Ethics in healthcare advertising

Emotional vs. Rational--the debate

2011-10-21T12:39:00.001-05:00

It's a debate that dates back to the late 1920's. Even the experts don't agree. In March, 2009, Advertising Age published a piece by Hamish Pringle and Peter Field on the topic. Their take? From their research, the data showed that emotional campaigns are almost twice as likely to generate large profit gains than rational ones...with campaigns that use facts as well as emotions in equal measure falling somewhere in between. They were able to document that successful emotional campaigns reduce price sensitivity dramatically. Additionally, there is an increased sense of differentiation causing greater endurance and a likelihood to survive new competing product launches.

Jack Trout would respectfully disagree. In his blog posting to Branding Strategy Insider on Jan. 10, 2009, he cited a study conducted by TiVo back in June of 2008 that measured which ad campaigns people most frequently fast forwarded through. His conclusions: The top three least fast forwarded through, thereby assumed to have been watched and "sticky", were more effective, and he states that they were all three rational by his definition (he doesn't exactly share his framework for his definition, however). They included the least which was Bowflex...he said that wanting to look like the buff, fit guy on Bowflex was somehow a rational arguement...hmmm...seems emotional to me, invoking desire, envy, etc. Let's look at the other two top vote-getters for sticky...Dominican Republic tourism...relaxation, fun, pleasure....seems emotional again. Ok, surely the last of his arguments holds....Hooters....of course! It's the food! Now we all know that's a rational argument.

Ken Orwig, in a white paper posted to his website, www.orwig.net, says the bottom line lies with the brand itself. The dominant mood (emotional v. rational) is best determined by the brand's elements, including uniqueness (the more unique, the greater the need for the rational argument); price (the higher the price for the brand, the more rational the argument needed, with the exception being purely luxury items where it's mostly an emotional purchase); the more defined the customer perception of the brand category also drives rational v. emotional; the more innovative or intangible the brand, the greater the need for rational messaging; and, the higher the importance to the target, the greater the attention to the rational messages.

Yet, Orwig notes that "neurological research as well as a substantial body of anecdotal evidence supports the premise (sic) that People buy on emotion then justify their decision with facts." He went on to quote Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas who pointed out "At the constitutional level where we work, 90% of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections." Now we understand the debate in Congress over Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor...will she use emotion or rational reasoning in her decisions?

So what about healthcare? Let's look at the taxonomy of Emotional advertising...ads taking this approach must invoke fear, humor, fantasy, hope, compassion, relief or engagement, at a minimum. Ads using rational will feature technical expertise, scientific evidence, comparisons, or third party validation. Today's more successful brand campaigns involving health care organizations use some combination of emotional and rational. With the proliferation of transparency, they have to. The debate will continue. I leave you with this question...what is word of mouth? Emotional? Rational? Hmmmmm...would love your thoughts.

What can you do if your competition goes too far?

2009-06-15T12:00:00.002-05:00

So, you wonder if your competition's position is ethical. And, worse, it's not true! They are making claims that they cannot substantiate...in fact, you can prove it!

Well, lawsuits are always an option, but they take time and can be laborious, and in the end, proving damage and righting the wrong are rarely the outcome.

Try what I've done...write or call your counterpart at the competitor and make your case. It's likely that in their enthusiasm for their message and campaign, they forgot to check the facts. If that doesn't get you the result you are hoping for, write a formal letter, documenting the claim or error, falsehood, or mis-statement of fact. Copy the hospital CEO and board chair. If that isn't effective, try having the last letter come from your corporate counsel.

Personally, by step two above, I've been effective at making my case and getting the offending messages pulled. Good luck, and let's be diligent.

Isn't it time to police ourselves?

2008-04-22T10:01:00.001-05:00

Maybe it’s just me, but twenty five years ago when I was a fresh MBA right out of Northwestern’s JL Kellogg Graduate School of Management with my degree in marketing and hospital administration and I had just landed my first hospital marketing job in the inner city of Chicago, things were different. (Wow, I can’t believe I just started a blog with that statement). No one advertised services, awards, quality measures, service guarantees, etc. Occasionally, a hospital might advertise an event to raise money, announce a new physician to the community, or promote participation in a community event, like a health fair or screening. Marketing types also wrote annual reports and distributed the same to the donors. We restricted the bulk of our work in those days to brochure development, for distribution by the referring physician to the patient when they told the patient that was where their procedure would be performed. After all, in those days, doctors told patients which hospital they would go to, and patients complied.

Back then, hospital administrators and board members of these not for profit organizations were reluctant to act (read advertise) like retail organizations. When the marketing department was lucky enough or skilled enough to convince the above of the merits of an ad, every physician in that specialty, every administrator on the leadership team, and frequently even the board chairman had to approve every word in that ad. We never used the word “BEST” because, quite frankly, it was indefensible. How could you prove it?

2008. Today, you cannot watch a television station, even cable, for more than 15 minutes without some type of healthcare advertising…and in most markets; you can’t go an hour without a hospital ad. These ads make claims of superiority, high ratings and rankings, reference statistics and measures not clear to even me, a 25 year veteran of understanding our language. Try reading a newspaper, any size, any town and count the number of healthcare related ad placements you see. Then count the claims made…and the references used. You cannot even attend a sporting event… I recently attended an AHL hockey game (tier below NHL) in a northern/Midwestern community and within that arena, I saw 8 healthcare dasher boards, 3 healthcare lighted signs, a dentist sponsored club level seating area, and heard at least 5 promo spots per period for a health related sponsor.

So, how does this get into an ethics discussion? How can you possibly prove "best"...does one award by a third party do it? Does a listing by a magazine do it? Does an opinion poll do it? Does internal data make you "best"?

As a consumer, how am I to discern what you claim? Am I expected to understand these ratings and rankings, and nuances of .01% difference between the number of stars you have versus the number of stars the other hospital has? Am I expected to realize that this information is based upon practices, doctors, and staff you had two years ago, even if none of the same team remain today?

I have had the experience of seeing first hand gross exaggerations of best, only, first in a number of markets. I've spoken to dozens of peers who are struggling with the same reality. What do we do when we KNOW a hospital is deceptive or misleading in their advertising?

While there are certainly legal and federal/state agencies that are available to pursue, should that be necessary? I argue no. It shouldn't be necessary.

As healthcare professionals, we should be held to a higher standard, and should have available to us our own voluntary mechanism where a panel of our professional peers hears cases like this, reviews evidence regarding appropriateness, truth, and deception, and has the authority to rule for or against an ads approach. Today, we have several professional organizations to which we can belong that might tackle this challenge.

Shouldn't we do what we can to police ourselves before our industry is forced by others to repeal all advertising? When did we lose sight that our responsibility is to help patients and their families find the right level of care, the right provider, and the right resources in a manner that informs and assists them. Nearly every not for profit healthcare organization shares as some element of its mission to serve their community...finding advertising today that reflects that mission is becoming more difficult.