December 5, 2005
Media at Work
Hmm, which story provides the information you really want?
Most of the stories cover the deceptive doctor angle, and don't mention any questions about how effective Nuvo or Cetaphil is as a lice killer. Only the ABC story (so far) focuses on whether or not Nuvo or Cetaphil works and examines the evidence, i.e. what kind of study was done and the basis of the buzz around Nuvo.
One story is easier to write, but far less informative.
The next step would be to examine the roll the press plays in hyping stories like the original Nuvo press release and who a press release is turned into press story. But I'm not holding my breath on that one.
Posted by Kevin Murphy at December 5, 2005 12:19 PM | Media CriticismThere is a category of medical treatment that relies on "commodity" materials to solve mild to moderate chronic conditions, such as putting duct tape on warts, that can never get the the double blind placebo studies performed because there are no barriers to other firms/doctors prescribing different generics. It's a variation on the furniture showroom problem: the company that invests in a showroom find itself undercut by manufacturers who accept orders directly from shoppers determine what they need by visiting the showroom first. Aspirin is another case in point, if the first use discovered was it's ability to lower cardiac risk, and as a side effect it was later discovered that it would help with headaches, the price would be substantially higher. But if you look at messaging, the advertising for aspirin has switched almost exclusively to lower heart attack risk, leaving acetaminophen and ibuprofen to be the pain relievers.
It's a challenge because things like fish oil and glucosamine are ignored in favor of plavix and vioxx: the pharmaceutical manufacturers don't want to include generics as a part of their double blind studies and inadvertently substantiate them in favor of their offering.
Posted by: Sean Murphy at December 6, 2005 9:45 AM
