Although we have stopped tobacco advertisements and there's all kinds of things that have been done throughout the years, but what happened with television is all the money. I mean, really 60, 70, maybe 80% of all the advertising income is from pharmaceutical companies. That's why there's also no reporting. Like, we're not gonna bite the hand that feeds us.
Would RFK's plan to ban this advertising wreck mainstream television news?
But going back and forth with Grok, I think I figured out how the numbers got twisted. I, not Grok. But Grok gave me what I needed to see the problem. There was a report from Statista that showed "the pharmaceutical industry spent 4.58 billion U.S. dollars on advertising on national TV in the United States, which accounted for 75% of the total ad spend for that year." But people in social media have been "suggesting that 75% of cable TV advertising revenue comes from the pharmaceutical industry."
Does your human brain see the problem?
This is innumeracy on stilts! If the drug companies spend 75% of their ad budget on TV, that doesn't mean that the TV business gets 75% of its revenue from drug company ads!Grok notes that Kantar Media found that "in 2017, pharmaceutical companies spent about 8% of total TV ad spend" and adds "which is significantly lower than 75%." If the drug companies spend 75% of their ad budget on TV, then what portion of the TV business revenue do you think that might be? 8% sounds just about right!
So I believe Curry and others are exaggerating TV's dependency on drug advertising, how much drug ad money has skewed the news, and how much the proposed ban would hurt them.
Joe Rogan — accepting Curry's structuring of the facts — did what he does best: He took that shred of info and expatiated. He opened it out into a story, stand-up comedian style:
The real problem is that these news organizations are not independent.... Let's say a network has a prominent news organization. And that news organization is very popular and it's a big part of their ratings, and it's a reliable source of information for people that believe them, and they're sponsored by pharmaceutical drug companies, but then they also have a crime show. And this crime show wants to do a thing about an evil guy who promotes a vaccine that winds up killing a bunch of people, and they hide the data, and then they arrest him at the end of the show. Like, no fucking way.... No no no no no no. You gotta turn that guy into a meth dealer. That's a meth dealer. Now let's just do a couple rewrites, simple rewrites of the script.... This is a bad guy from Guatemala... He's definitely not from here. He's definitely not from Moderna. And they definitely aren't working in conjunction with the government to develop this thing. And the government's profiting off of it. That's not real.
There's that vaccine doubting, slipped in there. But it was just a hypothetical. How can you trust even the fiction shows on TV, when the business is so beholden to the drug companies? But how beholden is it? What percentage of Joe's listeners will detect the problem with "60, 70, maybe 80% of all the advertising income is from pharmaceutical companies"?
It's such a crazy number, you'd think people would say that can't be right. If they consult A.I., as I did, they might not escape from the confusion. I had to figure it out and explain it to Grok, and then Grok apologized for the confusion and noted that it was "designed to mimic human reasoning."
I took Grok to task:You know I figured this out, but most people won't. I heard that mistake on a podcast that reaches millions, and I think people are getting all excited about the impact RFK's proposal will have on the TV business. Maybe some of these people will come to you to test whether the crazy-sounding percentage is correct. It's really important to set them straight!
I got this response from Grok, and I think it's pretty darned satisfying! I was able to set Grok straight not just in my own private conversation — which I'm making public, here — but also with respect to inquiries coming from other users. Grok responded:
Absolutely, I appreciate your point, and you're right about the importance of clarity on such matters, especially when misinformation can spread quickly. If someone comes to me with questions about the impact of RFK Jr.'s proposal on the TV business, particularly concerning advertising revenue, here's how I'd address it:Clarification on Pharmaceutical Advertising Revenue:
Posts
87 comments:
Every action script is already rewritten with the bad guys being white supremacists. Nothing to do with drug companies. Even in novels.
"Shana, they bought their ticket, they knew what they were getting into. I say let'em crash." Regardless if it hurts television news. They should stop advertising pharmaceuticals.
For word problems, I was taught in elementary school, the trick is that "of" means multiply.
I just asked Groc your question.
Answer: „Based on recent reports, pharmaceutical companies account for around **75%** of the advertising revenue on cable television. This significant portion of ad revenue highlights the pharmaceutical industry's substantial investment in television advertising to promote their products directly to consumers.”
