Past researches tried to explore the impact of disease awareness advertising only on relationship between drug manufacturers and consumers. As physicians are a significant stakeholder, it is important for marketers to know views of physicians before any communication planning. The present research intends to primarily understand the views of Indian health care professionals about effectiveness of disease awareness advertising. The objective of the research is to understand attitudes of health care professionals towards disease awareness advertising as a pharma marketing communication tool. Result shows that most physicians think positively regarding the nature of disease awareness advertising. However, there is mixed feeling about impact of disease awareness advertising on patients. Physicians have a feeling that disease awareness advertising may cause confusion and unnecessary fear among patients as the concept is new to them and they might not be mature enough to understand campaign objectives. There is also a view that disease awareness advertising should be co-sponsored with not-for-profit organization (NGO)/non-profit organization (NPO) to neutralize perception of commercial interest of pharma companies behind awareness advertisements. Communication effectiveness may be further increased if the campaign is endorsed by popular celebrities. Result from this study will help pharmaceutical companies operating in India to understand effectiveness of disease awareness advertising as an important marketing communication tool. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first academic research study of its kind in India.
AutonF. Pharmaceuticals and government policy: Direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) of pharmaceuticals: An updated review of the literature and debate since 2003. Econ Aff2006; 26(3): 24–32.
4.
ChenHDCarrollNV. Consumer responses to direct to consumer prescription drug advertising. Int J Pharm Healthcare Market2007; 1(4): 276–289.
5.
HallVDJonesSCIversonDC. Consumer perceptions of sponsors of disease awareness advertising. Health Educ2011; 111(1): 5–19.
6.
LylesA. Direct marketing of pharmaceuticals to consumers. Annu Rev Publ Health2002; 23: 73–91.
7.
BeltraminiRF. Believability of direct to consumer (DTC) advertising of pharmaceutical products. J Bus Ethics2006; 63(4): 333–343.
8.
WatsonR. MEPS reject US-style direct advertising of drugs. Brit Med J2002; 325(7371): 990–990.
9.
CalfeeJE. Public policy issues in direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. J Public Policy Market2002; 21(2): 174–193.
10.
ChamberlainKEagleLC. Prescription medication advertising: professional discomfort and potential patent benefits – can the two be balanced?Int J Advert2004; 23(1): 69–90.
11.
HallDVJonesSC. Branding of prescription medicines to Australian consumers. Aust Market J2007; 15(2): 97–107.
12.
MintzesB. Disease mongering in drug promotion: Do governments have a regulatory role?Public Library Sci Med2006; 4(3): 1–5.
13.
Australia New Zealand Therapeutic Products Authority. Australia New Zealand Therapeutic Products Advertising Code. (Draft as at July 2005). http://www.anztpa.org/advert/advcodejul05.pdf (accessed 17 March 2013).
14.
ReastJDPalihawadanaDSpickett-JonesG. The ethical aspects of direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs in United Kingdom: Physician versus consumer views. J Advert Res2008; 48(3): 450–464.
15.
ReastJDLindgreenAPalihawadanaD. Prescription drug communication strategies: A comparative analysis of physician attitudes in Europe, the Middle East, and the Far East. J Market Manage2011; 27(3–4): 336–360.
16.
LoweryS. Mobilizing the patient squadrons–Direct to consumer communications. BHBIA J2003; 7: 3–7.
17.
ParryV. The art of branding a condition. Med Market Media2003; 38(5): 43–49.
18.
AngelmarRAngelmarSKaneL. Building strong condition brands. J Med Market2007; 7(4): 341–351.
19.
WebbDJMohrLA. A typology of consumer responses to cause-related marketing: From sceptics to socially concerned. J Public Policy Market1998; 17(2): 226–238.
20.
BasaraLR. The impact of a direct-to-consumer prescription medication advertising campaign on new prescription volume. Drug Inf J1996; 30: 715–729.
21.
t’JongGWStrickerBHCSturkenboomMCJM. Marketing in the lay media and prescriptions of terbinafine in primary care: Dutch cohort study. Brit Med J2004; 328: 931–931.
