Layout 1
[Qualitative Research in Medicine & Healthcare 2018; 2:7646] [page 65]
Introduction
Ask your doctor about…is a phrase immediately rec-
ognizable as synonymous with a direct-to-consumer
(DTC) advertisement, signifying to media consumers that
a better life is within reach if a prescription can be ob-
tained. Although the pharmaceutical industry continues to
claim that its broadcast advertisements serve as a form of
health education for consumers, research has shown that
these commercials seek to persuade consumers above pro-
viding informational value.1 With the prescription drug
market now offering what seems like limitless options to
consumers, and competing drugs entering the game, it has
become more important than ever that pharmaceutical gi-
ants spend money on advertising their products. It also
becomes important, however, to investigate the ways in
which drugs are being commodified in an effort to further
understand a patient’s journey when deciding to ask their
health care provider for a drug by name. The U.S. Depart-
ment of Health and Human Services estimates that expen-
ditures on prescription drugs will continue to increase at
a faster rate than national health spending. In 2016, 16.7%
of U.S. health care spending went toward prescription
drugs, equating to $457 billion.2 On the whole, the adver-
tising industry is decreasing its ad expenditures, yet big
pharma has increased its budget to obtain more customers.
Pharmaceutical companies spent $5.2 billion on advertis-
ing alone in 2015, a substantial 19% increase from ad
spending in 2014.3 Broadcast ads have seen budgets in-
crease more than 10% since 2011, causing an increase in
the amount of ads to which viewers are exposed.3
Advertising culture, combined with pharmaceutical
The introduction of the medicinal partner in direct-to-consumer
advertising: Viagra’s contribution to pharmaceutical fetishism
and patient-as-consumer discourse in healthcare
Janelle Applequist
Zimmerman School of Advertising & Mass Communications, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA
ABSTRACT
Pfizer, manufacturer of the erectile dysfunction prescription treatment Viagra, has been a staple in the pharmaceutical advertising
arena since broadcast versions of such ads became legally permissible in the United States in 1997. Given that the patent for Viagra is
soon set to expire, it is important that research take a look back in an attempt to contextualize the brand’s place in shaping medicinal
marketing culture. Of particular interest is the period beginning in 2014, when Viagra’s most unconventional campaign yet began using
a tactic that was the first of its kind for the pharmaceutical industry. By removing the actual consumer of the medication from these ads
(males), Viagra has paved the way for pharmaceutical advertising to target the medicinal partner. This manuscript reviews the first use
of the medicinal partner in the pharmaceutical advertising sector, conducting a textual analysis of Viagra’s use of this mediated rela-
tionship. The medicinal partner is the pharmaceutical industry’s attempt to target a patient’s social circle in an effort to promote a dis-
course that suggests a medicinal remedy for a problem. This analysis describes how social meaning and relationships underlie the market
transaction of obtaining a prescription, as has been previously established through the processes of medicalization and pharmaceutical
fetishism. These advertisements create belief in the larger sense, meaning Pfizer is infiltrating upon the patient’s process of choice and
consumption of medicinal remedies. Viagra is simultaneously encouraging male consumers to celebrate the brand while using female
ambassadors to influence the decision to request medicinal intervention.
Correspondence: Janelle Applequist, Zimmerman School of Ad-
vertising & Mass Communications, University of South Florida,
4202 E. Fowler Ave. CIS 1040, Tampa, FL 33620, USA.
Tel.: 724.816.8840.
E-mail: applequist@usf.edu
Key words: Direct-to-consumer advertising; Medicinal partner;
Pharmaceutical advertising; Textual analysis; Viagra.
Conflict of interest: the author declares no potential conflict of in-
terest.
Funding: this work was supported, in part, by the University of
South Florida Research & Innovation Internal Awards Program
under Grant No. 0115756. The content is solely the responsibility
of the author and does not necessarily represent the official views
of the University of South Florida.
Received for publication: 19 June 2018.
Revision received: 2 August 2018.
Accepted for publication: 3 August 2018.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-
Commercial 4.0 License (CC BY-NC 4.0).