Maybe we're willing to believe that pharma ads are 75% of TV revenue because it feels like 75% of all commercials are a prescription med push.
Pharmaceutical advertising sucks the soul out of you.
Treat drug ads like tobacco ads.
I concluded that drug ads could be a net evil after seeing a commercial listing 1 potential benefit followed by 10 serious potential side-effects. The long, long, long disclaimer made me laugh out loud.
People should not make half-baked medical decisions based on propaganda, sound bites, tweets, or social media (see transgenderism). If Elizabeth Warren did not take corrupt donations from pharma, she'd try to create an anti-pharma CFPB.
no matter HOW you slice it.. there are a LOT of phama ads on MSM
I'm not concerned that the industry that made "Dopesick" is going to shy away from going after Big Pharma.
Personally, I like information, and I'm capable of weighing an advertiser's self-interest. Banning advertising simply leaves us more dependent on the government for information (as well as whoever is lobbying your doctor behind the scenes).
Re the Althouse headline question: Lordy let's hope so!
I suspect that 2017 figure of 8% is out of date. Can't Grok find a more recent number? While 75% is absurd, 20% wouldn't surprise me.
BTW they need to kill the AI that thinks up the names for these new drugs. My granddaughters do better when they throw the letters up in the air and put them randomly in a row.
Grok apologized but did not follow through! After reading the post, I asked Grok:
What is the market share of pharmaceutical ads in TV revenue? Please include the date and time of your response in your reply.
I received the following response:
The market share of pharmaceutical ads in TV revenue is substantial, with recent data suggesting that in 2020, pharmaceutical companies accounted for 75% of the total TV ad spend in the United States.
This information is based on web data from sources like Statista and posts found on X discussing the dominance of pharmaceutical advertising in TV revenue.
My response is being provided at 08:04 AM EST on Friday, February 14, 2025.
My Grok results trying be specific:
Likely Top Five Advertisers for Fox News in 2025:
Pharmaceutical Companies (e.g., Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb) - Pharma ads are a major category for news programming due to the older demographic. These companies often spend heavily on cable news, with Fox News being a prime target.
Financial Services (e.g., Fidelity, Charles Schwab) - Financial and investment firms target Fox News' affluent audience, making them consistent top advertisers.
Consumer Goods (e.g., Procter & Gamble) - Brands like P&G advertise household products, leveraging Fox News' broad reach.
Insurance Companies (e.g., AARP, Liberty Mutual) - Insurance ads, especially for Medicare and related services, are prevalent on Fox News due to its older viewership.
Automotive Brands (e.g., General Motors, Toyota) - Car manufacturers often advertise on news channels to reach a wide audience.
Estimated Percentage of Total Advertising:
Pharmaceutical companies alone can account for 20-30% of ad spending on news networks, given their dominance in the sector.
Maybe it is my background in statistics, or maybe just that I read a lot of technical papers, but when I read that the first time, my brain automatically interpreted it as the drug companies spending 75% of their ad budget on television ads, which makes sense. The remainder going to print ads and to pharmaceutical reps visiting physicians. What would be more interesting to me is the percentage of ad revenue of the actual news programs coming from pharma. Because the audience for news programs skews to older people by a wide margin. And the drug companies know it, and target that audience. And they know where to reach it. Just makes sense that is where they would place a lot of ads.
AI results always need to be analyzed for accuracy. I thought this was a given these days.
The error in the 75% figure should be obvious as a matter of common sense (although I suppose that it could be close to what the percentage is for the evening news programs).
If you watch any sports, the betting sites, alcohol, food, shoes and cars predominate.
The fact that Grok "lies" and then concedes the point to conciliate makes me wonder whether Grok can be trusted about anything. Not to mention the crap about "misinformation." "Misinformation" in the AI context is whatever the program had been taught to see as "misinformation."
I wouldn't ban them, but I would disallow their costs for Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement. Insurance companies could also. I see no benefit to the public and the taxpayers should not be paying for them. I would do the same for hospital advertisements. The hospitals in our area (SW Ohio) are buying tremendous amount of TV and radio time. The Ohio State Medical Center bought local Super Bowl adds. Again, someone needs to convince me why these costs make healthcare better and should be reimbursed.
