct marketing to doctors. But Prof. Mintzes says the drugs that do get advertised often have safety concerns.
The drug with the most advertising spending is Celebrex, she said, an anti-inflammatory pain and arthritis drug.
“Health Canada has put out three safety advisories about Celebrex, and it's still being advertised,” she said. According to her research, in 2006, it was the most heavily advertised drug in Canada at 44 per cent of the industry's drug ad spending.
Prof. Mintzes is sympathetic to complaints from Canadian media companies like CanWest that U.S. commercials flowing across the border mix up the message to consumers. But both she and Mr. Shrybman argue that's no reason to open up the regulations.
“Every regulatory and public policy official in the [Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development] agrees it would be an error,” Mr. Shrybman said.
“The thing is, prescription drugs are not normal consumer products,” Prof. Mintzes said. “If you look at the ads in the U.S., they're really being sold as magical solutions to people's life problems, and they're not.”
