Let’s be clear. I am not supported by pharmaceutical companies. No pharmaceutical company has ever paid me one cent. Got it? OK.
But let’s say that Pfizer or GlaxoSmithKline did advertise here, would that pharmaceutical advertisement ruin my credibility?
HealthyPlace and Pharmaceutical Advertising
As most of you know, one of my main clients is HealthyPlace.com. I have a blog, Breaking Bipolar, there and I write a myriad of mental health articles for them as well. And yes, HealthyPlace does have pharmaceutical advertisers.
However, as I stated when I started working for HealthyPlace, they have an explicit editorial policy that states that none of their content will be dictated by advertisers. HealthyPlace has complete editorial freedom over their content. If this wasn’t the case, I really couldn’t work there.
And since I have worked at HealthyPlace (two-and-a-half years now) they have never once asked me to change an article in deference to a pharmaceutical, or any other, advertiser. I have repeatedly spoken about drugs, sometimes unkindly, and HealthyPlace has never once said, “Boo.” So, say what you will about them, I have no reason to believe their credibility is harmed due to pharmaceutical advertising.
Know Your Sources
Nevertheless, I have said time and again to know your sources. If a person is sponsored by a drug company it’s possible that the information he or she gives will be guided by financial motives. I have always felt this way and will always encourage people to check the background of any source.
Pharmaceutical Advertising and Credibility
Years ago when asked if I would take drug company money my answer was always, “no.” And the reason is because I don’t really like pharmaceutical companies and would never want to be seen as a shill for one.
Now though, I think my answer is different. I think depending on the specifics I would consider pharmaceutical advertising.
Why?
Because they have the money, honey.
Because in my field of mental health, they’re the ones with all the cash. They’re the ones who can actually afford to pay for my time. They’re the ones who actually might be able to compensate me for the hundreds of hours I spend on this blog. They’re the one who can keep me providing this information for you, for free.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m still not a fan of pharmaceutical companies and I still have a problem with how pharmaceutical companies in the mental health field, and elsewhere, operate, but I just admit to the economic realities of the situation.
And I know that I would never be tainted by their money. There is no question in my mind that I would write without deference to them.
Would I Lose My Credibility with Pharmaceutical Sponsorship?
So I throw the question to you – if I had pharmaceutical sponsorship, would I lose my credibility? Would you stop reading me if there were pharmaceutical ads? Would you stop believing what I have to say if you knew that drug companies were paying to advertise here?
What do you think?
Just to be clear, I’m not in talks with pharmaceutical companies at this time, this is just a discussion point.
I am a healthcare writer and work in managed markets near exclusively for pharmaceutical manufacturing clients. Managed markets (e.g. Medicare, commercial) marketing (that is, I write ads, presentations, message platforms for the sake of getting a drug on formulary in a hospital system, employer group etc) is part of pharmaceutical advertising. I’ve worked in direct-to-prof advertising in the past and here is the thing: yes, manufacturers are corporate giants with slippery tactics; yes, direct-to-consumer advertising is the more slippery of areas; yes, yes, and yes to all the worst fears. But here’s the rub: direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising is one of the reasons there was an expansion of health and medical journalism in the first place. In 1996, the laws on dtc were unleashed and where did those ads go? The health sections of newspapers and websites of course, which effectively expanded the entire area (being so well funded) and subsequent expanded public interest in health topics followed. Of course we all hate dtc pharma ads- it’s so easy to hate them — but they funded and thus catalyzed and expanded the space in which most health and medical journalists now work. So I say get those ad dollars while you can. There are 4.1 billion of them. It doesn’t mean you are advocating an individual drug’s use.
Only if they disclose their CEO’s income with bonus’ and explain why they are the highest profit business while at the same time charging enormous amounts of money for meds.
I’ve suffered from MI for right at 30 years and I’ve taken 70+ meds with SE too strange to believe.
But really, I could care less if they were to advertise here, no less than letting a fox in the hen house.
TBH, you sound already too excited about meds for many, as you can see by comments. But this way I take it as difference of opinion. I am post-modernist sceptical of existence of truth… you put faith in modern science… When it comes from your research and experience, I can accept that (and many others too, I think). But if your “yay psychiatry!” articles were laced with Pharma ads… one would think “well, she is laughing on the way to bank for her Pharma check”.