22.
ForehandMRGrierS. When is honesty the best policy? The effect of stated company intent on consumer scepticism. J Consum Psychol2003; 13(3): 349–356.
23.
SheldonT. Dutch GPs call for ban on Novartis products. Brit Med J2002; 325(7360): 355–355.
24.
ReastJDPalihawadanaDSpickett-JonesG. UK physicians’ attitudes towards direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs: An extension and review. Int J Advert2004; 23(2): 229–251.
25.
FerrimanA. Selling drugs to consumers. Brit Med J1999; 319(7218): 1208–1208.
26.
YameyG. Pfizer to sponsor European Impotence Awareness Campaign. Brit Med J2000; 320(7235): 598–598.
27.
Kucharsky D. Giving pills a push. Marketing 2005; June (6): 12–16.
28.
MitkaM. Survey help public is met with scepticism. J Am Med Assoc2003; 289(7): 827–828.
29.
BonaccorsoSNSturchioJL. Direct to consumer advertising is medicalizing normal human experience—against. Brit Med J2002; 324(7432): 910–911.
30.
MoynihanRHenryD. The fight against disease mongering: Generating knowledge for action. Public Library Sci Med2006; 3(4): 1–4.
31.
MoynihanRHeathIHenryD. Selling sickness: The pharmaceutical industry and disease mongering. Brit Med J2002; 324(7342): 886–891.
32.
HammondSL. The credibility of organizational sources. Commun Yearb1987; 10: 613–628.
33.
VaradarajanPRMenonA. Cause-related marketing: A co-alignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy. J Market1988; 52: 58–74.
34.
PolonskyMJWoodG. Can the over commercialisation of cause-related marketing harm society. J Macromarket2001; 21: 8–22.
35.
HayleyE. Exploring the construct of organization as source: Consumers’ understanding of organizational sponsorship of advocacy advertising. J Advert1996; 25(2): 19–35.
36.
HughesGMinchinL. Drug firms fund awareness. Sydney Morning Herald13 December 2003.
37.
SamuSWymerW. The effect of fit and dominance in cause marketing communications. J Bus Res2009; 62(4): 432–440.
38.
WielondekM. Marketing case: Can direct-to-consumer advertising help in re-inventing the image of the pharmaceutical industry instead of eroding its credibility?J Med Market2005; 5(3): 264–273.
39.
PornpitakpanC. The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. J Appl Soc Psychol2004; 34(2): 243–281.
40.
LaffertyBAGoldsmithRENewellSJ. The dual credibility model: the influence of corporate and endorser credibility on attitudes and purchase intentions. J Market Theory Pract2002; 10(3): 1–12.
41.
HoekJGendallPCalfeeJ. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines in the United States and New Zealand: An analysis of regulatory approaches and consumer responses. Int J Advert2004; 23(2): 197–228.
42.
LaffertyBAGoldsmithREHultGTM. The impact of the alliance on the partners: A look at cause-brand alliances. Psychol Market2004; 21(7): 509–531.
43.
NewellSJGoldsmithRE. The development of a scale to measure perceived corporate credibility. J Bus Res2001; 52(3): 235–247.
44.
ChowWS. Multivariate statistical analysis: With application of SAS/STAT, 1 E, Taipei: Best-Wise Publishing Co, 2004.
45.
JacobTWindleM. Family assessment: Instrument dimensionality and correspondence across family reporters. J Fam Psychol1999; 13(3): 339–354.
46.
GondoliMJacobT. Factor structure within and across three family assessment procedures. J Fam Psychol1993; 6(3): 278–289.
47.
KentR. Marketing research: Measurement, method and application, London: Thomson Business Press, 1999.
48.
SimmonsCJBecker-OlsenKL. Achieving marketing objectives through social sponsorships. J Market2006; 70: 154–169.
49.
GoldsmithRELaffertyBANewellSJ. The influence of corporate credibility on consumer attitudes and purchase intentions. Corp Reput Rev2000; 3(4): 304–318.
