Connect with us

Spread & Containment

Nothing to laugh about: What happened to humor in pharma advertising?

When Bruno Abner and his creative team started working up campaign ideas for a new hormone-free contraceptive for women called Phexxi, they knew they wanted…

Published

on

When Bruno Abner and his creative team started working up campaign ideas for a new hormone-free contraceptive for women called Phexxi, they knew they wanted the message to be bold and unapologetic.

Then along came actress Annie Murphy. Best known for her comedic turn as Alexis Rose on the hit show “Schitt’s Creek,” Murphy opened the door to humor when McCann Health’s client Evofem Biosciences suggested her as a spokesperson.

Abner, the chief creative officer at McCann Health New Jersey, had already assembled an all-women creative team who were working on groundbreaking ways to stand out in the “stuck in the past” contraception category. The team had already settled on a “House Rules” frank-talking theme, but the addition of Murphy presented the opportunity to add humor to the evolving work.

“I didn’t want it to look like an ‘ad ad’ or a functional ad. I wanted people to watch it and have joy and a little bit of fun,” Abner said. The humor was purposeful in “making a message appealing and creating contrast in the pharma category. We tried to make it fun, entertaining, very bold and balanced. The humor helped balance the bold and punchiness of the ad.”

The result? A confident sex-positive humorous ad for Evofem and Phexxi that grabbed media headlines and consumer attention, while piling up ad industry creative awards and boosting bottom line sales.

It may not be a coincidence that Phexxi’s much-lauded campaign debuted at a time when Americans hadn’t had much to laugh about over the past few years. The Covid-19 pandemic, political turmoil, renewed social justice efforts to fight racism and raise health equity, climate change disasters piling up and a rollercoaster economy all added up to a pretty bleak backdrop.

Yet it may be just the right time. People still want humor from brands and marketing. Nine out of 10 people (91%) prefer brands to be funny, and 72% would choose a brand that uses humor over a competitor that doesn’t, according to Oracle’s recent Happiness Report.

So what’s stopping them? The bosses apparently — 95% of business leaders surveyed in the report said they are afraid of using humor in messages to customers.

Polly Wyn Jones

Whether it’s C-suite management or just resistance to trying something new, the decline of funny in advertising is apparent.

Only about one-third of all ads today use humor, the culminating effect of a long slow decline in funny trends in marketing over the past 20 years, said Polly Wyn Jones, global knowledge manager, creative, at Kantar marketing and data analytics company. And it’s even lower in healthcare where only about 20% of the ads are humorous.

Kantar research finds that about 7% of all advertising is considered very funny — versus just lighthearted or mildy humorous — but that percentage in healthcare again tracks much lower at just 3% falling into the very funny category.

Jones lamented not only the loss of levity, but also the potential to make stronger, better connections with consumers. Humor ranks as the top characteristic that makes people pay attention to ads, followed by music, storytelling and celebrities, in Kantar analytics.

“With so many different issues coming to the fore, people are a bit nervous about using humor,” she said. “It’s easier not to do it because then you don’t get it wrong. But what we’re suggesting is that you’re really missing a trick if you don’t do it because it’s the thing that’s most likely to make people receptive to your advertising.”

Still, pharma advertising is different, right? Maybe humor doesn’t have a place in pharma marketing as it might for consumer products like laundry detergent, car insurance and snack food brands. After all, many health conditions are serious and even non-life-threatening conditions carry emotional weight for the people living with them.

That’s not necessarily true, experts said. No category is absolutely off limits when it comes to humor in advertising, although the experts interviewed for this story did agree that judicious use and case-by-case consideration are important in healthcare and pharma marketing.

Adam Hessel, chief creative officer at Ogilvy Health, said humor in pharma can be a differentiator for pharma companies and brands and “it’s there for the taking” for agencies and brands bold enough to try.

“To me, comedy and entertainment make you sit back, take you for a little ride and say ‘ok, that was a great little moment,’” he said. “And it’s doable anywhere, right? It’s just about having the right brief, the right creative, and the right clients that understand this is really going to move the needle for your product in a good way.”