Over here we say who’s bread you eat, those song you should sing. I get it, we all need money… but is contributing to a sketch business worth it?
I have only recently begun reading your posts and like your position regarding editorial/journalistic independence. I also understand that maintaining these blogs costs money. If you were to have pharmaceutical advertising, it would not alter my respect for your and the credibility I perceive from you.
One thought that comes to mind is that if you accepted pharmaceutical advertising, you could actually write different posts about the various ads in the areas of ad credibility, company profile versus community involvement, etc.
Keep up the good work.
Hi Ernie,
Nice to hear from a new reader. Thanks for your support.
If I did have ads here I’m thinking I wouldn’t be able to critique them. I’m thinking the advertisers wouldn’t like it too much :)
I am hoping, though, to get advertising from a company that I genuinely like and think would make a good partner for me, then I would, honestly, have positive things to say about them.
– Natasha Tracy
I wouldn’t stop reading your blogs, yet I know that on some level, I would no longer regard them with the same outlook as I do now. I also think that were you to blog about a specific drug, that I would somehow regard it with a degree of suspicion, always looking for that hint of ??? (sorry, I don’t quite know what word/term to use here), (paid support?).
I just don’t view websites that have drug advertising on them, the same as I do those which don’t include such advertising for some unexplored reason. It’s not that don’t trust them per se, it’s just that, in some ways, I view them with a high degree of caution, I think.
Hi Richard,
I think scepticism is healthy and knowing funding sources is relevant to many conversations. And if I did take money I would be up front about it so people could make their own decision because yes, I think it’s reasonable to look at things critically.
– Natasha Tracy
I can understand both sides though I understand it takes money to live too. I don’t often pay attention to the advertising myself mostly concentrating on the articles at hand. It doesn’t mean if you accept the money that you are their voice. I doubt even a large amount would change what you write about even to appease them in some fashion. What does your gut tell you? My dad use to say your first reaction/action is usually the right one no matter how golden the pot may be. I think you already know the answer but oddly might be afraid or nervous of it to. If that is true don’t be this reader will be still a reader regardless of the advertisements. If it weren’t true I would totally never look at FB again.
Hi Debra,
Well, like I said in the piece, my initial reaction has always been “no” but that was before I was a writer relying on my words to make a living, so, things change.
That being said I do think it’s pretty funny that someone would say they _would_ stop reading because, like you said, there are ads everywhere and no one seems to think anything about it and yet I should be so harshly judged for the same thing.
But judgement is the way of the world and readers do ultimately have the eyeballs to decide what to read.
– Natasha Tracy
Frankly, I take everything I read at Healthyplace with a grain of salt because of the aggressive advertising. It’s less of a problem when my adblock filter is working. I just worry about the credibility of that industry, and have no illusions about whose interest matters most to them.
That said, many people benefit from medication. I take meds, though not psych meds anymore. It’s a matter of what works and what’s needed for a particular person. I’m not a medical person, so I can’t really recommend a course of treatment.
What I do recommend is an approach to dealing with these disorders that involves active engagement, learning what you’re dealing with, finding allies and resources, and planning.
We need mainstream writing like yours that helps people figure out what they are experiencing, and gives them context. I’m okay with getting paid for the work, and think the industry needs to contribute to supporting it. So you keep at it.
You have to be careful, though. I wrote a lot of NAMI training material years ago that I would not write today. I worked for Catholic Social Services and managed to avoid faith-type conflicts because I was working in older adult services, not some more conflict-prone place.
But I know that “no editorial influence” policies are, in the end, meaningless. You would not have the opportunity to write for Healthyplace if you were not compatible with their philosophy.
Hi Paul,
Well, you may be partially right in that if I was anti-med and wanted everyone to get off their meds HealthyPlace may not have hired me. But then, I would consider that stance to be immoral and harmful and I wouldn’t hire that person either and it would have nothing to do with advertising or no advertising.
But like I said, I have never been asked to change a single word and I don’t always have the nicest things to say about drugs so people can view them with critical thinking in mind, and I think that’s always smart, but really, I think _their_ editorial policy means something even if it doesn’t in other cases.
But that’s me. There is a certain amount of trust involved and because I work directly with them and produce a lot of their content I have that trust, but I can understand that not everyone would.