©Copyright J. Applequist, 2018
Licensee PAGEPress, Italy
Qualitative Research in Medicine & Healthcare 2018; 2:65-72
doi:10.4081/qrmh.2018.7646
Qualitative Research in Medicine & Healthcare 2018; volume 2:65-72
No
n-
co
mm
er
cia
l u
se
on
ly
marketing, has created the ubiquitousness of DTC ads on
television, but the evolution of this genre has created an-
other category of consumer – the medicinal partner. This
study introduces the concept of the medicinal partner’s
use in pharmaceutical advertising. The medicinal partner
is the pharmaceutical industry’s most recent attempt to in-
crease sales, focusing on a patient’s social circle to pro-
mote discourse that suggests a medicinal remedy for a
problem. To date, Viagra has been the first pharmaceutical
drug marketed using this tactic. The medicinal partner can
then be defined as an individual in close social proximity
to the consumer being targeted. This individual provides
a role in a consumer’s life that has influence and meaning
for decision-making. To this end, Viagra serves as a rein-
vention of the standard pharmaceutical advertising for-
mula, one that now adds a medicinal partner to the limited
perceptions of health existent in the texts the industry pro-
motes. Viagra and its use of the medicinal partner merits
analysis because it is the first pharmaceutical brand
known to employ such a tactic in the DTC advertising
realm. While the social other (e.g. romantic partners,
friends, family members, influential peer groups, etc.)
comprises a category often used in advertising for other
product categories, the use of this group in the pharma-
ceutical sector presents an important area for analysis, as
prescription drugs carry significantly more risk than other
items being sold by advertisers.
Medicalization, pharmaceuticalization,
and pharmaceutical fetishism
While sociological critiques regarding the influence
of media systems have been documented,4 there is more
research to be done concerning the more specific domain
of health and medicinal remedies.
In 1994, Deborah Lupton published a seminal piece
in Health Communication arguing for more critical health
communication research, drawing attention to the rela-
tionship between power and control in forming ideologi-
cally-accepted notions of health problems and solutions
in society. A main tenant of this argument included the ne-
cessity of patients having more active and equal roles in
dyadic encounters with their physicians, eliminating the
hierarchical structure of medicinal encounters.5 While
necessary and commendable in its form, Lupton’s argu-
ment focused on the interpersonal forms of communica-
tion, emphasizing the discourse used in medical settings,
often to show the ways in which the social concerns of
patients related to their health status are repeatedly mar-
ginalized and ignored by practitioners.6 Still, further con-
sideration should be given for an emphasis on mediated
forms of sociological influence (i.e. advertisements) to
show how such forms of communication influence soci-
ological constructions of what it means to be healthy or
ill, and even at times, to be happy or sad. Health promo-
tion efforts inevitably influence the ways in which various
publics know of and understand various health ailments
and treatment options. The mass media serve as agents of
modernization, exposing individuals to health informa-
tion, ways of living, and linear models of proposed action
seen throughout various health campaigns that are aimed
at behavior change.7
It is important that the fields of communication and
mass communications investigate media-based efforts to
influence health care, as the mass media are themselves
tools of modernization built on capitalist ideology, which
inherently introduce new risks to audiences.8 For example,
the addition of pharmaceuticals to the health care market-
place offers solutions for individuals in that their health ail-
ments may be lessened or more easily managed, however,
this introduction inevitably creates a space whereby pa-
tients have the potential to suffer side effects associated
with pharmaceuticals, possibly having a potentially nega-
tive impact. Scholarship must acknowledge the ways in
which knowledge production intersects with power, ideol-
ogy, and hegemony within the realm of health advertising.8,9
Advertising is a media system that influences socio-
logical meaning and collective understanding of various
issues.10 Advertisements tap into not necessarily what peo-
ple need, but what they dream about – channeling emo-
tions, experiences, and images that reflect our deepest
desires in a way that, for a moment, makes us feel as if
we really can have it all. Advertising for products related
to health, then, serves as a fundamental commodity-image
system where particular visions of what would provide
sources of satisfaction become measuring sticks for our
success as psychological, social, and physical beings.10,11
Relevant to the discussion of advertising’s influence on
sociological conceptions of health, medicalization is the
process whereby something is made or turned into a med-
ical matter.12 Pharmaceuticalization, then, is the process
whereby prescription drugs gain and maintain a significant
presence throughout society.13 Research has relied upon the
term to indicate society’s over-reliance on prescription
drugs. Pharmaceuticalization also refers to the blurring of
the boundaries between what is medical treatment versus
enhancement, transforming human problems into medici-
nally-appropriate issues.14 Therefore, medicalization creates
what we in society understand as an illness or ailment, and
pharmaceuticalization offers a prescription drug as the best
option for treatment. The final step in the process is defined
as pharmaceutical fetishism.
