Advertisement
<< Back To Blog Post
RuPaul Sponsored by HIV?

Write a Comment

I have read and agree to the terms and conditions in the Posting Rules*

7 Comments

CjDinsky

If they can convince viewers that there are fool proof treatments for HIV and can therefore relax viewers' inhibitions during the sexual and narcotic use interactions they have in their personal lives they might instead be having an advertising effect that increases the number of people who view HIV as treatable and are less concerned with contracting it and if they get infected these drug companies will have customers for the rest of the customers' lives because they need the drugs to survive. So it may instead be that Rupaul is cleaning up financially by helping drug companies sell an image of bulletproof medicines that increase carelessness toward HIV infection through the image of medical hope giving drug companies customers for the rest of their lives. In this day and age it just me become the next mainstream fad to be HIV infected with the promise by drug companies that you will never having to worry about the consequences as long as you (or the government on your behalf) purchases their drugs for the rest of your life.

January 31, 2013

Paul

I called up a friend recently when I seen the new ads running, such as "It's Never Just HIV." I understand that the scare tactic is what they are going for, but here is my issue with it. It seems harsh for people already living with HIV. It makes me feel even on meds and managing the disease, there are so many other things that HIV could cause. It feels insensitive to people living with the disease, almost engraving fear and helplessness to our future. I mean obviously there is no cure, so why would these ads be something we would we want to see on repeat? Now it is even in the subway cars in NYC, so it's that constant reminder of all the complications our life comes with. It's hard not to feel sour about it, because do I really need to be reminded constantly about different things the disease could cause? I have seen that Gay Rights had mixed feelings about these ads, but the President of this organization running the ads has no intention to pull them. I just don't get how this is really helpful. It's putting people with their fingers cut off from smoking in the same category, but we can't quit HIV. So just felt the need to write this, because I am not sure if I am the only one who feels this way. Just makes me angry.

March 2, 2011

Gary Higo

Promoting testing is an awesome thing, but advertising for their product is outrageous to me. Pharma spent $57.5 BILLION on promotions and advertising in 2004. Imagine if that was cut out and reducing the cost of medications for consumers. I believe my physician should be directing me what medication to take for an ailment not a drug company who's only motivation is to generate more revenue. If HIV and many other drugs were sensibly affordable or generics allowed we wouldn't have an ADAP Waiting List in this country and others who can not afford their medications would stand a better chance of receiving their proper, prescribed treatment from their physicians.

February 17, 2011

Scott Lansing

Very well said. And to ad to why Gay print publications aren't featuring as many HIV treatment/awareness ads as space sold on LOGO, I don't know the exact reason, but it would be interesting to look at demographics of newly diagnosed people with HIV and if they parallel numbers reflecting age groups that consume print media vs. television media.

February 15, 2011

Danny Kopelson

As someone who has worked in HIV/AIDS for over 20 years and sold ad space to all the HIV pharmaceutical companies for both a national HIV magazine and a national Gay publication, HIV ads on LOGO have a heavier freqency of running on Drag Race is the greater audience and a well targeted audience. for a popular show. I also noticed an increased frequency of ads when LOGO ran that terrible (personal opinion only) A-List reality show as well. Bigger rated show, bigger audience, more ads. I think all the ads running are all HIV testing ads as oppossed to actual HIV medication product ads. Encourging high risk people for contracting HIV to get tested. This is certainly a great objective as everyone infected with HIV should indeed know. All the pharma companies encourage and support HIV testing efforts. Not a bad thing really, as folks may need the treatment to stay healthy. Why do they support testing so strongly? To help people stay healthy and to increase their market. If 25% of people who are positive do not know, once they know, they will go on medications. I think that Gilead is the sole advertiser and sponsor of all the testing ads. You rarely see a Gilead medication ad running anywhere anymore as they are the industry leaders and I think they feel they may not need to promote or advertise their medications , but instead to just increase their market by getting people tested who will in-turn likely go on a Gilead med. Atripla is heavily marketed, but that is because of it co-formulation with Sustiva from BMS which controls the marketing of Atripla. Also, a new combo drug with Gilead's top med Truvada will be coming out co-formualted with a new med from Tibotec that will have even less side effects from Atripla with Sustiva. Keep your eyes open for that new med as it has great potential to take over Atripa due to less side effects. It's great target marketing for HIV med or testing on LOGO but also very limiting as not all gay men watch LOGO or have cable. Kind of sad to not be supporting the gay print media anymore. Once Gilead's products begin to slip in sales, or new and better medications are developed we might all see a rise in Gilead product advertising again. HIV marketing is really a very facinating study.

February 15, 2011

Richard

I didn't see the broadcast myself, but as a marketer, I'd think it might have something to do with the fact that RuPaul's Drag Race is probably the highest-rated show on Logo. (I don't know that for a fact, mind you; it's just a hunch, based on a mercifully quick survey of the rest of Logo's programming.) That means that ads during Drag Race are more expensive than ads running during other broadcasts. Big pharma has big bucks to spend on that kind of thing -- something that smaller outfits can't do. Just a thought.

February 11, 2011

Cathy Robinson Pickett

I thought it was just me! I'm a straight woman who has been HIV positive 26 years. Last week I caught the show and was stunned....not sure what the message is!

February 11, 2011

Advertisement

Hot topics


POZ uses cookies to provide necessary website functionality, improve your experience, analyze our traffic and personalize ads. Our Privacy Policy

Manage

POZ uses cookies to provide necessary website functionality, improve your experience, analyze our traffic and personalize ads. By remaining on our website, you indicate your consent to our Privacy Policy and our Cookie Usage.