– Natasha Tracy
perhaps if there was a large disclaimer that you were in no way ever going to endorse the products on every single entry of the blog…….no wait a minute, any mention of their products, even just the name of the product on your blog, is an endorsement. I studied art, advertizing and psychology in college. I was appalled to learn that NAMI is funded heavily by pharmacuticals. I am suspicious of all of the drugs and the way they are dispensed. Ive had terrible side effects from drugs and not everyone needs to be on them. I would prefer to see someplace that does not get money from the pharmacuticals. The reason that this isnt possible is because laws allowing the drug companies to make billions of dollars at the expense of the health of its customers is common place in our government. They look out for the big companies, not small people with health problems.
Love your writing but visuals from any company, whether it be pharmaceuticals, herbal medicines, or religious cults, would taint the experience. Perhaps you could advertise something neutral, like handbags?
You’re adamant your writing won’t change but I believe that slowly, it will. Regardless of whether it does or not, you will lose a lot of your audience.
Hi Sarah,
While on the surface that might seem like a good suggestion, in reality, it’s just not realistic. You see, a handbag manufacturer wouldn’t _want_ to advertise here. A medical company would. Not necessarily a drug company, but another medical company of some sort. It’s about products that tie into the content and it always would be.
The only way to get neutral advertisers is to get millions of hits a month – this makes it worth their while – and I don’t have, and will never, thanks to the subject matter – that.
– Natasha Tracy
I don’t know… I have the potential to buy a lot of handbags, and other things too, when manic. Get rich quick schemes and other impulse buys might do well too :)
Seriously though, do what you need to to get paid. I can happily ignore advertisements – its a small price to pay for great writing.
Having ads on your site would not make me question your credibility, but by placing those ads you are helping to sell a product. It may not influence your blog posts, but people will still see the name of the drug, which may lead to them asking for that drug with their doctor. After all that is the point of drug companies wanting to advertise on your blog. It’s not about controlling your writing, it’s about getting the name of their product in people’s minds.
So that still leaves you with the ethical question of whether you are happy to promote a particular product to your readers. In Australia it is illegal for drug companies to advertise to prevent that issue. We have ads saying talk to your doctor about ‘insert condition’ because meds are available, but they are not allowed to name any brands. This is to try and keep people from asking for med A because they’ve seen it on tv when in reality med B is more appropriate, but not as well advertised.
Hi Ellen,
That’s a very good point. I’ve actually written about how much I hate direct-to-consumer drug advertising. Only two countries allow it and I think it’s stupid and unethical. I think people _should_ talk to their doctors about conditions and not specific drugs. (I wrote about it here: -https://natashatracy.com/treatment-issues/money-lies-direct-to-consumer-drug-advertising/ )
So it’s a fair ball to say I shouldn’t do it because I just plain don’t believe in it.
But then, maybe the ads would come in the form of “talk to your doctor about X diagnosis” I don’t know as the question is theoretical. There are ways for drug companies to advertise (as you said) without advertising specific drugs.
– Natasha Tracy
Sorry Natasha, I realize how difficult it is to keep surviving when you are a blogger, but with me your credibility would definitely suffer if you took up with a pharma company. It’s sort of like NAMI – I value much of the work they are doing, but I am skeptical of *everything* they do because of the primary source of their funding being drug companies. It’s unfortunate, but the natural reaction is to gradually fall in with the opinions of the “hand that feeds you”.
Personally it is irrelevant if you had ads or not as reading your blogs you are already captured by the system,Thats not an insult to your integrity as your blog is the first point of call for me about drugs and their positive and side effects and yes i trust you to be impartial and your research is excellent.But you miss the basic and most fundamental point.Drug/Pharma dont ever research cures and never will,they search palliatives so they have a captive market.Better Ad’s nope just more powerful and more expensive so the physiological addiction is greater.The greatest lie ever is that Ad’s get you to a place where therapy can work.No its the patient that gets to that point and no matter how many pills if that patient doent choose to get well then nothing changes.Example would be people on Prosac for decades.Another point is would you accepts ads from Psychiatrists?
It would be a gross distortion to suggest that all (or even most?) patients with a mental illness can CHOOSE to get well;moreover, it could be injurious to them to suggest this is so, too, because those who do not get well may then erroneously believe they are responsible for their own wretched condition.
