With all the negative publicity controversial drug maker Merck has been getting lately -- especially in light of the 2004 Vioxx scandal -- it's no surprise the company is taking steps to salvage its dented image.
For the first time in its 114-year history, Merck is poised to introduce a campaign to help rehabilitate the reputation of its corporate brand instead of sell its products. The intent of the campaign is made clear through its slogan: "Merck. Where patients come first."
Apparently, the new campaign was in the works long before the explosion with Vioxx took place. Executives of Merck and Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide in New York (the agency that produced the campaign) stated in separate interviews that the project had been in the making for more than two years. (Ogilvy is one of several agencies that work for Merck, developing ads aimed at consumers for prescription products.)
The ultimate goal of the ads is to defy perceptions that Merck and other giant drug makers are more concerned with the bottom line than with people.
Public Reach Out
The campaign's budget is estimated at more than $20 million and is set to run in:
The campaign, according to a company spokesperson, should reach more than 90 percent of Americans by the time it ends; more than 40 percent of the ads in the campaign are being devoted to information on Merck's access programs (efforts to provide some consumers with free or reduced-priced prescription drugs).
A Taste of the Campaign
Through several angles, the company makes an attempt to build stronger emotional ties between Merck and consumers. For example:
One television commercial highlights children reacting in charming confusion to requests to define aliments such as the measles and the mumps. A female announcer is heard: "Most kids today don't have a clue about diseases adults remember, thanks to Merck's scientists ... Now we're trying to make Alzheimer's, diabetes and cancer history too." Another commercial features an announcer who asks the public, "If you ran a drug company, what would you change?" After hearing responses such as, "I would try to prevent disease, not just treat it," the announcer states, "At Merck, we believe in the same things you do." In yet another commercial, a female announcer states, "At Merck, we believe our medicines should be available to the people who need them." She then recites a toll-fee number that can be called for Merck enrollment information and reads the Merck Web address.
One television commercial highlights children reacting in charming confusion to requests to define aliments such as the measles and the mumps. A female announcer is heard: "Most kids today don't have a clue about diseases adults remember, thanks to Merck's scientists ... Now we're trying to make Alzheimer's, diabetes and cancer history too."
Another commercial features an announcer who asks the public, "If you ran a drug company, what would you change?" After hearing responses such as, "I would try to prevent disease, not just treat it," the announcer states, "At Merck, we believe in the same things you do."
In yet another commercial, a female announcer states, "At Merck, we believe our medicines should be available to the people who need them." She then recites a toll-fee number that can be called for Merck enrollment information and reads the Merck Web address.
New York Times June 2, 2005 (Registration Required)
The writing certainly seems to be on the wall and the many multinational drug companies are beginning to enter their final death throes. Merck is likely leading the pack here.
Considering the long and growing list of evil behavior that Merck has inflicted on the American public, some might think it best, instead, for this company to tuck its tail between its legs and run the other way.
The Vioxx debacle alone would seem reason enough for consumers to avoid Merck's products.
Drug companies like Merck frequently adopt malevolent behavior that compromises human health and safety. If you find this hard to believe, let's examine the facts:
In 1991, nearly a decade before the first public disclosure, a memo from Merck & Co. showed that senior executives were concerned that infants were getting an elevated dose of mercury in vaccinations containing thimerosal. The memo disclosed that 6-month-old children who received their shots on schedule would be receiving a mercury dose nearly 87 times higher than guidelines for the maximum daily consumption of mercury from fish. In addition, it included the following recommendation: whenever possible, particularly among use in infants and young children, vaccines with mercury should be eliminated.
In September 1999, amidst concerns about the risks of mercury in childhood vaccines, Merck stated that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had approved a preservative-free version of their vaccine. And, despite Merck's news release at that time, which stated, "Now Merck's infant vaccine line is free of all preservatives," the company still distributed vaccines containing thimerosal until October 2001.
While never widely publicized, it has actually been known for years that statin drugs, like Merck's Zocor, can cause a deficiency in the important nutrient Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10). In fact, on June 12 1990, Merck filed a patent stating that, "Since CoQ10 ... is of benefit in congestive heart failure patients, the combination with HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statin drugs) should be of value in such patients who also have the added risk of high cholesterol." Incredibly, even though they have known of these risks for 15 years, Merck has not only chosen to abstain from creating such a drug, but they have made no effort to inform the public, or the physicians prescribing their CoQ10-free statin drugs, of the dangers inherent in doing so.
Related Articles:
More Evil Behavior from Merck How America Was Blinded by Merck's Vaccine Lies Unbelievable Merck's Coverups Sends Them Into the Spotlight Again
More Evil Behavior from Merck
How America Was Blinded by Merck's Vaccine Lies
Unbelievable Merck's Coverups Sends Them Into the Spotlight Again