No one is arguing of course that all pharma advertising should be funny. Yet the appropriate time, place and message can strike funny bones and bolster brand recognition.

For FCB Health New York creatives working on a campaign for OTC stool softener Colace last year, humor became the emotional connection to consumers and patients.

“If you’re not triggering emotions and feelings through your communications, you’re probably not being heard by your audience,” said Melissa Jean Ludwig, VP and creative director at the agency. “With humor specifically, we really feel that it helps people broach topics that are sometimes difficult to talk about — in this case, pooping.”

Melissa Jean Ludwig

“There’s a right place and a right time for using humor, and if we can check both of those boxes, that opens the door for us to go for it,” she added.

The Colace campaign, anchored by a 30-second video ad, featured animated animals and objects such as pineapples and a watermelon acting out the upbeat original jingle that related difficulty pooping to humorous analogies — and drove a big response. It’s racked up almost 1.5 million combined video views across social media including YouTube, Ludwig said.

Erica Thwaites, FCB Health VP and creative director and co-creator on the Colace campaign, said humor through icons, imagery and songs can create more memorable work.

Erica Thwaites

“People don’t often want to remember the heavy stuff. So I think with humorous advertising there is a hope that people can hold onto and remember,” she said. “… I’m optimistic that the pendulum is swinging to the lighter side of things — or maybe I should say the non-pharma-y side of things? We’ve been hearing from clients who are saying ‘I don’t want this to feel like pharma.’”

Humor though is subjective. What may be funny to one person — or even 10,000 people — may not be funny to others. That means “doing the homework” to make sure the humor is on target and resonates appropriately, said Michelle Ziekert, Eversana Intouch executive creative director said.

Target audiences though will determine the level of acceptable humor, she said, for instance, the oncology category where disease may be incurable would seem to not be an appropriate place. And that may be true for pharma marketers, but as Ziekert noticed when doing research for oncology products, she found “tons of humor” from patients themselves on social media.

“The audience is allowed to do a lot of humor, but we as marketers are not able to encroach in that space,” she said. “There’s a line of respectability. If I myself have a condition, I may be able to make fun of that condition … There was one in cancer specifically with a person (on social media) talking about how much weight she lost as a side benefit that nobody talked about, and that may be funny when a person with cancer says it, but if we were to say that on TV, we’d be crossing a line that would show a lack of respect.”

Even treading carefully with humor though, pharma brands still need to be prepared for possible backlash.

“As a content creator, you need to be ready for all manner of responses and handle them respectfully. ‘We appreciate your feedback.’ …  But having done the homework is the entry fee,” Ziekert said.

The homework is testing, testing and more testing — with real people, patients, physicians, caregivers and more and in real-world channels as well before launching a campaign. Consultants such as Kantar have developed scientific methods to track reactions to humor at detailed level.

Facial coding, for instance, records the changing expressions on peoples’ faces as they’re watching an ad. Kantar also asks the viewers questions about the humor and emotions felt and syncs the data.

“We can check at which point, if you’ve made a joke, at what point are people actually finding it funny — and sometimes that may be a completely wrong point,” Jones said. “The idea is that the point where you see the rising and the bit where they find it funny that kind of needs to be around the brand. If you can get your brand in at those points as well, you’ve got a winning ad.”

Despite overall dropoffs in humor in general advertising and in pharma, there is some hope for the future and a return to more lightheartedness.

“The mood of the pandemic affected the mood of how creative was being evaluated both internally at agencies and by clients. It definitely put a certain kind of tone on the work that I think is going away,” Hessel said.

And considering the 20-year humor ad slide, it wasn’t just the pandemic that pushed more serious themes and tones.

“Even before the pandemic, we had a phase where there was a lot of heartfelt, purposeful advertising which became known as ‘sadvertising,’ It was all very emotional but sad at the same time, and I think people were beginning to reach a point where they really would like humor to come back,” Jones said.

