Will the incoming Trump administration ban pharmaceutical ads on TV? It could, according to a new report by The New York Times.
According to the report, the pharma industry spends over $5 billion annually on national TV ads, based on data from iSpot. RFK Jr., Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, has been a loud critic of the industry and is considered “anti-vaccine” by many. RFK will likely call for a ban on TV drug ads, questioning their public health value. Tied to that, Brendan Carr, Trump’s nominee to head the FCC, is expected to enforce any ban, per the NYT report.
However, the report notes that any ban attempt would be challenged in court. After all, pharma advertisers spend heavily on TV because they see ROI from it, and the industry feels “comfortable” there, given rules and regulations over pharma advertising.
Why This Matters:
A ban would could create some ripple effects, obviously, with one of the outcomes potentially being a boost to digital ad spend. Keep in mind, pharma already accounts for 90% of total healthcare digital spend. With fewer dollars needed for TV, pharma will spend it somewhere else, and digital could continue to win even more budget.
But who in digital, specifically, would benefit? It’s a bit hazy given the sensitivities around pharma advertising. Some spend could flow to health-focused digital publishers and media companies like WebMD and HealthCentral, who understand the industry’s compliance needs around audience-targeting and data. Alternatively, spend might go to social platforms or retail media networks run by companies like CVS and Walgreens. If the latter occurs, perhaps DSPs focused on supporting RMNs, like The Trade Desk and Yahoo, will benefit.
Also, would a ban on TV ads extend to streaming? Again, unclear. If not, dollars could migrate to CTV, benefiting players like Roku. In September, Roku published a blog post highlighting its value to pharma companies, saying, “Pharma advertisers can replace broadcast-level reach in streaming. Here at Roku, we believe we offer all the pieces needed for healthcare marketers to reach vetted audiences who are receptive to their treatments.”
Experts React:
Speaking of Trump administration leaders criticizing pharma ads on TV—are pharma advertisers to blame for the overall drop in TV ad quality? Elon Musk seems to think so.
In November, a user on X posted this:
Musk responded and amplified the tweet, adding his own comment: “No advertising for pharma.”
It’s unclear if X is currently allowing pharma advertising, but it’s well-known that pharma brands have been fleeing the platform. Will that change given Musk’s proximity to Trump now? TBD.
Our Take:
The pushback against pharma advertisers is part of a larger change happening in America. With the politicization of COVID guidelines and vaccines, many people have seemingly lost trust in traditional healthcare institutions. This has created an opening for health and wellness influencers to gain credibility and grow even larger followings while promoting (often questionable) “alternatives” to mainstream medicine. It has also given rise to trends like workout culture and sober living—hey, there is a lot going on here. (We’re not saying this is good or bad—just explaining what’s driving the trend, to some degree.) RFK’s ascension to leading the DHHS feels like the culmination of the shift.
Weirdly, this broader trend could benefit adtech. But until we see more from the administration, who knows?
