We were just tossing out some old science journals when we came across this January '07 Lancet issue. Not only is the cover incredibly plain, but we don't know what the quote means! We're not quite sure if it's in English in the first place. Not being medical doctors ourselves, what about this cover is supposed to make us want to open this journal at all? And how many people can pronounce "trastuzumab" much less define it?
"A type of monoclonal antibody used in cancer detection or therapy. Monoclonal antibodies are laboratory-produced substances that can locate and bind to cancer cells. Trastuzumab blocks the effects of the growth factor protein HER2, which transmits growth signals to breast cancer cells."
Ah, it helps fight breast cancer. Then we looked up "adjuvant":
"An additional treatment used to increase the effectiveness of the primary therapy; radiation therapy and hormonal therapy are often used as adjuvant treatments following a radical prostatectomy."
So they found something to treat breast cancer that is used after chemo. Why don't they just say that??? They could've created a picture of superhero antibodies attacking villainous cancer cells. Or a picture of the lead investigator who figured this out. A picture of a smiling breast cancer survivor might have helped get the message across, too. Compare this to ads from companies that market their research for a living. This ad for Lipitor is on the back cover of the same Lancet issue.
Comments (2)
Science has a terrible marketing problem (I blogged about this recently). It manifests itself all over the place from climate change to the public understanding of the drug development process to ... well the list goes on and on.
Now I am not sure the Lancet is the best example though. One would hope it's primary audience understands what adjuvant therapy means.
Posted by Deepak | May 26, 2007 6:49 PM
Posted on May 26, 2007 18:49
Actually, I thought that was a pretty striking cover for the Lancet. That sentence may not mean much to you, but I guarantee you that it galvanized every oncologist who saw it, which is exactly who it was aimed at. I doubt that a cartoon of super-antibodies pummeling cancer cells would have done much more to grab the average doctor's attention.
Contrasting that hard scientific finding with the Lipitor ad on the back isn't exactly cricket, because any medical professional who saw that probably just yawned. (I doubt a Herceptin ad would have done much more, to tell the truth.)
Besides, aren't science and marketing effectively polar opposites of each other? Marketing is all about creating desire for products that may or may not do what they're promised to do -- think of Steve Jobs' "reality distortion field." Science is about building the best and most reliable model of reality possible, an effort that should be -- but, sadly, isn't -- immune to hype and emotional manipulation.
Posted by David Hamilton | August 8, 2007 4:46 PM
Posted on August 8, 2007 16:46