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

Chinese migration to US is nothing new – but the reasons for recent surge at Southern border are

A gloomier economic outlook in China and tightening state control have combined with the influence of social media in encouraging migration.

Published

on

By

Chinese migrants wait for a boat after having walked across the Darien Gap from Colombia to Panama. AP Photo/Natacha Pisarenko

The brief closure of the Darien Gap – a perilous 66-mile jungle journey linking South American and Central America – in February 2024 temporarily halted one of the Western Hemisphere’s busiest migration routes. It also highlighted its importance to a small but growing group of people that depend on that pass to make it to the U.S.: Chinese migrants.

While a record 2.5 million migrants were detained at the United States’ southwestern land border in 2023, only about 37,000 were from China.

I’m a scholar of migration and China. What I find most remarkable in these figures is the speed with which the number of Chinese migrants is growing. Nearly 10 times as many Chinese migrants crossed the southern border in 2023 as in 2022. In December 2023 alone, U.S. Border Patrol officials reported encounters with about 6,000 Chinese migrants, in contrast to the 900 they reported a year earlier in December 2022.

The dramatic uptick is the result of a confluence of factors that range from a slowing Chinese economy and tightening political control by President Xi Jinping to the easy access to online information on Chinese social media about how to make the trip.

Middle-class migrants

Journalists reporting from the border have generalized that Chinese migrants come largely from the self-employed middle class. They are not rich enough to use education or work opportunities as a means of entry, but they can afford to fly across the world.

According to a report from Reuters, in many cases those attempting to make the crossing are small-business owners who saw irreparable damage to their primary or sole source of income due to China’s “zero COVID” policies. The migrants are women, men and, in some cases, children accompanying parents from all over China.

Chinese nationals have long made the journey to the United States seeking economic opportunity or political freedom. Based on recent media interviews with migrants coming by way of South America and the U.S.’s southern border, the increase in numbers seems driven by two factors.

First, the most common path for immigration for Chinese nationals is through a student visa or H1-B visa for skilled workers. But travel restrictions during the early months of the pandemic temporarily stalled migration from China. Immigrant visas are out of reach for many Chinese nationals without family or vocation-based preferences, and tourist visas require a personal interview with a U.S. consulate to gauge the likelihood of the traveler returning to China.

Social media tutorials

Second, with the legal routes for immigration difficult to follow, social media accounts have outlined alternatives for Chinese who feel an urgent need to emigrate. Accounts on Douyin, the TikTok clone available in mainland China, document locations open for visa-free travel by Chinese passport holders. On TikTok itself, migrants could find information on where to cross the border, as well as information about transportation and smugglers, commonly known as “snakeheads,” who are experienced with bringing migrants on the journey north.

With virtual private networks, immigrants can also gather information from U.S. apps such as X, YouTube, Facebook and other sites that are otherwise blocked by Chinese censors.

Inspired by social media posts that both offer practical guides and celebrate the journey, thousands of Chinese migrants have been flying to Ecuador, which allows visa-free travel for Chinese citizens, and then making their way over land to the U.S.-Mexican border.

This journey involves trekking through the Darien Gap, which despite its notoriety as a dangerous crossing has become an increasingly common route for migrants from Venezuela, Colombia and all over the world.

In addition to information about crossing the Darien Gap, these social media posts highlight the best places to cross the border. This has led to a large share of Chinese asylum seekers following the same path to Mexico’s Baja California to cross the border near San Diego.

Chinese migration to US is nothing new

The rapid increase in numbers and the ease of accessing information via social media on their smartphones are new innovations. But there is a longer history of Chinese migration to the U.S. over the southern border – and at the hands of smugglers.

From 1882 to 1943, the United States banned all immigration by male Chinese laborers and most Chinese women. A combination of economic competition and racist concerns about Chinese culture and assimilability ensured that the Chinese would be the first ethnic group to enter the United States illegally.

