The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 269 No 7221 p605-608
26 October 2002

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF 68K

  Supervision
  Sociology
  Advertising
  Media
  CPD
  Materia Medica
  The profession
  Herbal medicines
  Patient packs

Letters to the Editor

Advertising

Laughing stock of the medical profession

From Mr M. A. Bartley, MRPharmS

How on earth are pharmacists expected to gain public confidence when there is an unprofessional advertisement on television regarding a prescription collection scheme?

At present there are numerous opportunities for pharmacists to develop skills and offer new services to the public. We are hoping to introduce pharmacist prescribing and already several chains are involved in clinical testing, thus increasing our profile. However, the only thing this particular large chain seems to be able to shout about is the fact that we can send someone to the local surgery to collect their prescriptions for them. Surely there are better aspects to pharmacy which can be advertised? Why is the chain not advertising the fact that it has highly skilled professionals who are able to help and advise the public regarding their health needs? The chain has completely missed the point about pharmacy and focused on a non-clinical aspect, thus passing by a very good opportunity to give the profession the credit it needs.

Can somebody from this chain please explain why it has done this and in turn made us out to be the laughing stock of the medical profession. After all, can you imagine a general practitioner or a dentist having such a tacky advertisement on national television?

Mark Bartley
Winsford, Cheshire

ANDY MURDOCK, director of pharmacy and superintendent pharmacist, Lloydspharmacy, replies:

Thank you for giving Lloydspharmacy the opportunity to respond to the comments in the above letter. A question is raised in this which states: “Why is the chain not advertising the fact that it has highly skilled professionals who are able to help and advise the public regarding their health needs?”

It appears that Mr Bartley is either suffering from selective amnesia or has not been exposed to the first batch of “professional advertising” that we ran late last year. Customer focus group work we carried out at the time indicated that the general public did not appreciate the depth of training pharmacists received and thus in what aspects they could offer help. Consequently we sought to put this right and to inform all the professions customers of a pharmacist’s education and the type of minor ailments we could all help address. Outcome — a 45 second, prime time advertisement.

There are, as Mr Bartley points out, many exciting opportunities presenting to the profession in which we as a company are taking part and in some instances driving. From a national advertising perspective, however, they are not ready to be exposed on the wider platform. The profession cannot afford to over-promise and under-deliver especially where in some of these extended roles the general public has to be taken along with us.

With regard to the “dreadful” prescription collection scheme, we have seen no evidence that we are a “laughing stock”. We have not found anyone laughing at an initiative that highlights a nation-wide service to all patients to help ease their care. Such a service, simple though it may be, should not be underestimated — to some people it can make a huge difference and is extremely gratefully received.

Is it tackiness, as Mr Bartley claims, or do I detect a hint of jealousy?

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Sociology)
Next Topic (Media)