Page images
PDF
EPUB

"As in any sound research project, we will attempt to uncover
general principles from the study of this particular local
situation which may be applied in the future in such a way
as to increase the desired results following from the

application of this new knowledge." The proposal then went into the reasons for the selection of this particular area of knowledge to study:

" To our knowledge, no previous study of this type and scope
has ever been undertaken. The area covered is a most
fundamental one on which all major marketing decisions are
based, It is, moreover, our impression that less is known
about this particular area than in any of the less important
areas, though there are more divergent theories, 'seat of the
pants' decisions, and pet hunches, followed in this area
than in any other.

"If this study reveals a tenth of what we have reasonable hopes
of learning, it will enable the American Medical Association
to perform a service for the industry of such magnitude that
the industry will be very mindful of AMA publications when
setting up advertising media al locations."

[ocr errors]

by Ben Gaffin & Associates, Inc., Chicago, hlinois

Exhibit 9

A STUDY OF MEDICAL ADVERTISING AND THE AI ERICAN PHYSICIAN PART II. THE PHYSICIANS' VIEWPOINT An Opinion Survey Made for the American Medical Association

CHAPTER VII. ATTITUDES OF PHYSICIANS TOWARD COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE

From the survey of advertisers, we learned that the majority of medical advertisers believe that physicians attach little or no importance to the Council Seal of Acceptance in the case of a product which is not dangerous, especially if the manufacturer is well-known and of good reputation.

Medical advertisers generally believe that the Council's Seal has considerable value in the case of a new, potentially dangerous drug; or any drug put out by an unknown firm.

To learn the facts about the attitudes of physicians toward Council
Acceptance, we asked them three questions:

"When learning about a new product which is not particularly
dangerous, do you usually have any special interest in whether
or not it is 'Council Accepted,' or doesn't it make any
difference?"

"In the case of a drug which is not particularly dangerous,
would you feel safer in prescribing it if it had the Council
Seal of Acceptance, or wouldn't it make any difference?"

"Which do you think is usually of greater importance to you
in connection with a new drug the name of the manufacturer,
or the fact that the drug has the Council Seal?"

On the first question (see Table 48), the answers of physicians as & whole broke down as follows:

71% have special interest,
27% makes no difference,
2% qualified or other.

There are some interesting variations on the part of special groups from this national average. The physicians who write over 100 prescriptions per week were considerably more inclined to be interested in Council Acceptance (85%) than those who write fewer prescriptions.

The full-time G.P. is more interested (77%) than the full-time specialist (68%).

[ocr errors]

The physicians of 40 and over were more interested (73%) than those under 40 (65%).

Geographically, physicians living in the East were the least interested (67%), while those in the South expressed a considerably higher interest (average, 79%). Physicians living in cities under 100,000 were considerably more interested (76%), than those living in cities of a million and over (62%).

p. 117, by Ben Gaffin & Associates, Chicago 4, Illinois, August 31, 1953

A STUDY OF MEDICAL ADVERTISING AND THE AMERICAN PHYSICIAN PART II.
THE PHYSICIANS' VIEWPOINT -- An Opinion Survey liade For the American
Medical Association

There seem to be no pronounced or consistent differences on the basis of variations in exposure to commercial advertising channels.

On the second question (see Table 49), the breakdown was as follows:

79% would feel safer,
20% makes no difference,
1% qualified or other.

The same relative differences between various groups holds true on the answers to this question as on the preceding.

The third question (see Table 50), produced the following overall breakdown:

55% Council Seal is more important than the name

of manufacturer,
33% name of manufacturer is more important than

Council Seal,
5% they are both equally important,
3% other factors are more important than either, and
4% undecided.

There are some differences between the national average and the averages for special groups which one would not expect from the answers to the two previous questions.

Twice as many physicians who wrote the largest number of prescriptions consider the Council's Seal as of greater importance than the manufacturer (60% vs. 30%); among those who wrote the ferest prescriptions, this difference dropped to 48% vs. 39%.

Full-time G.P. 's were highest by type of practice (57% for the Council Seal vs. 34% for the manufacturer), and Internists attached most importance to the Council Seal (66% vs. 28% manufacturer) of any of the specialities.

[ocr errors]

Most surprising, the physicians under 40 attached relatively more
importance to the Council's Seal (56% vs. 35%), than did the
physicians 60 and over (53% for Council Seal vs. 31% for manufacturer).

As in the preceding questions, the small town physician living in towns under 10,000 population was relatively more impressed by the Council's Seal (62%) than by the name of the manufacturer (31%).

pps. 117–118, by Ben Gaffin & Associates, Chicago h, Illinois, August 31, 1953

[blocks in formation]

1960 Costs, expenses, and other charcos: Board of trustoos

$ 714,436 Brocutive vice-president

1,301,871 Seientific activities division

1,070,134 1.073.606
Environmental Medicine Division

429,805
Lagal & Socio-Seonordic Division- 1,066,428 729.467
Solontinio publications division

570,736 628,090
Commanications division

1,232,035 1,333,672 Mold service division

183,492 239,990 Washington office

118,292 110,050 Business division

8,942,631 9.17.978 $14,941,759 $15.735.966

A.M.A. STATEMENT FOR 1959 and 1960

1959

816,328

,942,883

[graphic]
[blocks in formation]

During the appearance of representatives of the American Medical Association before the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly on July 5-6, reference was made to a comparison of amounts appropriated for the Council on Drugs and related committees for the period of 1952 to 1961. Reference to this item appears on pages 245-248 of the Report of Proceedings, Volume II, July 6, 1961.

Permission was given by you at the time of the hearings for the presentation of additional figures in this regard accompanied by further explanation. Enclosed is a copy of a more accurate statement with respect to the amounts appropriated by the American Medical Association for its Council on Drugs and the Committee on Research and Toxicology for the years from 1952 to 1961.

The figures presented by a member of your staff on July 6 were obtained from a review of back issues of The Journal of the American Medical Association. The fallacy of this approach arises from the fact that the composition and related responsibilities of various committees of the Council changed during the years covered by the analysis. In addition, changes in our accounting system make it impossible to prepare an accurate comparison of amounts appropriated for the same or similar responsibilities by reviewing annual statements appearing in the Journal.

« PreviousContinue »