With legal options for arrival eliminated, some Chinese migrants took advantage of the relative ease of movement between the U.S. and Mexico during those years. While some migrants adopted Mexican names and spoke enough Spanish to pass as migrant workers, others used borrowed identities or paperwork from Chinese people with a right of entry, like U.S.-born citizens. Similarly to what we are seeing today, it was middle- and working-class Chinese who more frequently turned to illegal means. Those with money and education were able to circumvent the law by arriving as students or members of the merchant class, both exceptions to the exclusion law.

Though these Chinese exclusion laws officially ended in 1943, restrictions on migration from Asia continued until Congress revised U.S. immigration law in the Hart-Celler Act in 1965. New priorities for immigrant visas that stressed vocational skills as well as family reunification, alongside then Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping’s policies of “reform and opening,” helped many Chinese migrants make their way legally to the U.S. in the 1980s and 1990s.

Even after the restrictive immigration laws ended, Chinese migrants without the education or family connections often needed for U.S. visas continued to take dangerous routes with the help of “snakeheads.”

One notorious incident occurred in 1993, when a ship called the Golden Venture ran aground near New York, resulting in the drowning deaths of 10 Chinese migrants and the arrest and conviction of the snakeheads attempting to smuggle hundreds of Chinese migrants into the United States.

Existing tensions

Though there is plenty of precedent for Chinese migrants arriving without documentation, Chinese asylum seekers have better odds of success than many of the other migrants making the dangerous journey north.

An estimated 55% of Chinese asylum seekers are successful in making their claims, often citing political oppression and lack of religious freedom in China as motivations. By contrast, only 29% of Venezuelans seeking asylum in the U.S. have their claim granted, and the number is even lower for Colombians, at 19%.

The new halt on the migratory highway from the south has affected thousands of new migrants seeking refuge in the U.S. But the mix of push factors from their home country and encouragement on social media means that Chinese migrants will continue to seek routes to America.

And with both migration and the perceived threat from China likely to be features of the upcoming U.S. election, there is a risk that increased Chinese migration could become politicized, leaning further into existing tensions between Washington and Beijing.

Meredith Oyen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Vaccine-skeptical mothers say bad health care experiences made them distrust the medical system

Vaccine skepticism, and the broader medical mistrust and far-reaching anxieties it reflects, is not just a fringe position in the 21st century.

Women's own negative medical experiences influence their vaccine decisions for their kids. AP Photo/Ted S. Warren

Why would a mother reject safe, potentially lifesaving vaccines for her child?

Popular writing on vaccine skepticism often denigrates white and middle-class mothers who reject some or all recommended vaccines as hysterical, misinformed, zealous or ignorant. Mainstream media and medical providers increasingly dismiss vaccine refusal as a hallmark of American fringe ideology, far-right radicalization or anti-intellectualism.

But vaccine skepticism, and the broader medical mistrust and far-reaching anxieties it reflects, is not just a fringe position.

Pediatric vaccination rates had already fallen sharply before the COVID-19 pandemic, ushering in the return of measles, mumps and chickenpox to the U.S. in 2019. Four years after the pandemic’s onset, a growing number of Americans doubt the safety, efficacy and necessity of routine vaccines. Childhood vaccination rates have declined substantially across the U.S., which public health officials attribute to a “spillover” effect from pandemic-related vaccine skepticism and blame for the recent measles outbreak. Almost half of American mothers rated the risk of side effects from the MMR vaccine as medium or high in a 2023 survey by Pew Research.

Recommended vaccines go through rigorous testing and evaluation, and the most infamous charges of vaccine-induced injury have been thoroughly debunked. How do so many mothers – primary caregivers and health care decision-makers for their families – become wary of U.S. health care and one of its most proven preventive technologies?

I’m a cultural anthropologist who studies the ways feelings and beliefs circulate in American society. To investigate what’s behind mothers’ vaccine skepticism, I interviewed vaccine-skeptical mothers about their perceptions of existing and novel vaccines. What they told me complicates sweeping and overly simplified portrayals of their misgivings by pointing to the U.S. health care system itself. The medical system’s failures and harms against women gave rise to their pervasive vaccine skepticism and generalized medical mistrust.

