Pfizer's Facebook Fiasco: Chapstick Slapstick Ad Uses Woman's Ass as a Prop

Pfizer's Facebook Fiasco: Chapstick Slapstick Ad Uses Woman's Ass as a Prop

The AdWeek article "ChapStick Gets Itself in a Social Media Death Spiral" caught my attention yesterday. It describes how Pfizer mishandled negative comments about a Chapstick ad image posted on its Chapstick Facebook page. Here's the play-by-play of the "death spiral" as reported by AdWeek:

"ChapStick posts weird image on Facebook of a woman, ass in the air [see photo at left], looking for her ChapStick behind a couch. Blogger is disgusted, blogs about it. Blogger tries to reply on Facebook too. ChapStick deletes her comments. Others object to the image. ChapStick deletes their comments. ChapStick's ads with the line "Be heard at Facebook.com/ChapStick" start to look foolish. People keep commenting. ChapStick keeps deleting. People get angry. ChapStick gets worried. The image isn't even that big of a deal—it's ChapStick's reaction to the criticism that galls. 'What asses,' people say of ChapStick (get it?). People start commenting about why they can't see their old comments. ChapStick can't keep up with all the deleting. Comments are getting through, and they're nasty."

Eventually, Pfizer apologized (sort of). The official Pfizer Twitter account (@pfizer_news) said: "The ChapStick ad was not intended to offend anyone & we R pulling it ASAP. Thank you to our ChapStick fans for providing this feedback". It also apologized on Facebook:

"We see that not everyone likes our new ad, and please know that we certainly didn't mean to offend anyone!" the post says. "Our fans and their voices are at the heart of our new advertising campaign, but we know we don't always get it right. We've removed the image and will share a newer ad with our fans soon!"

But then, says AdWeek, there's this "very strange" second paragraph: "We apologize that fans have felt like their posts are being deleted and while we never intend to pull anyone's comments off our wall, we do comply with Facebook guidelines and remove posts that use foul language, have repetitive messaging, those that are considered spam-like (multiple posts from a person within a short period of time) and are menacing to fans and employees."

I emphasized "have repetitive messaging" and "those that are considered spam-like." "Repetitive" and "spam-like" are pretty subjective terms that can be interpreted differently by different people. I wonder if this comment moderation policy can be found in Pfizer's secretive social media "playbook" (for more on that, see here).

Obviously, this moderation policy can be used selectively to allow only positive posts such as these "repetitive" messages currently found on Chapstick's FB page: "I ALWAYS have Chapstick with me everywhere I go.", "ChapStick is an everday part of me:)", "Chapstick and my lips are bffs.", "i always have one in my pocket!", "I LOVE CHAP STICK".

But it's not Pfizer's moderation policy that Chapstick consumers originally complained about. It's the image of a "woman, ass in the air" that compelled this sort of comment:

"Have we really become so desensitized as women that we just ACCEPT that our bodies are used as props to sell products? That women in sexually suggestive poses and naked women (google "Chapstick and Amanda Ware") are being used to sell LIP BALM? That we just look the other way and say "eh, what's the problem?" There is a problem. A big one. By sitting on the sidelines and being ok with such images, you essentially give a thumbs up to the overt sexualization of women in the media. Look around. Pay attention. If that was your daughter's rear end showcased for all the world to see, how would you feel about it? -- Tasha Burwinkle Murphy (Redmond, WA)."

Of course, not all women commenters agree:

"People have too much time on their hands if they are worried (and harassing) a company for a silly ad like this. There is NOTHING offensive about it, unless someone is looking to make something offensive out of it." -- Nicole Leigh (Chalfont, PA)

There's a long-standing tradition of using women in ads -- including most direct-to-consumer (DTC) Rx drug ads. I've pointed this out many times here on Pharma Marketing Blog (most recently here and here). Until social media, however, women haven't been able to submit comments directly to advertisers about offensive ads. And women are VERY important when it comes to social media marketing and communications.

Women and Social Media
According to a Pew Research Center Internet & American Life Project survey (see here), "Young adult women ages 18-29 are the power users of social networking; fully 89% of those who are online use the sites overall and 69% do so on an average day. Looking more closely at gender differences, women have been significantly more likely to use social networking sites than men since 2009' (see chart below).




How can marketers better communicate with women via social media? That's a topic that I will explore in an upcoming Pharma Marketing Talk LIVE podcast: "How to Score With Women (as a Marketer) via Social Media." I invite you to participate and/or listen live or listen to the podcast archive afterward (here). You can also participate in the ongoing Twitter discussion using the hash tag #SMXFactor.

Antidepressants: Top Advertised & 3rd Most Commonly Used Rx Drug

Antidepressants: Top Advertised & 3rd Most Commonly Used Rx Drug

According to a recent CDC Data Brief (find it here), antidepressants were the third most common prescription drug taken by Americans of all ages in 2005–2008 and the most frequently used by persons aged 18–44 years. From 1988–1994 through 2005–2008, the rate of antidepressant use in the United States among all ages increased nearly 400%.

Key findings (2005–2008):

• Eleven percent of Americans aged 12 years and over take antidepressant medication.
• Females are more likely to take antidepressants than are males, and non-Hispanic white persons are more likely to take antidepressants than are nonHispanic black and MexicanAmerican persons.
• About one-third of persons with severe depressive symptoms take antidepressant medication.
• More than 60% of Americans taking antidepressant medication have taken it for 2 years or longer, with 14% having taken the medication for 10 years or more.
• Less than one-third of Americans taking one antidepressant medication and less than one-half of those taking multiple antidepressants have seen a mental health professional in the past year

Here's a chart that breaks it down by age group and males vs. females:

Click the image for an enlarged view

Perhaps not so coincidentally, antidepressants are among the TOP advertised Rx category in 2010, according to the recent AdAge analysis I summarized in a previous post (see "Double Dip in DTC Spending Plus 33% Drop in Internet Display Ad Spending!" and pie chart below). 

Of the TOP 25 advertised drugs in 2010, DTC ad spends for antidepressants was 20% of the total (24% if you include Lyrica, which is not indicated for depression but is often prescribed for depression off-label).


The CDC data covers the time period 2005-2008, which is somewhat prior to when the full effects of the recession were felt by the recently unemployed. 


Women are twice as likely to take anti-depressants than men (Overall, 40% of females and 20% of males with severe depressive symptoms take antidepressant medication says CDC). Actually, for all degrees of symptoms, women are 2,5 times more likely to take antidepressants than men (see data in chart above).


Why are proportionately more women taking antidepressants than men? The CDC News brief doesn't say, but news reporters have suggested that more women are caregivers and therefore subject to depression linked to that.


Or could it be the DTC advertising of antidepressants that lead more women to ask their doctors about antidepressants (see, for example, "Women Need More Love, Less Drugs")?


Actually, practically every DTC ad (except ads for Viagra) "speaks" to women -- the ads most often focus on the woman as the sufferer of the indicated condition or the caregiver. 


This is part of an issue that I will discuss with several experts in an upcoming LIVE podcast titled "How to Score With Women (as a Marketer) via Social Media." One question I'd like to ask the experts is this: Do pharma marketers focus on women because they are the majority of the audience or because they buy more products (including drugs) than men (ie, are more prolific consumers than are men)? I tend to favor the latter over the former. What do you think?