Pharmaceutical fetishism is a theoretical lens describ-
ing the celebratory process of a medicinal remedy as the
ultimate option for better health, often at the expense of
ignoring other treatment options or lifestyle changes,
aligned with romanticized portrayals of the better life one
will have as a result of receiving a prescription drug. The
process of pharmaceutical fetishism can be described as:
the commodification of brand-name pharmaceutical
drugs, which, via advertising and promotional cultures,
ignore large-scale production and for-profit motives of big
pharma while simultaneously reiterating a brand discourse
[page 66] [Qualitative Research in Medicine & Healthcare 2018; 2:7646]
Article
No
n-
co
mm
er
cia
l u
se
on
ly
that offers individuals additionally constructed meanings
that promote medicine as a cultural authority in health
care and prescription drugs as having the capacity to solve
individual problems beyond those for which a medicine
is scientifically intended.10
Pharmaceutical fetishism most often occurs via adver-
tising, with prescription drug commercials featuring pa-
tient scenarios with positive emotional appeals, often
emphasizing better romantic relationships, more cohesive
and happy family units, more fulfilling friendships, and
increased wealth in addition to having better health.1 A
closer look at the introduction of Viagra to the pharma-
ceutical marketplace helps to deconstruct the process of
pharmaceutical fetishism and the broader processes of so-
cial structure, thereby allowing for a more detailed looked
at the major themes present in Viagra’s most recent ad-
vertisements.
Materials and Methods
This research utilizes textual analysis to review Viagra’s
most recent stream of advertisements. This method, along-
side the aforementioned historical journey of the brand to
provide further context, provides a holistic analysis of the
drug’s advertisements over time, leading up to the decon-
struction of its most recent campaign to decode its contex-
tual meanings. Reliant upon Gitlin’s interpretation of
textual analysis, this study emphasizes how format, setting,
character type, and solution are presented in ways that help
in identifying embedded hegemonic processes focused on
masculinity, femininity, and consumption.15 Older ads as-
sociated with Viagra and its advertising history were col-
lected from available online resources (e.g. YouTube,
iSpottv, etc.), with a total of 15 ads downloaded and ana-
lyzed for themes indicative of the brand’s creative shift over
time. The most recent Viagra campaign constructing the
bulk of this analysis was collected via SnapStream soft-
ware, a television recording program that allows for the
search of specific content recorded via transcriptions avail-
able. This portion of data collection was conducted for a
12-week period, equating to 90 days of programming
across the four major broadcast networks (ABC, CBS,
NBC, and FOX) during primetime viewing hours. In total,
8 different ad versions for Viagra were featured during this
recording period, accounting for a total of 72 times that a
Viagra ad aired across the four networks during the 12-
week collection period. Following Stern’s framework for
conducting a textual analysis, this study systematically an-
alyzed the ads by identifying textual elements, investigating
the construction of provisional meaning embedded in texts,
and subsequently deconstructed sociological meaning.16 An
analysis of major themes present in the older ads is also
presented in chronological order to describe Viagra’s shift
in image over time, whereas the analysis of the medicinal
partner being used in more recent campaigns is presented
via a more detailed deconstruction.
Finally, a textual analysis of the newest stream of Vi-
agra ads shows the ways in which the drug’s marketing
strategy has shifted to include a new (and much more
profitable) demographic. By relying upon a grounded the-
ory approach in identifying major themes present in each
ad, this research utilized a constant-comparative method
in analysis to determine primary themes being conveyed
by these texts. The manufacturer now focuses on targeting
a consumer other than the individual taking the medica-
tion. The focus on the medicinal partner merits analysis,
as the pharmaceutical industry’s advertising tactic may be
blurring the boundaries of bodily authority, moving to-
ward a model that could permit another (e.g. the sexual
partner) to have increased influence over the decision one
makes about their own body. A textual analysis of these
latest ads shows how themes centered on a faux source of
female-empowerment is repositioning the brand.
Results and Discussion
Viagra’s advertising evolution
Erectile dysfunction (ED) can affect men under the
age of 40, but occurs at higher rates for aging populations,
with rates increasing in correlation with one’s age (e.g.
40% of men in their 40s, 50% of men in their 50s, etc.).17
The aging population serves as the demographic most sus-
ceptible to developing ED. Couple this with the fact that
more than half of all broadcast television viewers are 54
and older, and it is clear that Pfizer has had a recipe for a
lucrative combination since its creation.18
The story of Viagra is itself a tale of pharmaceutical-
ization, as a 1992 conference officially renamed impo-
tence, a psychogenic problem, to the slang term of ED, a
biogenic ailment.19 It was not until Viagra’s marketing
launch that erectile dysfunction became referred to as ED,
promoting a type of cultural slang to signify the topic of
impotence in a way that made it seem more approachable
to the public.20 First approved by the Food and Drug Ad-
ministration (FDA) in the United States in March 1998,
Viagra was marketed primarily to older men for ED as-
sociated with prostate cancer, diabetes, and other medical
conditions. Beginning its first marketing campaign with
Senator Bob Dole as a spokesman was fitting, as Pfizer
initially wanted to rename impotence to ED in social cir-
cles, focusing first on the most common demographic as-
sociated with the term, aging men.20 It soon became
apparent, however, that an aging population coupled with
larger sociological concerns of sexual performance led for
a much broader audience. Viagra became known not only
as the remedy for ED, the medicalized term, but as a prod-
uct that could help those not even experiencing ED. The
pill became associated with something that could give
men that extra edge in the bedroom.20 The recreational
use of Viagra permitted Pfizer to begin marketing the drug
as something capable of addressing male insecurities for
[Qualitative Research in Medicine & Healthcare 2018; 2:7646] [page 67]
Article
No
n-
co
mm
er
cia
l u
se
on
ly
recreational purposes without having to directly connect
men with impotence – the implication here being that Vi-
agra wasn’t treating a problem, but rather, it was enhanc-
ing a man’s ability to endure, perform, and be powerful.
