My topic of a researched argument is that whether direct-to-consumers (DTC) advertising, as one of the most effective forms of mass communications, should be more regulated than it is now. This paper argues that policy makers need to make stronger regulations against many DTC advertisements in a pharmaceutical industry because they exploit consciousness, mislead consumers, and are obsessed with profits. My primary audience for this argument would be the people who are interested in how DTC advertisements work in human societies. For example, it would be the people who are curious about how DTC advertisements change people 's perspective. To be more specific, the audience could be advertisers, marketing managers, sociologists, and policy makers.
…show more content…
First of all, it is clear that most DTC advertisements in the pharmaceutical industry easily approach consumers and inject distorted information about drugs into consumers. Consumers do not realize the danger of ineffective drugs due to the embellishment of the marketing strategy. In other words, pharmaceutical product advertisers often promote their products to achieve their own goals that have a potential risk of negatively affecting the consumers ' health (Lurie 447). This argument is effective to my paper because it definitely shows that distorted information about drugs keep misleading consumers unless people need stronger regulations against indiscreet DTC advertisements. Second of all, DTC advertisements give consumers the wrong perspective, and consumers would expect false consequences. Furthermore, they take advantage of public awareness and anxiety. Therefore, government officials, especially policy makers, should be willing to regulate DTC advertisements for products and services because misleading drugs can harm the individual. (Williams-Jones 90) Similar to Lurie, this argument is also effective because it shows the negative sides of unregulated advertisements; DTC advertisements mislead consumers to believe that they need the drugs by exploiting public anxiety. Lastly, DTC advertisements induce patients to request newer and more expensive medications. It makes the cost of health care rise and, more importantly, …show more content…
Marla B. Royne and Susan D. Myers also introduce the idea of DTC advertising proponents. They argue that DTC advertisements inform consumers so that they can make educated decisions. Furthermore, they explain that DTC advertisements, with a lot of exposure to their consumers, lead them to pay attention to their health. Miriam Shuchman also introduces the other counterargument that DTC advertisements create positive emotional conditions by promoting their products with catchphrases. However, even though people easily have access to drug information with DTC advertisements and create positive consequences, the problem of these arguments is that most DTC advertisements do not include accurate and complete information about drugs. Therefore, even though DTC advertisements induce positive feelings, those are false consequences, and people would finally realize that they are misled. Therefore, my research argument becomes more valid by asserting that indiscreet DTC advertisements should not take advantage of customers and be more regulated than they are
First of all, it is clear that most DTC advertisements in the pharmaceutical industry easily approach consumers and inject distorted information about drugs into consumers. Consumers do not realize the danger of ineffective drugs due to the embellishment of the marketing strategy. In other words, pharmaceutical product advertisers often promote their products to achieve their own goals that have a potential risk of negatively affecting the consumers ' health (Lurie 447). This argument is effective to my paper because it definitely shows that distorted information about drugs keep misleading consumers unless people need stronger regulations against indiscreet DTC advertisements. Second of all, DTC advertisements give consumers the wrong perspective, and consumers would expect false consequences. Furthermore, they take advantage of public awareness and anxiety. Therefore, government officials, especially policy makers, should be willing to regulate DTC advertisements for products and services because misleading drugs can harm the individual. (Williams-Jones 90) Similar to Lurie, this argument is also effective because it shows the negative sides of unregulated advertisements; DTC advertisements mislead consumers to believe that they need the drugs by exploiting public anxiety. Lastly, DTC advertisements induce patients to request newer and more expensive medications. It makes the cost of health care rise and, more importantly, …show more content…
Marla B. Royne and Susan D. Myers also introduce the idea of DTC advertising proponents. They argue that DTC advertisements inform consumers so that they can make educated decisions. Furthermore, they explain that DTC advertisements, with a lot of exposure to their consumers, lead them to pay attention to their health. Miriam Shuchman also introduces the other counterargument that DTC advertisements create positive emotional conditions by promoting their products with catchphrases. However, even though people easily have access to drug information with DTC advertisements and create positive consequences, the problem of these arguments is that most DTC advertisements do not include accurate and complete information about drugs. Therefore, even though DTC advertisements induce positive feelings, those are false consequences, and people would finally realize that they are misled. Therefore, my research argument becomes more valid by asserting that indiscreet DTC advertisements should not take advantage of customers and be more regulated than they are