Elaine,

You didn't mention where you saw this ad so I can't comment specifically about ad placement. However, and boy do I feel old, more than a few of my friends and acquaintances have had at least one joint replacement in the past year. And, as they are retired, they watch quite a lot of daytime TV and read many magazines.

My point: joint replacement is something many of us are thinking about and, yes, I would ask my doctor about Stryker, if I needed a knee replacement, as living without pain is a critical factor in quality of life.

This is just another sign of the growing trend of pharmaceutical companies targeting the end-users for their wares. But I won't go on a tirade about the big drug companies.

As Lewis posted, we're getting older as a nation and knee replacement is in the future of an increasing number of folks. The marketing department at Stryker is no different from the marketing departments of Phizer, GSK or Merck. They want patients to ask specifically for their products. It just took one drug company to start the trend to get us where we are now.

There's definitely an audience for this product. And it fits right into the mold of the pharma ads we've been seeing on Tv for several years now, companies selling drugs we can only get by prescription. But the ideas is... "ask your doctor." No doubt, they have a campaign going also that's aimed at doctors and ortho MDs.

When I first saw the post, I though it was for advertising on people's knees. Remember a couple of years ago, we saw people shaving logos into their hair. What about logo tattoos, or private cars covered with a company's logo? Or the deodorizer in urinals that talks to you with an advertising message when it gets wet. When it comes to out-of-home advertising, no place is really sacred anymore.

Good topic Elaine!

I think it's a probably a good idea to differentiate between the pharmaceutical companies and the medical device manufacturers, although the two often hold hands, and some companies, like Johnson and Johnson, do both.

I've spent MORE than my fair share of time in this arena on both sides. The real truth is, the advent of plastic surgery has made DTC advertising for implantable devices a valuable asset in cross-channel marketing.

Unfortunately, it does seem that those "less wise" marketers are opting for "flash in the pan" advertising to create brand awareness with the masses. I certainly do question the value of this approach. I also don't enjoy the commercials any more than the rest of you.

The more honorable goals of implantable device marketing are are relatively simple: educate prospects and patients about disorder/disease; create awareness about treatment options; motivate patients to pursue and stick with treatment; work to create brand affinity and preference that will relay itself to the physician office through the patient.

It is widely admitted, however, that patients are unlikely to sway the doctor's choice of an implantable device. So these campaigns only work well when they are launched in tandem with the proper DTP (physician/practitioner) approach.

How do I know this? Well, please don't "BOO" me - but I was instrumental in leading the development of the first multichannel DTC campaigns for a leading medical device manufacturer, Medtronic.

The "Tame the Pain" campaign, led by spokesman, Jerry Lewis, was targeted to chronic pain sufferers. http://www.medtronic.com/neuro/ttp/ .

Many of the patients we encountered were simply desperate for help with their debilitating pain.

Our multichannel approach helped opted-in patients through the treatment and awareness continuum, and helped direct the right patients to a practitioner for evaluation for one of two devices: an electronic stimulation device and a drug pump.

In short, these devices block pain receptors and alleviate their chronic pain - allowing patients to go back to work, rejoin life and family activities again.

Within weeks of the campaign launch, which combined patient education, case studies, real-life stories, educational videos and find a physician services, we received very emotional thank-you letters from patients all over the country.

I gotta say, it was pretty gratifying work, all in all.

Unlike the mass-media Stryker ad, our campaign was executed to highly targeted audiences. This included a referral audience from Web MD (opt-in basis), internal customer inquiries, web-based referrals Patient Advocacy Groups, patient care advocates (e.g. physical therapists), etc. This was HIGHLY effective.

The infrastructure we created behind the scenes allowed us to directly measure how our campaign influenced patients through the awareness continuum. In fact, based on our existing information, the campaign was highly influential in reducing the patient's "adoption cycle" for investigating implantable devices.

Unfortunately, I can't tell you more or I'd have to shoot you. :-) Needless to say, the campaign paid off handsomely for the business and the patients we helped.