Viagra wasn’t there to fix a broken man, but rather, acted
as a tool to help men be better versions of themselves.
Pfizer’s first television advertisement for Viagra in
1998 got the attention of older men, the initial target au-
dience. It featured a stoic, confident Bob Dole, talking to
the camera as he says:
Courage – something shared by countless Americans.
Those who’ve risked their lives. Those who battle serious
illness. When I was diagnosed with prostate cancer, I was
primarily concerned with ridding myself of the cancer, but
secondly, I was concerned about possible post-operative
side effects, like erectile dysfunction, ED, often called im-
potence.
Though he never mentions Viagra by name, the ad
makes the association for viewers that impotence is now
being referred to as ED, a more legitimate-sounding med-
ical condition therefore requiring some type of medical
intervention. As Pfizer’s audience for Viagra became
broader, their advertising techniques began to reflect this
change, at times leading the drug manufacturer to be rep-
rimanded by the FDA. In 2004, the Wild Thing television
ad aired, featuring a husband and wife window shopping
along a street. The narrator asks: remember that guy who
used to be called ‘Wild Thing’? The guy who wanted to
spend the entire honeymoon indoors? Remember the one
who couldn’t resist a little mischief? Yeah, that guy. He’s
back. As the narrator is discussing the man’s comeback,
the husband stops his wife to look at a black lingerie en-
semble featured on a mannequin in a shopping window.
She blushes, and he gives an ornery smile, as two trian-
gular blue Viagra tablets appear behind his head to simu-
late devil’s horns. The ad names the drug, yet never
reveals the condition the medication treats or its possible
side effects. This landed Pfizer in hot water, with the FDA
sending a warning letter requiring that the ad be pulled.
Not only did the FDA find that the ad failed to uphold the
requirements of a product claim ad, but that it, along with
other campaigns, claim that Viagra will provide a return
to a previous level of sexual desire and activity. The FDA
is not aware of substantial evidence or substantial clinical
experience demonstrating this benefit for patients who
take Viagra.21 This is telling because it shows that Pfizer
has been warned before about making false promises to
individuals through its advertising.
From 2010 to 2012, Pfizer refocused its advertise-
ments using a lens of hyper-masculinity. A different ap-
proach from the colorful, bubbly ads that came before
them, these versions featured dark, muted colors of older,
albeit very attractive, men in isolated settings. Each ad
featured one man, outdoors in some capacity, with him
focusing on overcoming a challenge in a hyper-masculine
fashion. Using horses to remove a trailer stuck in the mud,
using one’s muscles while commercial fishing, and start-
ing a bonfire using only what’s available on the shore of
a beach are scenarios presented. This is the age of…is the
slogan, followed by phrases that vary for each ad, includ-
ing knowing how to get things done, knowing how to make
things happen, and knowing what you’re made of. The ads
go on to reiterate that twenty million men have already
taken Viagra, reinforcing the bandwagon approach nec-
essary to be a real man when faced with a medical ail-
ment. Prior to Pfizer’s most recent campaign for Viagra,
all ads at some point featured the sexual partner, who was
always female, and none of these characters ever had a
speaking role. Instead, the women were included in ways
that positioned them as being in awe of the masculinity,
vibrancy, and romance the men were exhibiting thanks to
Viagra.
A textual analysis of Pfizer’s use of advertising
as a vehicle for targeting the medicinal partner
Beginning in 2014, Pfizer changed the predictable for-
mula of its ads for the ED medication, shifting the focus
from the male to the female, featuring mature, attractive
women that talk directly to the camera (with their male
counterparts nowhere to be seen or heard). Pfizer’s latest
advertisements each feature a monologue delivered by
one woman in each version. She is alone, in an intimate
setting, talking directly to the camera. For a product that
is only consumable by men, it feels odd the first time you
watch any of these ads, as no men are featured in these
spots. First airing in 2014, the campaign uses a solo fe-
male character as the focal point for each ad.