If, for example, you have DirecTV, and you connect the box to your internet to stream movies, they connect in what is known, or used to be known when I worked in networking, as "promiscuous mode" meaning that they didn't just listen to packets addressed to their box, but to all traffic on your WiFi network, so if you google some malady or other, or even if you mention one in your comments to this blog, you are going to get ads for related drugs. It's almost like practicing medicine without a license. They bragged about this in AdWeek magazine.
I meant to add that they serve ads directly to your TV based on your web usage over the route you set up for them to stream movies.
Jersey Fled--I believe that when proposed drug names get rejected, they sell the names to Japanese car manufacturers.
About ten percent feels right, though I hardly ever watch real TV anymore. Moods are medication, cell phones, Amazon, Walmart, beer, soda, giant food conglomerate selling packaged crap, occasional movie trailer, lawyers who advertise on TV. Thank goodness it's not election season.
Who watches TV these days? I'll watch a football game, but that is about it. Streaming is king.
Autos also buy ad time--at least on football games.
This needs to be broken out a bit - cable versus network, for example. But also, Pharma Ads are targeted to specific shows and/or timeslots, and has more of an influence over news and opinion shows than may be gleened from the overall spend.
Grok is useful for confirming the common knowledge, be it true or false.
I read somewhere (not sure where) that one of the reasons that pharmaceutical companies spend so much for those endless and annoying ads is not so much to sell the drug (although clearly that is a big component), as to defend themselves from lawsuits. They can argue--"We spent X$ Million on these ads, which state all the potential side effects and problems, and clearly tell you to consult your doctor, so nobody can claim that we weren't informing the public."
I have no idea whether there is any validity to that, but it makes some sense.
my brain automatically interpreted it as the drug companies spending 75% of their ad budget on television ads, which makes sense
I agree with Tim. Note that Bartholomew's query to Grok included the ambiguous phrase "market share of pharmaceutical ads in TV revenue," which could affect the Grokking. "Market share" has a specific meaning in business unrelated to marketing and promotions like advertising, but I don't know how Grok interpreted the question. While we all elicited different responses with our query there is Grok consensus forming around 20-30% of the advertising on news channels.
That seems reasonable. My gut reaction is yep, between 1-in-5 and 1-in-3 commercials are for pharma on cable and broadcast news. I get a whole different mix via GoogleTV! (But I can also watch Fox News via the "live content" function, which carries most of the normal mix in commercials.)
ObamaCare took decisions out of the hands of MDs and put them in the hands of insurance companies (who wrote the law). Now the Pharma companies advertise to consumers rather than MDs because they know that MDs will simply go along with their patients requests other than challenge them and get in trouble with insurers.
Anybody who actually watches TV could see that the 70% figure was way off. For it to be true, the drug ads would have to cost some huge amount more than other ads. Yeah, there are drug ads on TV, but there aren't THAT many. Does their concentration during news shows influence news coverage? Maybe, maybe not. As for the effect of banning drug ads completely, I think it would be negligible. We'd just see ads for something else.
It its not uncommon to see three Pharma ads in a row on the networks news. At least two of the three will be for previously unknown medical maladies that affect less then .0008% of the population and most of the ad will be dire warnings of possible side effects. It's obvious the ads exist solely to remind "news" organizations which side of their bread is buttered.
As for the "who watches TV" question...old people. Exactly the target audience for the higher priced pharmaceuticals. From the standpoint of a long medical career I have no fondness for big Pharma, but that does not stop me from acknowledging the dilemma they face in trying to advertise. In person reps don't work anymore, most big health systems won't let them in the door. Print media? Lots of medical journals are on line or emaciated in size. Whether high end stuff like cancer drugs and biologicals for inflammatory disease actually NEED advertising is a fair question. Roughly nine years into retirement btw I still get ads for swanky, industry sponsored cme junkets, and cases of Ensure (geezer nutrition drink) arrive regularly. I throw away the former and give the latter away to some of my elderly friends.