Wr4ong Harry
If your illness is like Bp or schizophrenia then no you cant choose but any other no brain chemistry illness yes.If you tell people its not upto them then you are allowing self pity to rule.Any addiction is a choice,Gambling.alcohol and drugs are all choices so if you can decide to get addicted you can decide to get clean.Its not easy for anyone but taking responsibility for yourself is a first step to getting cured.Also think about this you are alone in the world with poor social skills or agoraphobia.Suddenly with your illness you are getting some attention,people wehter paid or not are trying o help you,but this only happens cause your ill so its in your interest in a way to be ill.This doesn’t sound rational but thats mental illness for you,.
Also take your middle class social workers patronizing some where else.I have had two bouts of mental illness cured one and fought tremendous battles that normal people would have crumbled under let alone ill people.I have been hospitalized twice and have seen this over and over again.I have been stuffed so full of powerful tranquilizers all i could do is think about my problems and how bad my life is i would have killed myself but i couldnt move.So smug feeble arrogant pleb don’t criticize someone concept when its your ignorance that blocks your understanding.
So rude and aggressive, Patrick! I shall forgive this as I expect you might be in the throws of a BP-like episode, such is all our lot. Yes, I am BP and when I have a dysphoric hypomania I too become aggressive, intolerant and, on one occasion, damn-near lethal; so, I try not to judge others if they behave in a similar way … at least, not when I am in an agreeable mood.
If you care to read what I said again you may notice I did ‘not’ say ALL people, but ‘some’ and ‘maybe most’ people cannot drag themselves out of their mental illness. Of course, the “chemical” illnesses cannot be willed away. Good for you that you have, but don’t expect everyone with a psychological condition to be so fortunate. I’ll explain why:
I think you are wrong to assume alcohol and drugs are also always “curable” by self-will. If it were so, alcoholics would not say that once you are an alcoholic you are always an alcoholic … Will power and peer support can help them stay off the drink but they are, they tell me, never cured of it. Indeed, some are permanently brain damaged by alcohol and drugs – we have a specialist nursing home just for such people around the corner from where I live. Some suffer with permanent mental illness, similar to victims of psychosis, where they see or hear things that are not there. There is no cure for them, no self-talk they can do to remedy their situation.
However, think you may not realise it is not always possible for psychological mental illness to be willed away, either. The psychiatric “industry” used to distinguish between psychological and chemical mental illness, calling the psychological ones “reactive” (because it was a consequence of a reaction to something, like a trauma) and the chemical ones as “endogenous”. These distinctions are not generally considered a good model for mental disorders because very few people suffering with a mental illness is purely suffering with a psychological condition or a “chemical” one! An obvious example is alcoholism: It is often a symptom of an underlaying chemical condition, such as Bipolar Disorder. But the primary thing to consider is that psychologically induced states of depressions can cause changes, sometimes permanent ones, such that the person develops a “chemical” condition. For example, Bipolar Disorder can be triggered by a psychological condition – it is not uncommon, for example, for Bipolar patients do have an underlaying psychological disorder like Dysthymia. The reverse is also true, that “chemical” disorders cause psychological ones because they distort one’s view of the World about them such that it becomes distressing for them. And then there are psychological conditions that can be treatment resistant and from which the patient never recovers – e.g. this can be the case of people with Dysthymia. And little wonder when many psychological conditions arise due to some kind of permanent physical illness or condition; for example, whenever did you see someone with Myalgia in a long-term happy state, or one with ME, or anyone with permanent and severe pain? I have a friend whose spine is falling apart at the base. One vertebrae is breaking up and the one above it is wearing away. The doctors will not operate lest the removal of the bone causes permanent damage to the spinal chord. She is in severe pain – the highest safe dose of morphine doesn’t touch the pain she feels. She wears patches that leak a drug into her that is something 10 x more powerful than morphine. It helps, but does not remove, the pain and it has severe side effects that will permanently damage her health. Of course, she has an acute psychological depression – will-power isn’t going to cure it.
Hi all,
I can see we have some strong feelings here. I understand that, but I provide for a level of discourse where disagreement is fine but name-calling is not. Please elevated the conversation.
See the commenting rules for more: https://natashatracy.com/bipolar-burble-blog-commenting-rule/
– Natasha Tracy
Hi Patrick,
Thanks, um, sort of?
I don’t tend to believe what you’re saying and here’s why, if a drug company could come up with a drug that cured a mental illness (and, for the record, I don’t believe that is possible at this time in our medical knowledge) they would make a killing. A fortune. A fortune’s fortune. They would be marketing that thing for many years, maybe even decades around the globe and there would still be plenty of other palliative drugs for them to rely on. I believe if they knew how to do it, they would do it in a heartbeat.
