Sharp-elbowed critiques of life sciences TV advertising aren’t exactly a novel phenomenon. For years, companies have rarely strayed from a simple, if easily satirized, creative formula: 90 seconds of gauzy visuals, a parade of individuals whose cheeriness belies the reality of the condition ailing them, and a valedictory rapid-fire disclosure of side effects.

And for years, ads following that basic model have generated enough ROI that companies keep going back to the well. According to marketing measurement firm iSpot’s Pharma TV Transparency Report, prescription pharma advertisers spent upward of an estimated $5.15 billion on linear television during 2024.

But while few brand team execs believe big-dollar TV buys will go the way of the manatee anytime soon, many wonder if the expenses are sustainable in the current do-more-with-less era of life sciences marketing. After all, coveted NFL commercial airtime – per the iSpot report, prescription drug brands aired 12% more ads during the 2024 season than during the 2023 campaign – doesn’t come cheap. Combine this financial reality with the explosion in channels and platforms through which consumers can be targeted precisely and far less expensively, and occasional murmurs about the longer-term viability of big-dollar TV campaigns have grown into a steady rumble.

“The number of channels – pun intended – through which marketers are able to communicate with healthcare consumers is as broad as it has ever been, and it’s growing by the day,” says Derrick Gastineau, head of marketing at Currax Pharmaceuticals. “Television, particularly CTV, still has a place. But it is quickly moving into a supporting role, as opposed to the main character it has played for years.”

Alison Tapia, a digital and omnichannel marketing consultant who previously served as senior director, performance marketing and digital innovation at Dermavant, agrees: “There are other channels that can create mass awareness without the need for a glossy TV spot.”

Central to the ongoing debate over the future of pharma ads is the increasing prevalence and sophistication of storytelling in marketing content. Life sciences marketers often point to industry regulation as the reason they are unable to compete creatively with colleagues in other verticals. But if the heavily regulated insurance business can find a way to create advertising icons, why can’t pharma?

To that end, Kelly Price, managing director, U.S. rare disease at Esteve, questions whether the industry has truly flexed its storytelling muscle in the marketing realm. “The heart of storytelling is creating connection. From that perspective, I think we can serve patients better by helping them connect their own dots to create the best journey for them as individuals,” she says.

Meanwhile, authenticity has never been a hallmark of pharma TV spots, and now they’re competing with patient-generated content as well as tie-ins with trusted health and wellness influencers. The headwinds, as they say, are strong. Nonetheless, true believers remain firm in their conviction that big-swing TV ads will remain an essential part of the marketing mix for years to come.

Pfizer director, RHU/GI access marketing Dan Sorine stresses the role these ads can play in generating awareness on a broad scale. “DTC provides an opportunity to educate the general public about conditions they may not be aware of and/or medicines for a condition they may have that they would otherwise not learn about,” he explains. “While I don’t think any patient should make a treatment decision based on a commercial or without the consultation of their doctor, I do see the value in getting educated and being aware of one’s options.”

The ability of TV advertising to simultaneously educate and grow awareness shouldn’t be discounted, adds Justin Molavi, director, commercial strategy and insights at Genentech.

“We as consumers may cheer for the death of the shouty ad, but we may not be willing to change to a different model for fear of not capturing the same impact,” he notes. “There are great ways to experiment with different creative sets (shouty versus non-shouty) in advanced TV to truly drive impact, as opposed to a one-ad-serves-all model. This may cost more in creative, but would be well worth it on the back end.”

Technological innovations, particularly machine learning and predictive modeling, can help facilitate this, Gastineau believes. “They allow us to engage consumers across a vast number of touchpoints – and, if done correctly, to tell an engaging and informative story that evolves at each interaction along the consumer journey.”

Not surprisingly, the industry’s wealth of data helps facilitate this elevated level of marketing-driven storytelling.

“We have such great data about patients – about behavior and attitudes – and so many competitive insights,” says Stacy Stone, executive director, omnichannel and customer engagement, at Pacira BioSciences. “Companies doing this the right way in their ads are modifying their storytelling to be very specific, so that it resonates with targeted patients. You can’t be one-on-one on TV, but the ads need to speak to the right segmented audience, with the right terminology and imagery.”

The question then becomes whether, as media platforms and technologies continue to proliferate, direct-to-consumer efforts that invest heavily in linear TV will rise to meet the moment, creatively or otherwise. One encouraging sign is that, over the last half-decade, several companies have thumbed their noses at the easy conventions of the genre.

Pfizer’s “Here’s to Science” spot, debuted to much fanfare during Super Bowl LVIII in 2024, celebrated scientific achievement dating back to Archimedes and Sir Isaac Newton. Before that, the slapstick tone (by pharma standards, anyway) of GSK’s “Shingles Can Be What?” ad generated considerably more attention, and launched more memes, than years worth of fear-mongering vaccine awareness efforts. Neither was met with universal acclaim – few such marketing efforts are – but both more than achieved their primary brand-burnishing objectives.

A number of brand-specific efforts have similarly thrived, owing in large part to their creative risk-taking. Genentech’s “A Better Sight,” an animated spot for wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD) treatment Vabysmo, fashioned an emotional arc around the restoration of an aging woman’s vision. Evofem Biosciences’ ad for contraceptive gel Phexxi, featuring Schitt’s Creek star Annie Murphy, dispensed with the euphemisms native to the product category in favor of frank verbiage. Its opening salvo – “welcome to my vagina” – is thought to be the first use of that particular anatomical terminology in a healthcare ad aired in the U.S.

These examples offer a glimpse of the creative path forward – and show that when a pharma TV ad strikes a chord, it genuinely resonates. 

“I mean, people are still singing the Jardiance song. Some of the actors and actresses in these ads have become mini-celebrities,” Stone notes. “That doesn’t happen in a vacuum.”

Thus for all the carping about cost and creative homogeneity, nobody truly expects an industry exodus from mass-market TV advertising anytime soon.

“It’s our job as marketers to communicate important information – clinical, safety, financial support and more – to physicians and consumers in a way that is engaging and memorable,” Sorine says. “Because if there’s a treatment out there that can make a meaningful difference in someone’s life, then they deserve to know about it.”

How has your organization’s views on the need for and quality of high-profile TV advertising evolved in recent years? Drop us a note at [email protected], join the conversation on X (@KinaraBio) and subscribe on the website to receive Kinara content.