That obscure object of desire

What is that obscure object of desire?  Could it be ... risk information?

In the belief that facts drive guidance and oversight on behalf of the public health, some interesting and important data on attitudes towards risk and benefit in DTC ads.

(Note – key word is “ads” – not social media.)

Attitudes toward Risk/Benefit Info in DTC Ads

TV       Magazine      Online

 Risk

Seen/heard                                            79%         48%              37%

Pay a lot/some attention                         76%         66%              69%

Say it is very/somewhat useful                76%          75%              75%

Benefits

Seen/heard                                           73%           52%              54%

Pay a lot/some attention                        63%           63%              57%

Say it is very/somewhat useful                75%           76%              76%

Source: Rodale, "2010 DTC Study," July 15, 2010

What does this tell us?  Well, on the “benefit” side, it seems to suggest that consumers rank all three media equally when it comes to utility (“say it is very/somewhat useful”).  And while TV and print still seem to have an edge in the “pay a lot/some attention” department (at 63%), online ads are a very close show at 57%.  Decimal dust?  Not when you’re doing ROI calculations -- but it’s really only a half-game lead – and the momentum is shifting online's way.

In the “seen/heard” department, TV leads both print and online – but online beats print – further adding to the “death of print” argument.

With “utility” almost even across the board (76%/75%/75%), it’s the risk stats that give pause for reflection. 

While 79% have “seen/heard” risk information on TV ads (not surprising since the viewer passively receives it whether they want to or not), and print (48%) out-strips online (37%). 

But the race tightens in the “pays a lot/some attention" – where TV still leads (we are, after all, glued to the couch), but online (69%) out paces print (66%).  Among other conclusions, this points to (1) the well-documented inadequacies of the brief summary (i.e., neither brief nor a summary) and (2) the greater desire of the online ad viewer to click to risk information.  Put another way –nearly 70% of online ad viewers actively click-through to risk information.  Pretty impressive – and even more so considering this data was collected well after the November 2009 FDA letters on sponsored Google links.

Food for thought.