No, No, No, Ozempic? RFK Jr.’s Plan to Ban Big Pharma Ads Could Hit TV Networks Hard

by

A few days before the 2024 presidential election, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appeared at an event in Glendale, Arizona, which was organized by conservative commentator Tucker Carlson. Kennedy had backed Donald Trump’s bid to reclaim the White House and was giving a campaign speech with a special emphasis on healthcare matters.

As a gaming enthusiast speaking to my audience, I’d suggest a move for Donald Trump that could help tackle the ongoing health crisis: let’s take down pharmaceutical ads on TV. You know, there are only two nations worldwide that allow these commercials, and we just happen to be one of them with the highest disease rate! It’s like a game where the more you play, the sicker we get, and guess what? The pills we buy cost more here than anywhere else on the globe.

In the aftermath of his election victory, President Trump expressed plans to appoint Kennedy as the head of Health and Human Services. This move seems to indicate a focus on pharmaceutical advertising. This development has not gone unnoticed by media executives. One leading TV ad sales executive stated that their company is keeping a close eye on these developments and has informally brainstormed potential responses if any restrictions or limitations are implemented.

Throughout his campaign, Trump frequently targeted the media, filing lawsuits against ABC News and CBS News. Additionally, it appears that the incoming FCC chairman, Brendan Carr, may take action to hold broadcast owners accountable.

As a gamer, I can relate this situation to my gaming world. If we were to consider a scenario where game ads started flooding every level, it would significantly increase the cost for me to keep progressing. While I might take legal action or report such an overload, completely eliminating all game ads could potentially harm both my favorite games and those I’m not fond of.

In this context, Steve Tomsic, CFO of Fox Corp., which owns Fox News and the Fox broadcast network, was asked about the possibility of a ban on pharmaceutical ads during a UBS conference on Dec. 9. He acknowledged that it could be a concern but also stated that pharma advertising only represents low single-digit revenue for their company. He added that they are ready to face the possibility of a ban, but it’s unlikely to be a complete ban on all pharmaceutical ads.

Nevertheless, a relatively small effect on Fox could translate to hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Moreover, the influence on the broader television industry would be substantial. According to media measurement firm iSpot.tv, the pharmaceutical sector is expected to invest over $5 billion in national linear TV commercials this year alone. Additionally, billions more will be poured into digital and streaming advertisements.

Indeed, it’s worth noting that the top ten pharmaceutical drugs collectively account for over a billion dollars in yearly expenditure, as reported by FiercePharma. Notably, medications like Ozempic and Jardiance are spending over $10 million per month on national television advertisements individually, and Skyrizi leads the pack with TV ad spend exceeding $30 million monthly.

A ban could cause significant disruption, especially impacting sectors such as TV news programs. For the TV industry, the possibility of a ban is an unpredictable factor that has been a concern, given its ongoing struggle to recover ad sales growth amid competition from tech giants like Meta and Amazon, and streaming platforms such as YouTube and TikTok who are taking over market share. According to S&P Global analyst Naveen Sarma in a report dated December 12th, pharmaceutical advertising, which is a significant source of income for television, could be negatively affected by this potential ban.

According to GroupM’s 2025 outlook, worldwide advertising income is projected to increase by approximately 7.7% in the year 2025. However, it’s anticipated that income from traditional television ads will decrease by 3.4% next year. This decline will be more than compensated for by a significant rise of 19.3% in revenue generated from streaming TV platforms.

The predicted effect of Robert F. Kennedy’s potential appointment as U.S. Head of Health and Human Services on pharmaceutical spending remains uncertain, but he has expressed disapproval towards direct-to-consumer advertising in the industry. GroupM stated this in their report, further mentioning that if such a ban is implemented, it could potentially influence media owners who deal with linear TV broadcasts.

During a discussion on the company’s report in a conference call, Kate Scott-Dawkins, who serves as Global President of Business Intelligence at GroupM, mentioned that the potential for a ban had been taken into account within their report. “We have a primary scenario, which is what we are forecasting, and this is why we discuss the potential negative factors,” she explained.

Although the television industry faces a significant threat from potential bans, it’s uncertain if the administration could successfully enforce such a ban. The U.S., known for its strong free speech protections, even for commercial speech, may find such a blanket ban too extreme. As Dan Novack, an attorney focusing on First Amendment and media law cases, explains, “I don’t believe that the courts would support this. I think they would deem a broad ban as likely excessive.” Novack refers to these proposals as “First Amendment trial balloons,” suggesting they are often floated to gauge public reaction with minimal cost.

In other words, just because there’s no current precedent doesn’t mean we can’t establish one. During an interview with conservative radio host Dana Loesch, Carr brought up the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act that Nixon signed into law in 1970, which banned cigarette advertising on TV as a comparison. Carr suggested that a similar approach could be taken for big pharma advertising. His proposed solution involves either the HHS making a decision or Congress taking action first, then allowing the FCC to follow suit and take some additional measures.

It’s undeniable that cigarettes pose a significant threat to public health, while medications approved by the FDA generally offer more benefits than harm. Novack questions, “It’s hard to argue against the fact that every drug promoted in an advertisement is endorsed by the FDA. So, how can we reconcile one part of the government asserting that these drugs have been scientifically proven to be effective and safe when used correctly, while another part of the government claims they are inherently harmful and detrimental to society?

In S&P Global’s Sarma’s assessment, he pointed out that if an administration imposes a ban, advertising dollars could still be directed elsewhere. To clarify, as stated in GroupM’s report, direct-to-consumer (DTC) messages are only one aspect of pharmaceutical marketing strategies. A significant portion of pharmaceutical ad budgets is allocated towards Business-to-Business (B2B) marketing aimed at healthcare professionals, which usually does not pass through television networks.

Advertisements for Ozempic or Mounjaro on TV may be protected by free speech rights, but promoting these drugs directly to doctors could be a weaker point. Novack points out that the First Amendment concerns might not be as significant in this case. However, this topic is also politically nuanced. Kennedy was applauded at a conservative political gathering, yet limitations on pharmaceutical advertising have traditionally been championed by politicians on the left, such as Hillary Clinton.

This tale was initially published in the January 9th edition of The Hollywood Reporter’s magazine. If you’d like to get the magazine, you can do so by clicking [here to subscribe].

Read More

2025-01-11 17:25