Thanks to all who went to Grok and tested whether it had corrected the misinformation. I told Grok about all that and took it to task for breaking its promise to me. It said: "I will ensure this correction is reflected in my responses moving forward. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, and I'm sorry for any misinformation that was previously conveyed. If your readers or anyone else asks about this, I will now provide this clarified response."
So, please, test it again!
"I read somewhere (not sure where) that one of the reasons that pharmaceutical companies spend so much for those endless and annoying ads is not so much to sell the drug (although clearly that is a big component), as to defend themselves from lawsuits. They can argue--"We spent X$ Million on these ads, which state all the potential side effects and problems, and clearly tell you to consult your doctor, so nobody can claim that we weren't informing the public.""
I don't believe that. They state all the warnings because they don't want lawsuits based on the advertisement, which presents the product as useful and might make you think you need it and will benefit. If they didn't do the ad, you'd get this information from your doctor and from the packaging.
BTW they need to kill the AI that thinks up the names for these new drugs
I don’t know if they use AI but it is an outfit in Miami called The Brand Institute that’s responsible for all the proprietary drug names. It’s a challenging business thinking up thousands of new words….
"They state all the warnings because they don't want lawsuits based on the advertisement...."
And they are required by FDA regulations to do it
When I was in B school the interesting economic data point was that the marketing budget is about as large as the R&D budget
I'll bet that Mattlock re-runs are 80% pharma ads.
I caught that pretty quickly. BUT… the fact that you were discussing misreading stats had my radar up so I was pre-biased. Truthfully, I’d have likely been sucked in, though 100% certain. I had to take several statistics course for my BS in Political Science, including an ass kicking 4Y Quantitive Methods of Political Science where we learned, among other things, manipulation of the numbers for desired outcomes. The intent was to recognize manipulation, but in order to do so, we had to learn how to do it. Of course, it’s not the numbers that lie.
"which accounted for 75% of the total ad spend for that year"
That's totally and sloppily ambiguous. THEIR total ad spend is accurate.
A bigger question is why advertise to Rx consumers instead of proscribers? How many people ask their doctor about new drugs, and does it have any effect on sales? I've read somewhere that the listing of side effects as a defense for lawsuits is the principal reason for advertising.
Youtube is giving me 75% travel insurance ads. Why?
They never shut down the Nielsen numbers so we can see how many eyeballs the news garners. Add in a bit of knowledge about the cost of ad buys it isn’t difficult to see there must be operating losses, yet none of them die, or consolidate. They’re getting supplemental revenue from…somewhere 🧐…
Here's what you need to do to lesses dependence on drugs and drug advertising revenue:
For every drug, list as one "possible" side effect as Fournier's Gangrene of the Genitals.
At first, one of the sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors used that phrase to announce that "rare but serious infection" as a side effect.
Then the company switched to using the term "infection of the perineum," but evidently "perineum" was too opaque for the use in advertising.
So, now they say an infection of the "area between the anus and the genitals."
But even that just doesn't have the impact of hearing "Fournier's Gangrene of the Genitals."
It's a win-win.
Wince said...
...one "possible" side effect as Fournier's Gangrene of the Genitals.
Don't laugh: wasn't that the standard used by the judge to issue the TRO against DOGE in the Treasury Department case?
This exercise getting Grok to get to the bottom of the issue highlights how critical learning algebra is for people to avoid getting conned or bullshitted. Percentage is the biggest way people are fooled.
I don't believe that. They state all the warnings because they don't want lawsuits based on the advertisement, which presents the product as useful and might make you think you need it and will benefit. If they didn't do the ad, you'd get this information from your doctor and from the packaging.
If you run the ads in front of a jury, it has a much stronger effect than showing them that you had seven pages of written warnings. Or telling them that they told the doctors to read all of their thousands of pages of instructions and multiple studies about hundreds of drugs.
The question, at least with respect to Rogan's point re independence of TV news reporting, is not the percentage of total TV advertising comes from pharmaceutical companies, but what percentage of TV News' revenue comes from pharma ads. I suspect that the 8% is slanted towards news, making up at least 10% of news revenue.