And yes, a patient gets themselves to a place where they choose to get therapy and they choose to work with therapy, but meds are one of the factors that are used to get people to that place.
As to whether I would accept ads from psychiatrists, yes I suppose I would. Some doctors advertise although it’s not terribly common. (What’s the difference between that, and say, an advertisement from the Mayo Clinic?)
– Natasha Tracy
I trust you not to let a pharmaceutical source of income cloud your journalistic blogger integrity. That being said, others may not feel the same. Of course, you might lose that support from a company if you diss one of their drugs.
Hmph. Once you are dependent on their money for income, are you sure you will stay impartial?
You SHOULD be compensated for your work, however. I believe your work helps people tremendously. So I think you should do what you have to do to survive. :)
Sorry, I think I jumped around a bit in trying to understand my own opinion, lol.
Hi SithSnoopy,
Yes, you jumped around a bit on that one, but I jump around a bit when thinking about it too, so I understand :)
I guess there is always the concern that I _could_ become partial even without knowing it, but I just can’t see it. I mean, really, I would never tell a person to take a specific med unless I had empirical evidence backing it up (and probably not even then).
But who knows? People change. I’d like to think I would never change on this issue though. I can’t see myself changing on this issue.
– Natasha Tracy
Pharmaceutical companies have one true focus; making money. True, the medications they develop are generally beneficial for all aliments, including mental illnesses. But from a corporate perspective the decision to put these medications on the market is purely a question of profit. I can’t imagine any pharmaceutical firm promoting a drug that is going to lose them money, in spite of the benefits. They are going to find a way to turn it into a money maker. And that’s all about marketing. If I believed that the motivation for medication adds was truly to ease suffering I would be more inclined to support them. But I don’t think that I need to help them make any more money. Medications should stand on their own value. Not to mention, a lot of these marketing campaigns can even be harmful as consumers as they are enticed to find reasons to use the product. And physicians have their on incentive to push these medications as well. I respect what is done here too much to stop reading it just because there are any kind of ads here. But it’s a sure thing that I won’t pay any attention to them at all.
Hi Joe,
You’re absolutely rights, pharmaceutical companies are about making money as are ads – but that’s exactly the same for every company. No for-profit company pushes things that lose them money. It’s really not fair to judge pharma companies just because they do what everyone else does.
And, to be honest, I’m not sure who clicks on drug ads. I wouldn’t, but that’s me.
– Natasha Tracy
As an artist I understand the concept of “selling out” as a dealer I think it’s a joke. Every artist works hard to go from ‘starving’ to thriving. And it’s the ones still staving that give the ones that are thriving a guilt complex. That being said. You have created a safe place here, where your information and opinion is trusted. As a reader it would bother me to see a sponsored by Pzizer tag connected to your name because it would then be connected to your name. I never notice ads when I read your blog on healthy place. So from a marketing perspective I want you to get income to suPport this amazing site. Can you look into ways to rent space on your site as banners not as a sponsor. Sponsorship implies ownership. Both google and Facebook can work with you on ad placement on your site. Or are there other related organizations besides pharma that would partner like NAMI, DBSA, BP, ESPERANZA, healthy place, webmd, Glenn Close’s organization, psych organizations (proffessional organizations) and I am sure there are many others- this is just off the top of my head. Or even go to the outside and think of services that might be popular to your audience maybe yoga and fitness stuff or tattoo places. Just some things to think about. If you are going to ad advertising not only do you want it to help your pocketbook but you want to make sure it keeps your audience happy and encourages more viewers. Cause the last thing you want is bit of cash and no readers. Let me know if you have any questions or I can help. Your writings have made a great difference in my recovery. Thank you.
Which credibility is it you refer to? I say, to hell with it! Advertise. You won’t miss what was never yours.
Hi Littlemissmagic,
Yes, you’re probably right, it’s always the ones that are starving that attempt to make the successful ones feel bad. Which is unfortunate because I like to think we can all support each other.
As for the ads, I’m actually talking to a company right now that isn’t in drugs and other companies that I have in mind wouldn’t be pharma either, so thanks for your suggestions :) I just find it an interesting question and I wanted to garner some opinions of readers.
