The Superbowl is exciting! It is quite natural to see provocative advertising. Including ads for lip gloss, “Duck Plump.” Some creative, living perhaps in LA or NYC, came up with this stuff and they may win an award at Cannes. However, we never see this type of thing for the pharma industry. Or do we? This ad was unfortunate, to say the least.
The DTC advertising in question came as a surprise. It was a very exciting game. Then in the third quarter, as the Chiefs were battling against the 49er’s, we were struck by a very strange ad. Spoiler alert, it was for Pfizer (although you would never guess if you were not in the industry). The opening scenes feature paintings and statues, including figures like Hippocrates, Copernicus, and Einstein, all singing Queen’s “Don’t Stop Me Now.” The twist? This was all about how Pfizer provides vital services to the public.
How Does Pfizer Relate to Science
The ad’s tonality is peculiar, commencing with cheerful and whimsical scientist imagery. It can evoke a positive emotional response or “Enjoyment” among viewers. Such emotional tonality might work well for a Pepsi commercial. However, it is incongruous for pharma and cancer treatment. The serious and personal nature of topics raised in this ad suggests a significant tonal mismatch. By comparison, consider the approach used in this ad very that of the recent Eli Lilly ad (used during the Olympics). This enterprise ad is subdued and respectful. The Pfizer ad is joyful but out of synch with the benefits that these medical treatments offer to patients with serious conditions (like cancer featured at the end of the ad).
Certainly, the core message is correct: “Here’s to Science” and “Here’s to the next fight.” These messages reflect the success that Pfizer’s scientists had developing a vaccine to prevent Covid.
However, pairing their efforts to the whimsical Queen song, “Don’t Stop Me Now” is completely out of character with this effort. The ad then transitions to a scene of a young girl who is completing cancer treatment. We suppose this is meant to highlight the outcome of these happy scientists? The ad is suggesting that we visit Pfizer’s website, #LetsOutdoCancer.com, to learn more about this commendable work. We are left asking, who truly benefits from this narrative?
Did It Work At All?
Given the issues we are raising, we honestly wondered if any research was done before releasing this ad. Fortunately, the company (System 1) conducting testing on this ad released information about that testing. In an article they report that the ad “scores 3.8-Stars, which was enough to make it part of our “winning 11” group of the most effective Super Bowl spots this year.” Is this impartial applause for the ad? We think not. Their results were why the ad was “green lighted” for this event – and obviously that was a big decision. Other impartial agencies, including Kantar (known for excellent copy testing) did not identify this as a strong ad. There is a big difference in the quantitative methodology used by System 1 compared with companies like Kantar and Ipsos. Emotional response is the key metric for System 1. The ad is very upbeat, so we are not surprised that it triggers a positive emotional response during research. However, “Happiness” and “Fun” often do not mix well with treatment for serious medical conditions. In the oncology category, patients relate best to expressions of “Hope” and “Empowerment.” Advertising from both KEYTRUDA and KISQALI does a great job of setting that emotional tonality.
Our Approach To Advertising Evaluation
Over the past 20 years, we have tested a wide range of patient communication efforts. We have identified the components of effective Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) advertising. Based on our testing, we have established a set of best practices that help us in the evaluation of advertising:
- The first step is capturing the audience’s attention, crucial establishing engagement with the ad. Based on the quirky nature of this ad, it likely garnered audience attention. So, it achieved the first goal.
- The second requirement for strong DTC advertising is that it establish good “branded memorability.” This means that when the audience sees it, they can tie it to the brand, or in this case the company advertised. Despite achieving good engagement levels we doubt this ad achieved brand connection. Independent testing (not System 1) supports this conclusion.
- Effective advertising should convey a clear message. Pfizer’s likely intention was to communicate positive societal contributions and celebrate its scientists. Pfizer has a good reason to be proud of its contributions and the work of its scientists. However, amidst the overwhelming montage, this message appears to be lost. By comparison, prior advertising for Pfizer (“Science will win”) did an excellent job emphasizing this message. That prior approach was serious, which is consistent with the message that Pfizer is trying to drive home. We are left wondering, why did they move away from that style of communication?
How Will The Ad Perform With Target Audiences?
The data suggests that at a high cost (over $10MM), the ad was able to reach target audiences. With its shock value, it could break through with the large watching audience. However, the pivotal question remains: does this attention foster positive impressions for Pfizer? To answer this question, we should consider the key audiences and the desired outcomes of the advertising:
- First the general population. Pizer would like to improve public opinion of the company. Attitudes that were positive during Covid have since declined. A goal of this ad would be to turn that impression around, especially by emphasizing the contributions made by its scientists. The prior advertising from Pfizer did an excellent job of highlighting those contributions. Unfortunately, research conducted by AIM in 2021 showed that impressions of Pfizer were plummeting from its highwater mark during Covid. Our research suggests that Pfizer should stick to a serious approach highlighting its contributions to society. This “silly” approach is unlikely to improve perceptions of Pfizer in the minds of anybody who can link the ad to the company.
- A secondary target is Patients who use its medications, especially for the treatment of cancer. Pfizer wants to position itself as a leader in the fight against cancer. However, if the ad missed the mark on tonality, it would not have this positive effect either. Cancer patients may even find a “happiness” tonality offensive.
- A tertiary but important target are Healthcare Professionals who interact with Pfizer. They are most likely to recognize the important role that medications from Pfizer can play in treatment of their patients. However, they may also have found the playful tonality out of synch. We do not believe that this DTC marketing could improve their impressions of Pfizer.
What Are Others Saying About The Ad?
We are not alone remarking that the ad is not consistent with the image of Pfizer. The New York Times categorized Pfizer’s ad as a “Flagrant Misstep,” positioned worse than “Inoffensive but Forgettable.” The Times wrote: “The drug company invokes a long history of scientists, including Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, to celebrate its 175-year existence. Visually inventive, but there’s no vaccine against overreach.” In the future, we suggest that companies like Pfizer use a credible approach for testing their communication efforts. We are glad to share with any company how our approach has resulted in hard hitting and highly impactful creative efforts.