This textual analysis of Viagra advertisements found
two primary themes: i) the male partner as dominant and
hypersexualized, and ii) the female partner as evolved
from submissiveness toward an increased sexual appetite
still dependent upon that of the male partner. In both
cases, the role of the medicinal partner is magnified, yet
the newest Viagra campaigns featuring only women en-
hance this role in a way that eliminates the man from the
conversation altogether. Interestingly, these texts are pre-
sented in a way that revises the consideration of a medical
diagnosis into a conversation that largely emphasizes sex,
whereby the consumer of the ad is so inundated by the
talk of relationships, sex, and romance that, at times, it
becomes easy to forget the fact that a health condition is
the basis for the ad. This adds to existent concerns regard-
ing the culture of the pharmaceutical drug industry, where
brand names are emphasized in ways that often trump ed-
ucation on medical ailments. The pharmaceutical
fetishism, then, becomes the ways in which Viagra and its
brand identity become the first solution for ED, in a way
that celebrates the drug as a cultural authority and rela-
tionship solution.
The women featured in Pfizer’s newest ad campaign
fit the bill for advertising’s ideal version of femininity –
they are attractive, deferential, unaggressive, emotional,
[page 68] [Qualitative Research in Medicine & Healthcare 2018; 2:7646]
Article
No
n-
co
mm
er
cia
l u
se
on
ly
nurturing, and concerned with their relationships.22 In all
versions, the woman is speaking directly to the camera
while lying on her bed, as if she is having an intimate con-
versation with a man who may be struggling with his im-
potence (Figure 1). Each woman is wearing a sleeveless
blue dress, indicative of Viagra’s tag line as the little blue
pill, and the delivery of her message is done in a way that
mimics more of a gentle conversation that is the push a
man may need to discuss the medication (not the condi-
tion) with his doctor.
Their physical presentation is impeccable, with each
woman being a portrayal of what has been reaffirmed as
the perfect woman via the male gaze in consumer culture.
Each woman is tall, thin, beautiful, and confident. They
are clearly successful, as they are shown in environments
reserved for the elite. Upper class homes with ocean
views are portrayed, with bedrooms decorated with little
except for the focal point that is the bed. In one ad version
(Figure 2), the character enters her bedroom holding her
purse, clearly just arriving back home after an evening
out, as she seductively states:
Going out for date night with your man is nice, but I
think women would agree – snuggling up after (as she
lays down) is kind of nice, too. But here’s the thing (she
looks down). About half of men over 40 have some degree
of erectile dysfunction. Well (looking back at camera), Vi-
agra helps guys with ED get, and keep, an erection.
As the ad continues with a narrator describing the
legally required risk information, the woman is shown sit-
ting in front of her vanity and getting ready for bed. She
pulls her hair down and removes her earrings. As her sil-
houette is shown walking behind curtains in her home,
she makes direct eye contact with the camera and gives a
sexy grin. The ad ends with her laying across the bed,
placing her hands underneath her chin, and smiling while
saying ask your doctor about Viagra.
The character in this ad is of mixed-race, presumably
including Caucasian and African American roots. When
this Viagra campaign does use a woman of minority status
in its ads, it does so in a way that is seemingly promoting
racial (and sexual) equality, yet obviously construed via
Western reinterpretations of what it means to be African
American or Asian. Being a minority character in these
Viagra ads means that the character is not connected with
their cultural identity, as they are fully assimilated in and
non-distinguishable from white culture.
Beyond the product being sold in these ads, Pfizer is
also reiterating a model of white consumption, where mi-
norities are caricatured in ways that exotify their being as
made for sexual subservience to men.23 Furthermore, the
campaign delivers messages insinuating these women are
eager to engage in sex with their partners, yet does so in
a way that presents them as innocent and pure. The phys-
ical characteristics of the minority characters combined
with their outward dispositions further fulfil the exotic
stereotype seen in advertising so many times before.23
These ads are constructed in a way that targets both
men and women (if we are assuming that heteronorma-
tive, heterosexual sexual relationships are the only ones
that exist, which is certainly not true, but seems to be a
key component of Pfizer’s marketing scheme). These ads
rely on a female to push a product only directly consum-
able by men, but does so in a way that alludes to the sex-
ual abilities a man can gain, yet this is still to the woman’s
benefit. Therefore, depending on which gender is consum-
ing the ad, it is read and understood as being made just
for you. If you are a man, your sex life will improve and
you get to see an attractive woman selling you the idea.
If a woman, you get to partake in the insidiousness of fix-
ing your partner, seeing how your femininity and sex ap-
peal can, like the main character, be the persuasive
argument needed to get your partner to ask their doctor
about Viagra.