– Natasha Tracy
Hi all,
Thanks so much for your opinions, I appreciate you taking the time.
To be clear, I don’t plan on putting pharma ads on the site any time soon :)
– Natasha Tracy
It will be a moot point as the existing patents on big pharma’s psych drugs run out. Since they’ve decided not to develop new drugs, they won’t need their pet psychiatrists, tv ads, or ads on your blog to help sell their products I’d look for different advertisers for the future not just because of the potential effect on your credibility (which effect I would rate as real but not substantial), but because they’re not going to be spending money on psych drug ads in the not-so-distant future.
P.S.: on second thought , there may still be a demand for pharma ad space, but not for psych drugs. Statins, diabetes, and weight-loss drugs manufacturers might find a blog like yours relevant enough to attract their ad dollars.
Hi Joanne,
I’m not sure what makes you think there are no new drugs being developed because new ones come out all the time. I tweet and Facebook them sometimes. And I just read that hundreds of central nervous system (which includes psych) drugs are currently in development. (Read at Therapeutics Daily but I can’t find the article.)
I’m not too worried about their advertising budgets – believe you me, they have money to burn in that department and I suspect always will due to the lax laws the US has on advertising.
At any rate, I’m not talking to them currently, nor do I plan to, but it’s an interesting discussion. One never know what the future will bring.
– Natasha Tracy
If your blog had pharmaceutical sponsorship it’d be probably then be seen as MARKETING. Taking $$$ from anyone is, as you know, your decision. I’d rather you take the money and just go….I’d probably do it myself yet I don’t think I could take what you said as completely from your perspective. We all have our own thoughts on stuff….money, especially BIG $$$, is highly enticing. Other people will continue to blog so its not like you are the only one….Just because someone says they don’t get $$$ on the internet, doesnt make it so…..for all I know you are a man who is a ghost writer….I say take the $$$. Make it BIG enough though so any regret you may feel seems extremely justified….You’ve already done many people some good.
Hi Betsy,
Take the money and run? Naw, not my style :) I suppose someone could pay me enough to do that, but I don’t imagine anyone would.
Oh, and I’m _so_ not a man. I always think it’s funny when people accuse me of being someone else because I make _videos_ for gosh sakes for HealthyPlace. Just who do people think is in those videos?
– Natasha Tracy
If GlaxoSmithKline offered you $1,000,000 after 2 years of advertising on your site, uh, I would say take the money. Your blog is awesome for many many people, and even if you were to start talking b.s., that’s up to the person reading it to decide what’s what. In my opinion, you mean well, you want to be heard, you want to stand behind others with psychiatric challenges, and you HAVE and you ARE and you WILL. If you were only getting something like $10,000 for a 2 year contract then I’d say rethink that…………….you can probably do MORE good with money than without. Read any fine print in any contract….you can still have a social media page just read the fine print…..you can reject certain wording, etc. (you probably already know this). Think of how much $$$ you could use to spend on promoting legislative changes, perhaps helping charities or starting an advocacy business or non-profit. Whenever I read just about ANYthing on the internet, I remind myself that unless I am willing to spend hours of time researching the source, I cannot read anything as a “fact.” I believe you are the same Natasha Tracy on the videos on the HealthyPlace (I hope I remembered the name), and yet I want to remind everyone that the internet is not the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Hypothetcially, let’s say you take a 2 year contract…..well, you can then END the contract if it no longer seems / feels appealing. You seem to have a devoted following, and why would they suddenly abandon you if they didn’t take you seriously ? What would that say about them ? I am not anti-money, even if I am anti-BigPharma w/big power………they have the money, so take it from them……provide a service and do the best you can to stay true to your belief system regarding bipolar disorder. Allow your followers to jump your case if they think you are being “bought” and then decide from there………I would imagine many of us reading your post about your thoughts on receiving advertising money from BigPharma are impressed with your openness and concern for them (uh, you are concerned yes ?) — anyway, I would take the money yet I am not Natasha Tracy.
Hi Betsy,
Yes I’m concerned about the readers, I’ve _always_ been concerned about the readers. What I write is a reflection of how I hope to help the readers and sometime in protection of the readers as much as it is self-expression.
I’ve had the honour of helping many people over the years and I wouldn’t want that to change. It’s why I wanted to have this discussion – so people could weigh in and I didn’t just guess at what people would think. I pretty much guessed right :) but it’s always good to hear multiple perspectives and not just the ones rattling around in my own skull.
