Pfizer- Puffery or Deception - Essay Example

Puffery, Deception and Ethics of the Name of the Concerned Professor February 9, 2011 Puffery, Deception and Ethics Considering the contemporary business environment defined by cut throat competition, especially in the pharmaceutical sector, advertising has become an integral part of the sales and marketing strategies. However, sometimes companies, either deliberately, or owing to lack of conceptual awareness, resort to advertising policies that somehow tend to defy ethics and regulatory guidelines.

The cases study under consideration that is ‘Pfizer- Puffery or Deception?’ is pertaining to this aspect of advertising. Even if one assumes that the information given by Pfizer in the ads is truthful, it in no way justifies using Dr. Jarvik as an ambassador for Lipitor. Pharmaceuticals are products that have a scientific basis. Hence, the purpose of any advertisement pertaining to a drug should focus on educating the physicians and increasing their awareness regarding that drug. Its objective should be to convince the targeted physicians about the effectiveness of that drug by extending scientific facts and data.

In that context, the association of Dr. Jarvik with the ads points towards an attempt by Pfizer to influence the medical practitioners by impressing them with the appeal and stature of Dr. Jarvik. Going by the fact that drugs are products that could have severe impact on the users, usage of emotional appeal in a drug advertisement conveys an unethical and irresponsible attitude on the part of its manufacturers. Drugs are not like cereals or washing machines that could or should rely on celebrity endorsements to increase sales.

They are products that could make or mar the life of a patient. So, the USP of any drug should be reliable and scientific data and not emotional propaganda. For one, Pfizer tried to push the sales of its product by using emotional appeal. Secondly, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce has expressed doubts about the reliability of claims pertaining to Lipitor, made by Dr. Jarvik in the ads. So the resulting criticism of Pfizer is valid and justified. To avoid such criticism in the future, Pfizer should make certain that the claims made by its ads are backed by scientific studies and clinical experience of the responsible physicians.

Besides, Pfizer should also look to it that the personalities endorsing its products in the future ads do have the academic background and practical experience to decide on the effectiveness of the drug under consideration. Also, the claims made by those personalities are true and authentic. Sometimes, there exists a very thin line between puffery and deception. Yet, if a company makes such claims about its products that are outright false and the consumers are unlikely to get the claimed benefits after purchasing that product, the company has certainly crossed the line between puffery and outright deception.

Such an act on the part of any company is definitely unethical and illegal. The primary purpose of advertising should be to educate the consumers about a product. However, if a company extends wrong facts to the consumers, either clearly or indirectly, than such a practice is conclusively immoral.Word Count: 517