A few days before the 2024 presidential election, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. took the stage at an event hosted by conservative commentator Tucker Carlson in Glendale, Arizona. Kennedy has supported Donald Trump in his bid to return to the White House, and his speech focused particularly on health care issues.
“One of the things I would advise Donald Trump to do to correct the epidemic of chronic disease is to ban advertising of pharmaceuticals on television,” Kennedy told the crowd, who gave him a standing ovation. I responded. “There are only two countries in the world that allow pharmaceutical advertising over the airwaves. One of them is New Zealand and the other is us, but we have the highest incidence of disease and We buy a lot of medicine, and the medicine is more expensive than anywhere else in the world.”
Of course, Mr. Trump won the election and then announced his intention to nominate Mr. Kennedy to lead the new administration’s Health and Human Services Department, with drug company advertising top of mind. This is a development that media executives cannot afford to miss. A top TV ad sales executive said his company is closely monitoring developments and his team is casually considering how to respond if any bans or restrictions go into effect. Targeting the media has been a recurring theme in his campaign, with President Trump filing lawsuits against ABC News and CBS News, and incoming FCC Chairman Brendan Carr calling for broadcast owners to be held accountable. seems to be interested in
Targeting pharmaceutical advertising on television would be a major financial addition to that fight. And while lawsuits and an FCC investigation are the targets, a blanket ban on drug advertising would hurt both friends and foes. Steve Tomsic, chief financial officer of Fox Corp., which owns Fox News and the Fox Broadcast Network, was asked about a possible ban on Dec. 9 at a UBS briefing. “Is that a concern? We shouldn’t be flippant about this,” Tomsic said, noting that pharmaceutical advertising accounts for low single digits of the company’s total revenue, and that Fox “will prove not to be the case.” “We are ready, but it will not be a complete ban,” he added. It’s all pharmaceutical. ”
Still, the impact on Fox would be in the low single digits and amount to hundreds of millions of dollars a year. And the impact on the larger television business will be significant. Media measurement firm iSpot.tv says the pharmaceutical industry will spend more than $5 billion on national television advertising this year. Billions more will be spent on digital and streaming ads.
In fact, according to FiercePharma, the top 10 pharmaceutical products alone account for more than $1 billion in annual spending, with brands like Ozempic and Jardiance spending more than $10 million a month on national TV advertising alone, and Skyrizi. It tops the charts at over $30. Monthly TV advertising costs are $1 million.
A ban would cause havoc, and some industries, such as television news programs, would be particularly hard hit. At least when it comes to the television industry, the possibility of a ban is a real wild card. The TV industry is struggling to regain ad sales growth as tech giants Meta and Amazon and streaming companies YouTube and TikTok take market share. “Pharmaceutical advertising is skewed toward national television, and the loss of this important segment could negatively impact television,” S&P Global analyst Naveen Sarma said in a Dec. 12 report. said.
In its 2025 preview, media buying company Group M predicted that global ad revenue would rise 7.7% in 2025, but next year’s linear TV ad revenue would fall 3.4%, offset by a 19.3% increase in streaming TV revenue. I expected it to happen.
“It remains unclear how Robert F. Kennedy’s proposed appointment to head the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will affect U.S. drug spending, but he has spoken out against direct-to-consumer advertising in the industry. ” GroupM said. The report added that “such a ban, if enacted, could impact linear television media owners.”
Kate Scott Dawkins, GroupM’s global president of business intelligence, said on a conference call about the report that the potential ban is factored into the company’s report. “We have a base case and that’s what we’re predicting and that’s why we talk about downside risk,” he said.
But it is by no means certain that the administration will actually be able to push any ban through to the final stages, despite the very real risks to the television industry. After all, the United States has a long history of protecting free speech, including commercial speech. “I don’t think the courts will accept this. I think they’ll probably decide that a blanket ban goes too far,” says Dan Novak, a lawyer who specializes in First Amendment and media law litigation. . “I think these are the kind of things I call First Amendment trial balloons that can be floated. It’s easy and cheap to get something out there. And , you can see how loud it is.”
It’s not without precedent. In a conversation with conservative radio host Dana Roush, Carr recalled the Public Health Tobacco and Smoking Act, signed by President Richard Nixon in 1970, which banned tobacco advertising on television. “My first instinct about that Big Pharma advertising idea is that there needs to be a two-step process. Either HHS makes the decision or Congress makes the decision. , and then the FCC could step in and take some action,” Kerr said.
Of course, tobacco is a public health nuisance, but FDA-approved medicines provide a net benefit. “I don’t know how they get around the fact that all the drugs they advertise are FDA-approved,” Novak said. “So while one arm of government says this is clinically proven to be effective and safe when used correctly, another arm of government says it is inherently dangerous and has a negative impact on society? Why do you say give?”
S&P Global’s Sarma said in an analysis that even if the administration were able to enact some kind of ban, those ad dollars could go elsewhere. In fact, GroupM states in its report that “it must be noted that DTC messages are only one part of the pharmaceutical advertising plan,” and that significant pharmaceutical advertising funds go into B2B marketing for prescribers. It states that the funds are being used for funds that are not. Usually broadcast through television networks.
Advertisements for Ozempic and Munjaro on television may be a strong defense of free speech, but marketing and sales efforts directed at doctors may be more targeted. “I don’t think the First Amendment aspect is as prominent there,” Novak notes. However, the issue is also politically complex. Kennedy received a standing ovation at a conservative political event, but efforts to limit or suppress pharmaceutical advertising have involved center-left politicians like Hillary Clinton in the past.
Even the media does not necessarily universally oppose the ban. On CNBC’s Squawk Box on Dec. 23, co-anchors Andrew Ross Sorkin and Joe Kernen acknowledged that NBCUniversal is a beneficiary of that spending, but said banning pharmaceutical advertising is a good idea. I agreed that it might be possible. “Don’t you think doctors should prescribe what they need? They don’t need to be sold something they don’t have,” Kernen said, echoing Sorkin’s agreement.
This article first appeared in the January 9 issue of The Hollywood Reporter. Click here to subscribe to receive the magazine.