And one million dollars? For that much, I would _so_ take the money. And then I would start a charity with some of it. But that’s me.
– Natasha
If it was my first time visiting your blog and if you have pharmaceutical ads then I will not read your posts. I understand the economic reality but it’s the perception that matters here. No matter how much you disclaim that your views are not biased, the mere fact that you carry pharmaceutical ads will tarnish your credibility among those who do not know you better.
I hate the phrase “sold out” What does that even mean? That you are one person trying to make a living in an economical disaster. Wasn’t it Oprah that said “Find something that you love to do and find a way to make money doing it”.
Whether you have parmaceutical companies or some other means of making money it’s your business, although, those organizations had better be prepared for some of your material :)
I would never take you for someone who would edit what she has to say whether it be for or against a cause.. You provide such educational pieces and always have links to show it’s legitimacy. How is that different if you get paid for it or not.
This is something that you have waited for, well I would imagine, a lifetime of writing. If you don’t take this opportunity then someone else will.
Girl, go where the money is, the martyr’s aren’t paying you. There maybe a few people that will stop reading, but think of all of the people you will gain by being able to focus on just writing. I will certainly continue reading all of your blogs including Facebook & Twitter.
I agree, I don’t like the phrase “sold out” either, Patricia, but that is how a lot of people WILL feel in this case – you can guarantee it. And though it may not be a fair assessment in this case, it IS an apt phrase, however distasteful, to describe a scenario when someone seemingly u-turns on their principles because of money. Cynics say “everyone has their price” and many people believe it – so, what Tracy proposes will likely be perceived as her having found that tipping point, that she’s found the price. It’s not my view that she has but I think we would be living in Cloud Cuckoo Land if we expect everyone to feel the same. But then, I’m not the besty judge of character! I always ‘prefer’ to believe the best of (most) people and in so doing found out I’d closed my mind to the reality that a very close relation, a man of seeming impeccable character, was stealing thousands of £’s from his clients for a decade. Only one person, out of his entire family and the good (and bad) people of the town where he lived, believed it was possible for him to behave dishonestly but he did – big time.
Hi Harryf200,
Well, I prefer to believe in the best in people too, and yes, sometimes I’m wrong, but I wouldn’t want to live the other way.
– Natasha Tracy
Hi Patricia,
Thanks for your support. Yes, I think “sold out” is a bit of a silly term. It just means that one refuses to be a starving artist. Which, I think, is quite reasonable. Why is it that your opinion only matters if you have the hovel to prove it?
I think it’s interesting that I would be judged so harshly for allowing quite reasonable advertising of a product that actually _saves_lives_ but because they don’t do it in the way people like, they’re evil? It’s a touch unfair. As I’ve said, I’m not the greatest fan of their practices either, but I try to be reasonable.
But, not to worry, there are no drug companies on the horizon for me. And you’re right, they would have to be prepared for my content, and likely, a drug company just would never be. I just wanted to take my reader’s temperature on the issue. I am actually looking at other company advertising but they’re not in the drug world.
– Natasha Tracy
I wouldn’t blame you for needing the money, but I’d pay close attention to see whether you started advertizing that company’s products in your posts. I think it’d be fairly obvious you’d sold out. You’d probably drift away from “my Bipolar is not your Bipolar, so work with your doctor” towards one size fits all solutions including specific medications.
Hi KG,
I just can’t see myself ever doing that. I can understand others might think I would, after all, they don’t know me, but honestly, I’ve always been a big believer in doing what works and I can’t imagine that would ever change.
– Natasha Tracy
No, I would not stop reading your blogs but, forever after, what you wrote would be treated by me with less confidence, with reservation, and I suspect my attitude will be more liberal in this regard than most! In short, pharmc’ financial support would taint your credibility – you would be considered by some to have “sold out” and not to be trusted ast all, while others would be deeply suspicious of you, especially those who have not yet discovered your writing.
Hi Harryf200,
Yes, that’s the attitude I thought most people would have. It wouldn’t be enough to stop readers, after all, most mental health sites have drug ads, but it’s enough to raise suspicion. Which I think is reasonable. I would just hope that suspicion would go away as I proved myself not to be a shill. But perhaps I’m being too hopeful on that point.
– Natasha Tracy