As a result of the Tame the Pain success, Medtronic is now engaging in active DTC marketing today. I recently saw a television advertisement for a Medtronic pacemaker while sitting in my hotel room. A bit weird, I'll admit!

So - Does it work to do mass-media campaigns for implantable devices? I guess only time will tell.

Do I like these ads? Only slightly more than pharmaceutical, erectile dysfunction, and feminine hygene ads.

Even so, I fear we cannot avoid these types of ads in the future.

In closing, I recommend TIVO.

- Leigh

Thanks for these excellent comments. Good points.

I agree with Leigh in that drugs seem different than medical devices to me. If someone has RA (rheumatoid arthritis), as an example, and asks the doctor about the new drug she saw advertised on TV, it can encourage a dialog of drug treatment options. Knowing about a disease, its causes and treatments is smart on the part of the consumer/patient. There's quite a bit of information freely available in addition to word-of-mouth from others using the same drugs. Although some of the language is in medical-speak, there's still quite a bit that a lay person can understand, like side effects, what other drugs interact negatively, etc.

However, I just don't see the practicality of marketing devices and implants to end-users in a mass media campaign. When it comes to surgery, replacements or implants, I don't feel confident as a lay person to evaluate the pros and cons of the manufacturers' products. I would guess that there's quite a bit of medical knowledge required to make an informed decision. That's why I would choose a reputable surgeon whom I could trust to make that decision on my behalf.

However, (and this is a big however) if hospitals purchase devices like businesses choose office supplies - ordering from the supplier that offers the best discount, even if the product is slightly inferior, then I would change my mind on this issue. Maybe then, patients could question the quality of the parts. I certainly hope this isn't the case in the medical profession, but it's not my area of expertise. Maybe Leigh knows this answer?

I can't speak to each individual hospital, of course. My understanding is that typically, most hospitals and physicians court representatives from many companies. There may be some brand preference in terms of equipment, including medical devices. So in particular, the relationship of the surgeon with the company is highly influential.

Often the device companies offer workshops, educational credits, and formal training and education for surgeons. Medtronic has "reps" with surgical experience that actually attend procedures to help advise the physician on the proper placement of devices.

So, I do agree with you that mass market campaigns are questionably valuable - except as they may influence patient dialog.

But, as a litmus test, when I spoke to my mother-in-law, who had DOUBLE knee replacement surgery two weeks ago, she laughed about the subject. She is a Registered Nurse, and she does not know the brand of her implants. When I asked if a mass media campaign would have impacted her dialog with her surgeon, her response was something like "I doubt it." So, there you go.

Interesting, Leigh, and she's a nurse. Thanks for responding.

Yes, we have requested Stryker knee replacements. Not because of ads, but because of word of mouth from other folks who have them.

I'm in line for both knees to be replaced, before going in for the fifth time to have my back worked on (I have no discs in my spine, from T12 all the way down) So you can believe me when I say "I want all the information I can get!)
I missed the TV ad you are talking about, but I have seen as many websites as I can on all the hip, knee replacement Manfacturers. I can find. I WILL MAKE THE DECSIONS,ALONG WITH THE DR., ON WHO'S JOINTS i GET!!

Don Reagan

As a 47 year old woman who has just completed my 2nd knee replacement in 6 months, both of which happen to be Stryker knees, in my opinion I don't see a problem with the ad. It's not that I see medical products as a retail commodity, but it does make me feel a little more normal. Having artificial parts makes me feel a little alien and knowing that ad is running on national TV kind of makes the whole process a little more mainstream. So, I really don't see a problem with it.

As a 47 year old woman who has just completed my 2nd knee replacement in 6 months, both of which happen to be Stryker knees, in my opinion I don't see a problem with the ad. It's not that I see medical products as a retail commodity, but it does make me feel a little more normal. Having artificial parts makes me feel a little alien and knowing that ad is running on national TV kind of makes the whole process a little more mainstream. So, I really don't see a problem with it.