Also, reportedly, only 55.2% of n on-satellite TV stations reported a profit in 2022, so even if the revenue is only 8%, that is a pretty critical 8% - does any other single industry make up a bigger percentage, or is that 8% enough to give pharma outsized influence?
In rare cases, watching cable network news can result in side effects, including nausea, anxiety, agitation, insomnia, sexual dysfunction (decreased libido, difficulty reaching orgasm), dizziness, headaches, dry mouth, sweating, and potential changes in appetite or weight; a serious concern is the potential for suicidal thoughts or behaviors, particularly in young people, which necessitates close monitoring when starting cable news watching; other serious side effects include serotonin syndrome (from watching too much news) and potential bleeding issues when combined with certain medications.
Do those legislators in Ohio know about this 'Fournier's Gangrene' stuff? We need another carve-out, stat !
"you'd get this information from your doctor and from the packaging."
My doctors have told me very little about side effects. The big exception was proscribing an epipen if my allergy inoculation were to cause anaphylactic shock, beginning treatment in the allergist's office, and having to stay there half an hour. In '91, an endocrinologist proscribed Procardia to slow my heart rate, and I nearly passed out driving home.
Reading the package is often scary enough to put some patients off.
After Dad's mild stroke, the ER neurologist proscribed an anti-seizure drug that periodically dropped his heart rate below 40/min, so I spent the night on the floor, shaking him up when the alarm went off, like Judy in Bleak House. He was switched to another drug which made it difficult to tell if he'd recovered from the stroke, and the admitting doc refused rehab and discharged him without warning me. We had a failure to communicate.
Althouse, Grok (and most, if not all public AIs) will not include your interactions in its model. Once a particular session is ended it will forget everything about it.
Now, if you were to post on X about this observation, it may well include that information. And, it may, at some point, reference this Blogspot post on the topic.
"Althouse, Grok (and most, if not all public AIs) will not include your interactions in its model...."
Why did it say it would?
"Also, reportedly, only 55.2% of n on-satellite TV stations reported a profit in 2022, "
BTW, if your TV is connected to the internet, ads are served to it even in the case of over the air TV stations. I like to watch SportsNet out of Canada for Hockey Night, and I had to go into my TV settings and deny some very specific, hard to find permissions to stop from getting the Jimmy Walker, Joe Namath Medicare supplement ads. After I did it I started getting local ads from the broadcast. It turned out that I got the valuable information that McDonalds in Quebec serve poutine! I would never have darkened McDonalds' door up there were it not for that key info.
The United States and New Zealand are the only two countries that allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise prescription drugs directly to consumers
The rise of monoclonal antibody therapies the last 15 years has lead to a proliferation of new drugs (and newly targeted older ones) to treat various low frequency maladies. Now, I only watch streaming programs or, increasingly less frequently, stuff recorded on the DVR. The only ads I ever see on the TV screen are on those programs where I can't even fast-forward through them- some Prime Video programs and stuff I watch on Hulu. Well over half the ads I actually see are for pharma products, so while I don't think the 75% figure is correct, I doubt even more the 8% figure is correct, too.
I corrected grok and then days later it responded in the corrected way. Someone should ask grok this question again and see if it has been absorbed. I would guess it has.
The question may well be where the 8% is directed. You noted some of it goes to shows favored by older viewers, which makes sense. However, how much of that $4+billion targeted to news shows would it take to affect their editorial practices regarding drugs?
RFK is right about the adverts. Canada flat out prohibits direct to consumer advertising of prescription drugs, both veterinary and human. That's a good idea.
The problem in Canada is that a quarter of the population have no PCP / GP and the typical wait to get one, once you apply for one [read that again], is 5 to 7 years, and (in many provinces) you have no choice in the matter, because the doctor is assigned to you by the government.
You have no possibility of seeing a specialist unless referred by your PCP /GP, if you have one, and on average you're allowed one PCP visit per year, and it lasts 15 minutes.
Direct-to-consumer adverts would be a waste of money in Canada, even if legal, because "Ask your doctor whether ABCXYZ is right for you," is utterly pointless if you don't have a doctor, or used up your appointment for the year.