By encouraging men to ask their doctors about Viagra,
Pfizer is simultaneously encouraging male consumers to
celebrate the brand and first and foremost consider the
[Qualitative Research in Medicine & Healthcare 2018; 2:7646] [page 69]
Article
Figure 1. A broadcast advertisement for Viagra, featuring a
female lead character, aired 2016-present.
Figure 2. A second broadcast advertisement for Viagra, aired
2016-present.
No
n-
co
mm
er
cia
l u
se
on
ly
positive influence the small blue pill could have on their
sexuality. Doing so requires that the serious side effects
possible while taking this medication be considered an af-
terthought, whereby physical complications (including
sudden vision or hearing loss and permanent damage to
the penis) are deemed less important than the promise that
is always seen in consumer culture – side effects become
mere sacrifices made in the name of having a happier life.
But it is by using a female ambassador for the brand that
Pfizer is, for the first time, using the relational counterpart
to serve a dual purpose – position a woman as having the
ability to literally change her man for her own gain while
providing a false autonomy of liberated sexuality. This
sexuality, though, is presented through a false lens that fa-
vors heteronormative assumptions of what it means to be
male or female.
The sociological construct of hegemonic masculinity
argues that men’s multiple, performed masculinities act
along a continuum that exist to reinforce gender
boundaries.24 This campaign creates a scenario where a
man is seen through the eyes of his female partner – the im-
plication being that the men being talked about are strong,
attractive, and righteous, yet; the ads simultaneously pres-
ent a rarer form of hegemonic masculinity that positions
men as being attentive to the emotional and physical needs
of the women they care about.25 The irony here is that the
man is never physically present in the ads, but Pfizer con-
veys this information without having him in the scene. The
man is positioned as the redeemer, or the one in the rela-
tionship that can fix the problem at hand. The perfect man
is constructed via these ads, and is one that is customizable
by design because he is never present on the screen. He is
the man a male viewer sees himself as becoming, and the
man a female viewer dreams about having.
The female characters are presented via the male gaze,
positioning each through a frame of what consumer cul-
ture tells us regarding how the ideal woman should look,
speak, and act. Historically, this is nothing new, as com-
mercial programming has long told women to strive for a
prescribed version of perfection, including the need for a
perfect body, flawless appearance, and successful career.26
What is new is Pfizer’s narrative of a female improving
herself by influencing her partner’s sexuality in a way that
crosses boundaries not available when selling other prod-
uct categories. The false autonomy present here positions
the woman as having the power and prowess to convince
men to get a prescription from their doctor. Different than
other products that could be advertised and purchased be-
tween two romantic partners, this category invites a third
party into the bedroom – the physician that must write the
prescription. This creates a relationship flow between
partner 1, partner 2, and the physician, which symbolizes
the very goal of advertising. Advertising does not just sell
products, but if successful, creates an interactive flow be-
tween marketing institutions and the cultural world
[where] meaning is produced through a culturally deter-
mined and socially mediated process which is shared and
negotiated between producers and consumers.27 There-
fore, Pfizer has done more than tap into a new demo-
graphic in using women in its latest advertising
campaigns. It has brought women into the conversation
via veiled portrayals that rely upon already-prescribed
cultural aspects of sexuality and gender. The women in
the ads are shown as entirely fulfilled as long as they can
have (penetrative) sex with their partner, stripping away
any ability to consider feelings, experiences, or context
of relationships. Instead, women are presented as beings
easy to master by the opposite sex – keep her pleased in
the bedroom, and she will have nothing to complain
about. Using a limited version of what constitutes sexu-
ality (penetrative intercourse between a male and female),
the ads clearly position the women via the male gaze,
meaning they are portrayed in a hypersexualized manner
consistent with consumer culture, presenting versions of
women as men want to see them. Men watch women and
women watch men watching women.28
This analysis provides an example for understanding
how social meaning and relationships underlie the market
transaction of obtaining a prescription drug. These partic-
ular advertisements may be creating belief in the larger
sense, meaning Pfizer is influencing the medicinal partner
to become a focal point in a patient’s process of choice
regarding medicinal remedies, while also making a strong
statement about heterosexual relationships and individual
romantic identity.29 The irony here, of course, is that re-
ceiving a prescription for Viagra will not be the cure-all
for a relationship. Viagra cannot fix a broken relationship
or create the perfect sexual encounter, yet its ads show us
that it can.
Conclusions
This study provided the first identification and decon-
struction of a medicinal partner’s role in pharmaceutical
advertising, meaning that it is likely the pharmaceutical
industry will use this tactic again in the future. This merits
future analysis, as the medicinal partner will play an in-
creasingly important role in terms of media consumption
and patients asking their doctors about name brand pre-
scription drugs. Above even medicine, as agentic beings
we hold authority over our own bodies, ultimately having
the power to decide which treatment options we will con-
sider and adhere to. However, the success of Viagra, fi-
nancially and culturally, is evidence of Pfizer’s larger
power over health discourse.
