Is the storytelling sky falling?
Two finger wags in a week?!
It’s Monday morning and perched at the top of my inbox is MM&M’s daily newsletter with a subject line so intriguing I can’t help but take notice.
Novo Nordisk slapped with FDA letter for Wegovy oral pill launch ad.
Curious to learn the heinous crime committed, I dive in. But I quickly discover that the reprimand largely stems from the coupling of Novo’s tagline ‘Live lighter’ with videos of smiley individuals rollerblading and gallivanting on carnival rides – an apparent suggestion that the pill offers benefits beyond weight loss, including emotional relief, hope, and reduced psychological burden.
Wait a second... surely lifting the burden of obesity-related complications is mentally freeing?
I shrug and move on.
But then Thursday rolls around, and another disquieting subject line appears. This time Sobi is in the firing line for their DTC ad, which features a pop-up book animation with “attention-grabbing visuals”, frequent scene changes, and “distracting” dog barking.
Are regulators canceling the creative party in the USA?
Why wagging makes me wary
Well, being an EpiPen-carrying copywriter, these sorts of warnings give me hives. Because creating persuasive, emotionally compelling narratives that still fit within regulation is what I’m passionate about – and heck, it’s what I’m good at. But if narratives of hope are becoming unpalatable to regulators, my fellow writers and I have a new challenge on our hands. From a personal standpoint, this news was a bit of a bummer.
But more importantly, it’s only been until relatively recently that people have started appreciating the value of emotional storytelling. We’ve only just begun opening our eyes to the beauty of taking readers on a journey that lingers long after the final page.
Here’s my take.
Disease is emotive. Being unburdened from disease is emotive. A story about that potential journey is emotive, and when done correctly (more on this shortly) is not misleading. It also enhances the memorability of key messages, maximizes learning retention, connects with audiences in a way that helps secure long-term brand loyalty, and frankly, keeps things interesting (if you’re struggling with insomnia, try flicking through a 50-slide data deck). In short, emotional storytelling can be grounded in reality – and it's pharma’s secret sauce. Without it, we’re left with a bland data-bolognaise that ChatGPT can cook up in seconds with the right prompts.
So on that fateful Thursday I found myself wondering: Are we writers about to make a western with regulators swinging a lasso on the left and AI pointing a pistol from the right?
But now that some time has passed, I think perhaps not.
Regulation exists to prevent overreach, and I think we can all agree that emotional gloss mustn't obscure clinical reality. But at the same time, we’re not selling molecules; we’re selling the chance of a better physical – and thus emotional – life. That’s not a promise. Just like efficacy and safety data don't offer guarantees either.
My key takeaway? More diverse data might save regulators some red ink.
Measure it, then market it
Over the last 10 years, “patient centricity” has become the industry’s favorite buzz term. I believe that better reflecting such a philosophy in clinical trial designs would not only help creatives avoid future regulatory wrist slaps but also offer doctors and patients more transparency.
Creative conundrums aside, trials that strive to prove that a drug's effects are “clinically meaningful” – that patients actually feel a positive impact – are both stronger and more impactful. Such an approach just so happens to also support narratives that speak to the unburdening of daily life through the amelioration of disease. To be clear, this isn’t about debating with regulators or circumnavigating rules – it’s about having data to show that stories of relief reflect patients’ reality.
And if researchers increasingly use validated Patient-reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) such as the General Self-Efficacy Scale, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, Caregiver Strain Index, and SF-36, as well as anxiety and depression assessments, emotive stories can be backed by solid data.
In terms of visuals, Pharma must start asking carefully considered questions when testing creative concepts. If audiences are asked things like ‘do you find any element of this campaign distracting?’ or requested to recall the key efficacy/safety messages, pharma can take steps to ensure clarity in their campaigns and adjust their approach based on research.
A final lesson that we can learn from the latest FDA letters is that cheery individuals must be placed in situations that are contextually relevant to their condition. Instead of gleamy-eyed carnival goers, Novo would have been better to have someone sliding into a little black dress and shimmying with glee after zipping it to the top. Such an approach, when combined with robust supporting data, ensures that communications are not just more precise, but better resonate with target audiences.
And as for distracting dog barking… unfortunately I don’t have an answer for that. But what I will say is that cats are pretty cool.
In summary, the sky is staying put – we just need to watch out for the occasional flying acorn.
