Correspondence: Joel J. Davis, School of Journalism & Media Studies, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanille Drive, San Diego, California 92182-4561, USA. E-mail: jdavis@mail.sdsu.edu

¹is a professor in the School of Journalism & Media Studies at San Diego State University. He is the author of numerous papers which have appeared in the Journal of Health Communication, Health Affairs, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media and Journalism & Mass Media Quarterly. He is also the author of the text Advertising Research: Theory and Practice. Dr. Davis' interests lie in the areas of pharmaceutical and green marketing, advertising ethics and strategy.

²is a Communication graduate student in the School of Journalism & Media Studies at San Diego State University.

Received 5 December 2008; Revised 5 December 2008; Published online 30 January 2009.

Abstract

FDA regulations for direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising require fair balance. An advertisement is considered to provide fair balance when its presentation of drug risks and benefits is reasonably comparable. Given the regulation's explicit comparison of benefit and risk information presentation, content analysis is the most common means of determining whether this requirement has been met. Research was conducted to determine if content analysis is, in fact, sufficient for determining if fair balance exists. The research, keeping benefit information consistent, measured how the number of side effects associated with a particular drug, the perceived severity of side effects, and the order and mode in which side effects are presented impact consumer attitudes and subsequent evaluations of fair balance. Findings indicate that content analysis alone may be insufficient, and that content analysis combined with an assessment of consumer reactions and attitudes after viewing a DTC advertisement may be a better means for determining fair balance. Implications for DTC regulation and DTC advertisers are presented and discussed.