The limitations of this study include its analysis of
broadcast advertisements, not considering the content of
Viagra advertisements featured via print (e.g. magazine
advertisements) or online. Additionally, this study is based
on advertisements in the United States, which raises the
question of whether such promotions are being used in
non-U.S. markets for other health care categories. This
[page 70] [Qualitative Research in Medicine & Healthcare 2018; 2:7646]
Article
No
n-
co
mm
er
cia
l u
se
on
ly
particular area presents an opportunity for future analysis,
especially in comparison to New Zealand, the only other
industrialized nation in the world that permits such adver-
tising of the pharmaceutical sector.
The pharmaceutical fetishism inherent in the most re-
cent stream of Viagra ads is not only the implication that
one will have sex. It is the suggestion that one will have
better sex that gets the consumer’s attention. Viagra acts
as a form of life enhancement so very indicative of the
pharmaceutical industry – the medication will not change
who you are, but it will make you a better version of your-
self, meaning a better life is well within reach. Consump-
tion is at the heart of this ad campaign, as it is positioned
to reflect a woman’s desire to obtain sex with her partner,
and plays on the inadequacy a man may feel for not being
able to engage in intimate relations with another. The
pharmaceutical industry itself prides itself on consump-
tion. In the literal sense, the more pills American are pre-
scribed, the more money is made. In other ways, the
theme of consumption aids in perpetuating the already-
existent discourse of medicinal authority in the United
States – prescriptions are the first option we go to when
faced with a medical ailment or condition, assuming a
type of cultural significance in that the act of taking a pill
becomes positioned as a form of proactivity by the patient.
Perhaps most important from this analysis is the role of
the medicinal partner introduced to the process of phar-
maceutical fetishism. While advertising has previously
utilized the romantic partner as a persuasive technique,
this marks the first time the advertisement solely relies
upon that individual. The individual that would actually
consume this medication is nowhere to be seen. In ads for
other ED medications, for example (e.g. Cialis), the me-
dicinal partner is a feature of the patient’s story and jour-
ney. In the case of Viagra, a new format has been
introduced that effectively removes the patient altogether,
yet does so in a way that seems harmless. However, upon
further inspection, this new persuasive technique is con-
cerning, as this shift signifies a potential re-organization
of the patient’s authority in asking their doctor about a
medication. More than just a form of suggestive sale made
by one’s romantic partner, this presents more questions
than answers in terms of how this can impact the dis-
course of health care that is already over-commercialized
in favor of profit in the United States. Additionally, from
the alternative viewpoint, these ads are equally problem-
atic in regard to the poorly-executed portrayals of post-
feminist female partners featured. At face value, these
women are presented as empowered, having the ability to
not only fix their partner’s ED, but they also are given the
space to freely discuss their sexuality. Upon further in-
spection, however, this is a form of faux-empowerment,
as it focuses on sexuality in a way that serves to please
the male partner, further embedding ideas of what is
means to be a normal female sexual partner, perpetuating
an ideology that assumes a sexual deficiency is something
that must be fixed via performative gender practices.30
The genre of pharmaceutical advertisements have
strongly influenced our health care, changing the ways in
which we discuss our treatment options with providers,
and no doubt serves a capitalist agenda. This form of com-
mercial culture has intersected some of our most vulner-
able, private moments – our conversations with our
doctor, changing the course of these conversations in a
way that is centered on a product to be bought and sold.
While the need for pharmaceuticals is paramount, the cul-
tural shift from patient to consumer raises concerns re-
garding the quality of our health care system. The focus
of pharmaceutical advertising should not be on revenue
in terms of success measurement – we already know the
market effect of this product category. It is arguably too
lucrative, too indoctrinated into our media system, to ever
go away. The more pressing matter is the consideration of
the cultural impact of these ads. An advertisement tells a
story, and Pfizer has created a whole new book for us to
begin reading with its latest campaign.
References
1. Applequist J, Gerard Ball J. An updated analysis of direct-
to-consumer television advertisements for prescription
drugs. Ann Fam Med 2018;16:211-6.
2. Department of Health and Human Services. Observations
on trends in prescription drug spending, ASPE Form OMB
No. 0990-0379. Available from: https://aspe.hhs.gov/pdf-re-
port/observations-trends-prescription-drug-spending. Ac-
cessed 2018 May 14.
3. Kantar Media. U.S. measured ad expenditures declined
3.9% in Q3 2015 to $36 billion. Available from:
http://www.kantarmedia.com/us/newsroom/press-
releases/us-measured-ad-expenditures-declined-3-9-q3-
2015-36-billion. Accessed 2018 May 2.