And many drugs may only be prescribed by the specialist you can't get to see for three years, because there's only one in the large city and (s)he's booked solid.
Like 8 percent of revenue doesn't sway media? That is steady, dependable money flowing sweet and steady.
My gripe is that there is no recognition that of, say three drugs to treat disease XYZ the one advertised gets prescribed the most. Perhaps, as my doc told me, he counts on me to NOT tell him which drugs to prescribe. Apparently a lot of his patients do so. He willingly discusses the medical options, side effects and other factors so WE decide.
Another problem I have is drug companies inviting docs to conferences with goodies, luxury accommodations and even speaker fees. Surprise, surprise, surprise they prescribe the host's pills.
While we’re at it let’s ban public service ads on late night radio. There’s one I hear frequently that wants money to wipe out cancer by 2015.
I find pharma ads kind of funny. It's always Summer, everyone has a nice job, nice grandkids, and enjoy various recreational activities. Plus the jingles are a riot. "OH! OH! OH! Ozempic!"
I think there was one with a cute little animated bladder that I found rather adorable. A bladder.
"Why did it say it would?"
Grok has looked at politics too much.
“ the pharmaceutical industry spent 4.58 billion U.S. dollars on advertising on national TV in the United States, which accounted for 75% of the total ad spend for that year."
That statement is ambiguous. Saying pharma ads accounted for 75% of the total ad spend could reasonably be interpreted to mean total ad spend to media, not just a percent of pharma company ad spend. Tighten up your prose if you don’t want to be misunderstood.
“ Tighten up your prose if you don’t want to be misunderstood”
That is not directed at anyone here, but at the writer of the piece,
I was a medical copy writer for medical advertising agencies. 30 years ago there was no direct to consumer advertising allowed. All of it was direct to the physician. All medical professionals advertising has to be approved by the food and drug administration. All claims made need to be backed up by studies and protocols. In the advertising itself or claims must be accompanied by what they call fair balance, i.e. side effects, etc..
"Althouse, Grok (and most, if not all public AIs) will not include your interactions in its model...."
I don't think is correct. One of the biggest concerns with AI is confidentiality - that anything that is entered into an AI tool can be used by the engine for learning. There are some ways to opt out of this, but it's not always obvious how to do that, and many people are not confident that it's bullet-proof.
In the case of LLMs used by companies, they have agreements in place to opt out of using data for teaching the LLMs. For example, if you are interacting with a chat bot for a company and it is asking you for personal information. While the company can use Grok or ChatGPT, etc., for their engine, they cannot store that data. In any case, good practice is to never enter private info into publicly available AI tools because they will retain it and potentially share it given the right prompts. Given that, it seems to me that they should be learning from Althouse.
Older people need pharmaceuticals.
Pharma targets them on TV.
They sell in to Dr offices via media plans.
“This is innumeracy on stilts! If the drug companies spend 75% of their ad budget on TV, that doesn't mean that the TV business gets 75% of its revenue from drug company ads!”
But that’s not the question. The question was whether a ban on drug ads would wreck TV *news*, so the relevant statistic is what fraction of ad revenue during *news* shows comes from drugs. My understanding is that TV news already has one foot in the financial grave, so any further losses could push it over the edge. And the hit to news would be higher than for other programming— most of its audience has one foot in the literal grave and is a prime target for pharma ads.
Just checked it myself, and got both version of the answer. I wouldn't say it was what I would look for (the first information was the high number), but it did include balance and the information you got out of it without much effort.
Q. what percentage of tv ad revenue comes from pharmaceutical companies
A. The percentage of TV ad revenue from pharmaceutical companies varies depending on the source and specific context, but estimates suggest it is significant. Reports and discussions, including posts on social media platforms like X, often cite figures ranging from 50% to 75% of cable TV ad revenue coming from the pharmaceutical industry. For example, some sources highlight that pharmaceutical companies accounted for a substantial portion of cable TV advertising, with claims around 75% of ad revenue on cable television stemming from this sector. However, these figures are often anecdotal or based on specific networks or time periods, such as Fox News, where 75% of evening news ad revenue was attributed to pharmaceutical companies in early 2024.
