The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 269 No 7222 p642
2 November 2002

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF* 75K

  Advertising
  New products
  'Flu vaccination
  Materia Medica
  Patient packs
  The Profession
  The Society
  Workforce census
  The Council
  CPD

Letters to the Editor

Advertising

Petty outburst

From Mr C. Dokier, BDS, and others

It is with grave concern that we find it necessary to share our disgust over the comments of Lloyds superintendent Andy Murdock in reply to criticism of the company's television advertising (PJ, 26 October, p606). Surely someone in his position should not find it necessary to stoop to the level of personal insults to defend the decisions made by his company in depicting pharmacy as a profession to the general public. Suggesting fellow professionals suffer from amnesia is insulting and more at the level of the playground bully. This is not the kind of behaviour that befits any professional.

Community pharmacy has little hope of improving its standing within the health care environment when this approach is taken by senior members of the profession. Furthermore, this kind of petty outburst does little to endear this company to pharmacists. Jealous? Not likely.

Chethan Dokier
Nottingham

Ben Hewitt
Nottingham

Richard Harris
Birmingham

Patrick Wilson
Reading, Berkshire

Marek James Dingley
Worcester

Stereotypical image

From Miss S. B. E. Dua, MRPharmS

I was surprised by the personal response of Andy Murdock to the letter from Mark Bartley "Laughing stock of the medical profession" (PJ, 26 October, p606). I agree with Mr Bartley.

In general, public memories are short and it is unlikely that people remember last year's advertising campaign — amnesia or not. It may be necessary for a firm to advertise a valued prescription collection service to potential customers but not in this way and at the exclusion of every other service a pharmacy offers.

I work in the hospital sector and really cringed at the advertisement. Not only is it fictitious, but it publicises a stereotypical pharmacist image/service at a time when we are trying to move forward and change public perception.

Sharron Dua
Southampton

Think again, Mr Murdock!

From Mr S. Vohra, MRPharmS

I find the sheer arrogance of Andy Murdock's reply to Mark Bartley's letter "Laughing stock of the medical profession" (PJ, 26 October, p606) nauseating. Mr Bartley was correct in his assertion that the advertisement in question is highly irresponsible and ridicules the entire profession. If Mr Murdock, a superintendent pharmacist, cannot understand this, then it raises serious concerns about the professional commitment of the second largest chain in this country. Considering his reply, I am surprised that the Lloyds job advertisement in the same issue did not carry the prerequisite that all prospective candidates should hold or be willing to acquire (after appropriate training) a licence to drive motorbikes and the provision of a motorbike and crash helmet free to all successful applicants.

Think again, Mr Murdock!

Samir Vohra
Preston, Lancashire

Unprovoked attack on Lloyds

From Dr B. Wells, MRPharmS

I was astonished to read the totally unprovoked attack on the professionalism of a major pharmacy chain by Mark Bartley (PJ, 26 October, p606).

I do not regard the advertisement in question as being in the slightest bit unprofessional. True, it does feature a rather corpulent, slightly balding actor portraying a pharmacist, who sheds his white coat to become "Moped Man", a leather-clad superhero who collects repeat prescriptions. However, this is essential to the plot, which is to emphasise service to the customer. Also it appears that no effort was spared in the filming of the advertisement (presumably shot on location) where the actor performed his own stunts as he left the pharmacy via a back alley before roaring through the local surgery past astonished patients.

Mr Murdock was quite right to point out in his reply that the company in question has produced another advertisement, which, I recall, demonstrated other skills in addition to moped riding. If I remember correctly, an embarrassed patient attended a pharmacy and explained that he was suffering from a complaint relating to a part of his body, which he identified by emitting a whistling noise, rather than giving a graphic description. I assume that this was necessary to enable the advertisement to be transmitted before the 9pm watershed. The pharmacist spoke the same language as the patient and also identified the patient's affected area, with the same whistle, when supplying appropriate medication.

This clearly demonstrates that pharmacists employed by the company are able to relate closely to the patient and can use colloquialisms to describe body parts as well as the next man. This must be reassuring to their clients. They must also be pleased that there were no other customers in the pharmacy at the time of such an apparently potentially embarrassing consultation, presumably because they had all been drafted into the local surgery to remove tyre marks from the reception area carpet.

I believe that to accuse any company which takes public relations this seriously of turning pharmacy into a laughing stock is totally unfair.

Brian Wells
Aldbrough, East Yorkshire

Send your letter to The Editor

Next Topic (New products)