4. Adorno T, Horkheimer M. Dialectic of enlightenment. New
York, NY: Continuum; 1989.
5. Lupton D. Toward the development of a critical health com-
munication praxis. Health Commun 1994;6:55-67.
6. Sharf BF, Street RL Jr. The patient as central construct: shift-
ing the emphasis. Health Commun 1997;1:1-11.
7. Hallin DC, Briggs CL. Transcending the medical/media op-
position in research on news coverage of health and medi-
cine. Media Cult Soc 2015;37:85-100.
8. Jyotti Dutta M, de Souza R. The past, present, and future of
health development campaigns: reflexivity and the critical-
cultural approach. Health Commun 2008;23:326-39.
9. Kline NM. Popular media and health: images, effects and
institutions. In: Thompson T, Dorsey KI, Miller R, eds.
Handbook of health communication. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum; 2003. pp 557-81.
10. Applequist J. Broadcast pharmaceutical advertising in the
United States: prime time pill pushers. Lanham, MD: Lex-
ington; 2016.
11. Jhally S. Image-based culture: advertising and consumer
culture. In: Dines G, Humez JM, eds. Gender, race, and class
in the media: a critical reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage;
2011. pp 199-203.
[Qualitative Research in Medicine & Healthcare 2018; 2:7646] [page 71]
Article
No
n-
co
mm
er
cia
l u
se
on
ly
12. Conrad P. The medicalization of society: on the transforma-
tion of human conditions into treatable disorders. Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2007.
13. Clarke AE, Shim JK, Mamo L, et al. Technoscientific trans-
formation of health, illness, and US biomedicine. Am Sociol
Rev 2003;68:161-94.
14. Williams SJ, Seale C, Boden S, et al. Waking up to sleepi-
ness: modafinil, the media and the pharmaceuticalisation of
every day/night life. Sociol Health Illn 2009;30:839-55.
15. Gitlin T. Prime time ideology: the hegemonic process in tel-
evision entertainment. Soc Probl 1979;26:251-266.
16. Stern BB. Textual analysis in advertising research: construc-
tion and deconstruction of meanings. J Advert 1996;25:61-73.
17. Feldman HA, Goldstein I, Hatzichristou DG, et al. Impo-
tence and its medical and psychosocial correlates: results of
the Massachusetts male aging study. J Urol 1994;151:54-61.
18. Thompson D. Half of broadcast TV viewers are 54 and older
– yikes. The Atlantic. 2014 Available from: https://www.the-
atlantic.com/busin ess/archive/2014/03/half-of-broadcast-
tv-viewers-are-54-and-older-yikes/284256/. Accessed 2018
May 30.
19. Conrad P, Leiter V. From Lydia Pinkham to Queen Levitra:
direct-to-consumer advertising and medicalization. Sociol
Health Illn 2009;30:825-38.
20. Newman R. “Let’s just say it works for me”: Rafael
Palmeiro, Major League Baseball, and the marketing of Vi-
agra. NINE: A J Baseball Hist Cult 2006;14:1-14.
21. Hensley S, Vranica S. FDA tells Pfizer to pull Viagra ads
about ‘wild thing’. Wall Street Journal. 2004 16. Available
from: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB11005566598127459.
Accessed 2018 April 29.
22. Wood J. Gendered lives: communication, gender, and cul-
ture. 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing; 1999.
23. Balaji M, Worawongs T. The new Suzie Wong: normative
assumptions of white male and Asian female relationships.
Commun Cult Critique 2010;3:224-41.
24. Butler J. Performative acts and gender constitution: an essay
in phenomenology and feminist theory. Theatre J
1988;40:519-31.
25. Henson L, Parameswaran RE. Getting real with “tell it like
it is” talk therapy: hegemonic masculinity and the Dr. Phil
show. Commun Cult Critique 2008;1:287-310.
26. Faludi S. Backlash: the undeclared war against America’s
women. New York, NY: Doubleday; 1991.
27. Tharp M, Scott LM. The role of marketing processes in cre-
ating cultural meaning. J Macromarketing 1990;48:47-60.
28. Berger J. Ways of seeing. London: Penguin; 1972.
29. Schudson M. Advertising as capitalist realism. In: Turow J,
McAllister MP, eds. The advertising and consumer culture
reader. New York, NY: Routledge; 2009. pp 237-255.
30. Bedor E. It’s not you, it’s your (old) vagina: osphena’s ar-
ticulation of sexual dysfunction. Sex Cult 2016;20:38-55.
[page 72] [Qualitative Research in Medicine & Healthcare 2018; 2:7646]
Article
No
n-
co
mm
er
cia
l u
se
on
ly