How The Proposed Pharma Ad Crackdown Could Impact Radio.

The Trump administration’s proposed crackdown on pharmaceutical ads on radio and TV, calling on federal agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration to step up their enforcement to ensure prescription drug advertising laws are being followed, could have a significant impact on an ad category with annual expenditure of $24 billion across all media, according to a report in Ad Age.

In the wake of Trump’s mandate, the report says, the FDA sent thousands of warning letters to pharma brands such as AbbVie’s Skyrizi, Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly’s Jardiance, and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co.’s Rexulti to remove misleading ads.

According to MediaRadar, pharmaceutical advertising saw an 8% increase to $9.3 billion in 2024, accounting for 4% of total U.S. measured-media spending. As Ad Age notes, pharma brands represent the largest ad category on network radio, with an emphasis on news and talk formats. Media Monitors’ most recent ranking of the top 100 radio advertisers lists pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer and AbbVie, and prescription medications such as Novo Nordisk’s Ozempic, Astellas Pharma’s Linzess, and Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Eliquis.

While there’s no evidence that pharmaceutical ad spend has declined or slowed since the FDA’s letters, it’s clear that the long-term effect of a crackdown would, according to several sources, reduce the total amount of such advertising on radio as well as change those ads’ content, requiring clearer language for benefits and risks, making it harder to advertise benefits without adequately presenting risks and other required disclosures. The likely result would be longer and less distracting commercials with a greater emphasis on communicating risk information.

From a volume standpoint, pharma’s total radio spots are likely to decrease as companies will be forced to create different versions of their ads to comply with new rules. Those ads could get both longer and slower, due to more time necessary to present both benefits and risks without making them seem overwhelming or distracting, and to speak at a slower pace with consumer-friendly language. It’s also possible that the use of background music or sound effects will be reduced to ensure that the risk information is not overshadowed. 

Resulting from all the above, complying with FDA regulations may make pharma ads on radio more formulaic, with longer disclaimers or mandatory risk statements, while the standard 30- or 60-second spot length may become more challenging for advertisers’ additional messaging.

While this suggests that some pharmaceutical categories may exit radio in favor of other media, given the greater risks while under tighter federal scrutiny, sources also suggest several positive scenarios for radio and pharma in this brave new world. It’s possible that advertisers move from national to regional campaigns to manage risk, benefiting stations with local audiences. Local stations with strong compliance and legal review processes that can demonstrate adherence to the FDA’s new guidelines may not only win business from cautious pharma advertisers but may also be preferred over digital channels with less oversight. Put another way, any short-term revenue pressure and creative restrictions may benefit radio in the long run.

Ad Age’s report notes, however, that at this early stage, pharma advertisers are taking more of a ‘wait and see’ attitude before moving their chips from radio or TV. “It’s unclear whether, when, and how the administration is planning to initiate a rulemaking process” that would revise or eliminate the “adequate provision” regulations pharma marketers long have used to guide how they disclose side effects and drug limitations, one executive says. “Until we have more details on that process, we’re basically in a waiting game.”