The seeds of women’s skepticism

I conducted this ethnographic research in Oregon from 2020 to 2021 with predominantly white mothers between the ages of 25 and 60. My findings reveal new insights about the origins of vaccine skepticism among this demographic. These women traced their distrust of vaccines, and of U.S. health care more generally, to ongoing and repeated instances of medical harm they experienced from childhood through childbirth.

girl sitting on exam table faces a doctor viewer can see from behind
A woman’s own childhood mistreatment by a doctor can shape her health care decisions for the next generation. FatCamera/E+ via Getty Images

As young girls in medical offices, they were touched without consent, yelled at, disbelieved or threatened. One mother, Susan, recalled her pediatrician abruptly lying her down and performing a rectal exam without her consent at the age of 12. Another mother, Luna, shared how a pediatrician once threatened to have her institutionalized when she voiced anxiety at a routine physical.

As women giving birth, they often felt managed, pressured or discounted. One mother, Meryl, told me, “I felt like I was coerced under distress into Pitocin and induction” during labor. Another mother, Hallie, shared, “I really battled with my provider” throughout the childbirth experience.

Together with the convoluted bureaucracy of for-profit health care, experiences of medical harm contributed to “one million little touch points of information,” in one mother’s phrase, that underscored the untrustworthiness and harmful effects of U.S. health care writ large.

A system that doesn’t serve them

Many mothers I interviewed rejected the premise that public health entities such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration had their children’s best interests at heart. Instead, they tied childhood vaccination and the more recent development of COVID-19 vaccines to a bloated pharmaceutical industry and for-profit health care model. As one mother explained, “The FDA is not looking out for our health. They’re looking out for their wealth.”

After ongoing negative medical encounters, the women I interviewed lost trust not only in providers but the medical system. Frustrating experiences prompted them to “do their own research” in the name of bodily autonomy. Such research often included books, articles and podcasts deeply critical of vaccines, public health care and drug companies.

These materials, which have proliferated since 2020, cast light on past vaccine trials gone awry, broader histories of medical harm and abuse, the rapid growth of the recommended vaccine schedule in the late 20th century and the massive profits reaped from drug development and for-profit health care. They confirmed and hardened women’s suspicions about U.S. health care.

hands point to a handwritten vaccination record
The number of recommended childhood vaccines has increased over time. Mike Adaskaveg/MediaNews Group/Boston Herald via Getty Images

The stories these women told me add nuance to existing academic research into vaccine skepticism. Most studies have considered vaccine skepticism among primarily white and middle-class parents to be an outgrowth of today’s neoliberal parenting and intensive mothering. Researchers have theorized vaccine skepticism among white and well-off mothers to be an outcome of consumer health care and its emphasis on individual choice and risk reduction. Other researchers highlight vaccine skepticism as a collective identity that can provide mothers with a sense of belonging.

Seeing medical care as a threat to health

The perceptions mothers shared are far from isolated or fringe, and they are not unreasonable. Rather, they represent a growing population of Americans who hold the pervasive belief that U.S. health care harms more than it helps.

Data suggests that the number of Americans harmed in the course of treatment remains high, with incidents of medical error in the U.S. outnumbering those in peer countries, despite more money being spent per capita on health care. One 2023 study found that diagnostic error, one kind of medical error, accounted for 371,000 deaths and 424,000 permanent disabilities among Americans every year.

Studies reveal particularly high rates of medical error in the treatment of vulnerable communities, including women, people of color, disabled, poor, LGBTQ+ and gender-nonconforming individuals and the elderly. The number of U.S. women who have died because of pregnancy-related causes has increased substantially in recent years, with maternal death rates doubling between 1999 and 2019.

