Product details

By continuing to use our site you consent to the use of cookies as described in our privacy policy unless you have disabled them.
You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.

Abstract

This case study is an attempt to elucidate the malpractices of advertising and communication, which are carried out by the industry giants. It also highlights the absence of an effective crisis communication strategy, which can prove to be detrimental for the brand and industry as a whole. Until September 2004, Celebrex, a global brand of Pfizer, the world''s largest pharmaceutical company for anti-arthritis drugs and Vioxx, a global rival brand of Merck, the world''s third-largest pharmaceutical company, were doing well all over the world. These brands occupied the top positions in Direct-to-Consumer Advertising (DTCA) expenditure. Through massive ad campaigns, they created a global brand awareness in a short time. Their communication pitched high on gastrointestinal safety. What these two brands did not talk about was the cardiovascular safety profile. Following the analysis of three-years worth of data in a post-marketing study, it was shown that Vioxx doubled the risk of heart attack and stroke in patients, who took it for at least 18 months. On 30 September 2004 Merck announced that Vioxx would be voluntarily withdrawn by Merck, worldwide. There was an imbroglio without any clearcut strategy of vindication and revival of the brand image. Had the health care companies thought of this peril? Was there any way to recover from this bad case of public relations? Was Pfizer''s move to continue with Celebrex in the market, the right decision or should it have gone the Merck way? Was a massive DTCA pitch, focusing only on the benefits of the drug, the right strategy to increase the company''s market share fast?
Location:
Industry:
Other setting(s):
2005

About

Abstract

This case study is an attempt to elucidate the malpractices of advertising and communication, which are carried out by the industry giants. It also highlights the absence of an effective crisis communication strategy, which can prove to be detrimental for the brand and industry as a whole. Until September 2004, Celebrex, a global brand of Pfizer, the world''s largest pharmaceutical company for anti-arthritis drugs and Vioxx, a global rival brand of Merck, the world''s third-largest pharmaceutical company, were doing well all over the world. These brands occupied the top positions in Direct-to-Consumer Advertising (DTCA) expenditure. Through massive ad campaigns, they created a global brand awareness in a short time. Their communication pitched high on gastrointestinal safety. What these two brands did not talk about was the cardiovascular safety profile. Following the analysis of three-years worth of data in a post-marketing study, it was shown that Vioxx doubled the risk of heart attack and stroke in patients, who took it for at least 18 months. On 30 September 2004 Merck announced that Vioxx would be voluntarily withdrawn by Merck, worldwide. There was an imbroglio without any clearcut strategy of vindication and revival of the brand image. Had the health care companies thought of this peril? Was there any way to recover from this bad case of public relations? Was Pfizer''s move to continue with Celebrex in the market, the right decision or should it have gone the Merck way? Was a massive DTCA pitch, focusing only on the benefits of the drug, the right strategy to increase the company''s market share fast?

Settings

Location:
Industry:
Other setting(s):
2005

Related