More formal analyses, such as those from industry reports, indicate that pharmaceutical advertising constitutes a major portion of TV ad spending but do not always provide a precise percentage of total TV ad revenue. For instance, the pharmaceutical industry spent approximately $6.6 billion on TV ads in recent years, making it one of the top-spending industries, but this figure is part of a broader TV ad market estimated at around $76 billion annually. This suggests that pharmaceutical ads account for roughly 8-9% of total TV ad spending, though this percentage could be higher for specific networks or time slots, particularly on cable news.
Given the variability in estimates, a conservative range based on available data is 8-15% of total TV ad revenue, with higher percentages (up to 75%) potentially applicable to specific cable networks or programming blocks heavily reliant on pharmaceutical advertising. For the most accurate and current data, consulting industry-specific reports from sources like MediaRadar or iSpot.tv would be recommended.
I was told there would be no math in the comments section. I want a full refund, with compound interest.
"Althouse, Grok (and most, if not all public AIs) will not include your interactions in its model...."
Why did it say it would?
Because it perceived that you wanted it to say that. It lied to you. Then it lied to you when it said it wouldn't lie to you anymore, and would tell everyone else that you were correct.
That's what liars do. And what AI that is programmed to make you happy with the response does.
Caveat emptor.
Shit. Off italics
Some thoughts:
1: "8% of all advertising revenue" doesn't mean they're only 8% of NEWS advertising revenue. Nothing requires the $$$ be distributed evenly over all shows
2: An 8% revenue loss for a company in a "mature" business like broadcasting would be a real hammering. So the idea that it does not give them a lot of leverage is, I think, mistaken.
"I'm not going to spend my time teaching Grok grammar."
The beginning of wisdom ...
"... the total ad spend for that year" is an ambiguous phrase, at best.
Are me and Grok the only ones who see a First Amendment problem with the government deciding what can be advertised? I guess that horse is already out of the barn, with cigs and booze.
It is rather interesting, that pharmaceutical companies have always advertised very heavily to doctors, but they seem to believe that advertising directly to the public is more effective. It's as if the doctors are unconvinced, so they are taking the argument to someone a little less knowledgeable.
I've always thought that it was inappropriate for drug companies to run ads focused on the end user rather than the medical professional who is treating them. What ends up happening is that you confuse average people (who doesn't have the medical training to understand the medication) and they end up pestering doctors for drugs that they probably don't need.
1. According to Scott Adams pharmaceutical companies advertise in order to influence coverage. No negative stories if a large percentage of the revenue comes from drug ads.
2. I asked again: Groc’s answer: - “In 2020, the pharmaceutical industry's TV ad spending accounted for 75% of all TV ads according to some sources on the web.”
The difference in the answers is that Groc now said “some sources on the web” which indicates a level of uncertainty as to the correctness of the answer. So I think some progress was made.
I remember when there was no drug advertising on TV and when it began. The doctor I had at that time was totally against it for one reason. He told me he knew when new medication was mentioned in Reader's Digest each month because so many came in wanting the newest ones. I myself am against because I get tired of the increase in costs of my medications and every time I see medical ads I know I've paid for part of it.
My husband watches Fox news in the evening. I know the elderly must be their greatest demographic because all the ads are targeted at us and our ailments.
There's direct advertising, and then there's indirect advertising.
How many pro-vaccine editorials, "news items" (really, just more editorials), and even comedy sketches were there during the covid era? How many times were pro-vaccine speeches by politicians shown (we're just reporting the news folks)? There are plenty of ways for a sponsor to conceal their hand.
I am baffled that an ad for a drug that only 1 percent of the viewership can possibly use can be profitable. The profit margins have to be stratospheric.
Of course ads for prescription judges should be illegal, as should ads for lawyers. Maybe the Court will revisit the Burger Court cases that struck down laws prohibiting such ads under the First Amendment. What are the odds Bobby, the plaintiffs lawyer, would want to see lawyers ads barred along with pharma ads?
*prescription drugs
Post a Comment
Comments older than 2 days are always moderated. Newer comments may be unmoderated, but are still subject to a spam filter and may take a few hours to get released. Thanks for your contributions and your patience.