The prevalence of medical harm points to the relevance of philosopher Ivan Illich’s manifesto against the “disease of medical progress.” In his 1982 book “Medical Nemesis,” he insisted that rather than being incidental, harm flows inevitably from the structure of institutionalized and for-profit health care itself. Illich wrote, “The medical establishment has become a major threat to health,” and has created its own “epidemic” of iatrogenic illness – that is, illness caused by a physician or the health care system itself.

Four decades later, medical mistrust among Americans remains alarmingly high. Only 23% of Americans express high confidence in the medical system. The United States ranks 24th out of 29 peer high-income countries for the level of public trust in medical providers.

For people like the mothers I interviewed, who have experienced real or perceived harm at the hands of medical providers; have felt belittled, dismissed or disbelieved in a doctor’s office; or spent countless hours fighting to pay for, understand or use health benefits, skepticism and distrust are rational responses to lived experience. These attitudes do not emerge solely from ignorance, conspiracy thinking, far-right extremism or hysteria, but rather the historical and ongoing harms endemic to the U.S. health care system itself.

Johanna Richlin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Survey Shows Declining Concerns Among Americans About COVID-19

Survey Shows Declining Concerns Among Americans About COVID-19

A new survey reveals that only 20% of Americans view covid-19 as "a major threat"…

Published

on

Survey Shows Declining Concerns Among Americans About COVID-19

A new survey reveals that only 20% of Americans view covid-19 as "a major threat" to the health of the US population - a sharp decline from a high of 67% in July 2020.

(SARMDY/Shutterstock)

What's more, the Pew Research Center survey conducted from Feb. 7 to Feb. 11 showed that just 10% of Americans are concerned that they will  catch the disease and require hospitalization.

"This data represents a low ebb of public concern about the virus that reached its height in the summer and fall of 2020, when as many as two-thirds of Americans viewed COVID-19 as a major threat to public health," reads the report, which was published March 7.

According to the survey, half of the participants understand the significance of researchers and healthcare providers in understanding and treating long COVID - however 27% of participants consider this issue less important, while 22% of Americans are unaware of long COVID.

What's more, while Democrats were far more worried than Republicans in the past, that gap has narrowed significantly.

"In the pandemic’s first year, Democrats were routinely about 40 points more likely than Republicans to view the coronavirus as a major threat to the health of the U.S. population. This gap has waned as overall levels of concern have fallen," reads the report.

More via the Epoch Times;

The survey found that three in ten Democrats under 50 have received an updated COVID-19 vaccine, compared with 66 percent of Democrats ages 65 and older.

Moreover, 66 percent of Democrats ages 65 and older have received the updated COVID-19 vaccine, while only 24 percent of Republicans ages 65 and older have done so.

“This 42-point partisan gap is much wider now than at other points since the start of the outbreak. For instance, in August 2021, 93 percent of older Democrats and 78 percent of older Republicans said they had received all the shots needed to be fully vaccinated (a 15-point gap),” it noted.

COVID-19 No Longer an Emergency

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently issued its updated recommendations for the virus, which no longer require people to stay home for five days after testing positive for COVID-19.

The updated guidance recommends that people who contracted a respiratory virus stay home, and they can resume normal activities when their symptoms improve overall and their fever subsides for 24 hours without medication.

“We still must use the commonsense solutions we know work to protect ourselves and others from serious illness from respiratory viruses, this includes vaccination, treatment, and staying home when we get sick,” CDC director Dr. Mandy Cohen said in a statement.

The CDC said that while the virus remains a threat, it is now less likely to cause severe illness because of widespread immunity and improved tools to prevent and treat the disease.

Importantly, states and countries that have already adjusted recommended isolation times have not seen increased hospitalizations or deaths related to COVID-19,” it stated.

The federal government suspended its free at-home COVID-19 test program on March 8, according to a website set up by the government, following a decrease in COVID-19-related hospitalizations.

According to the CDC, hospitalization rates for COVID-19 and influenza diseases remain “elevated” but are decreasing in some parts of the United States.

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/10/2024 - 22:45

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending