Radio Attacks!
Hey, friends.
Let’s talk about the latest sexy myth in media strategy:
You’re on the Brzhechko&Nobody channel, where everything revolves around pharmaceutical advertising.
“Audio is the abounded future of advertising.”
“Radio captures more attention than TV.”
“Sound is more emotional than image.”
These days, everyone seems obsessed with one thing: attention. Attention is the new currency. Attention is all you need. At least, that’s what the trend says.
Media planners are shifting their metrics. New KPIs, new logic, new strategies — all focused on grabbing attention. And sure, there’s some truth in it.
Attention does matter. But let’s not forget the basics. Attention – is only the first thing in the famous and classic AIDA model.
Attention alone doesn’t sell. It’s not the destination — it’s just the door.
And if you don’t want to fall victim to this new trend — to the radio evangelists and attention manipulators — that’s exactly why I made this video.
You’ve seen the charts. You’ve read the headlines. Maybe you’ve even sat through a conference where someone quoted the ABX study and claimed that radio ads are “just as effective” as TV ads — only cheaper.
And while that sounds seductive… it’s also dangerous. Especially in pharma.
So today — we’re going to break this myth. We’re going to rip it open, dissect it, and see where it fails. Because no, radio doesn’t heal. And if you’re marketing medicine — attention is just the first spark. It’s not the fire.
Let’s go.
Let’s start with the truth:
Yes — sound matters.
Sound is biologically older than vision. It operates 360°. It works in the dark. It triggers primal instincts — especially fear and alertness. This is not new. This is evolution and well-known knowledge!
That’s why I really can’t realize What did they discovered in ABX? Ok, recent studies — like the “Game of Thrones” experiment from Nature Research — show that audio content can elicit stronger emotional and cognitive engagement than video, especially when the story is complex and requires imagination.
So far — I agree. But nevertheless here’s the twist: That doesn’t mean radio is more effective than video.
It means radio can demand more mental effort. That’s not the same as influencing purchase behavior — especially in pharma.
These people came for the pleasure of storytelling — not to make a purchase decision, not to choose between competing medical products, and definitely not to resolve anxiety about their health.
That’s a completely different psychological context. And comparing it to advertising — especially pharma advertising — is like comparing a novel to a prescription.
Have you ever wondered why you rarely hear radio ads for laundry detergents or cleaning products?
Simple. These are problem-solvers — not ego or pleasure busters. And pharma products fall into the same category. Even most of medicines are not for regular usage.
They’re not here to satisfy your cravings, indulge your senses, or elevate your status like fashion, food, or cars. No one wants to need medicine. They want the problem gone — and the product gone with it.
The only exception is drugs for the treatment of chronic diseases, but most of them do not fall under the OTC category and cannot be advertised in the majority of countries.
That’s the cold truth of pharmaceutical advertising:
It’s not about seduction. It’s about resolution.
And when resolution is your only message — no charming voice, no poetic copy, no clever wordplay will ever match the power of a visual transformation on screen.
Because in this business, clarity is not a style. It’s the job!
Now let’s address the big shiny elephant in the room:
The ABX study, the largest creative effectiveness comparison of audio vs video ads in history.
Over 10,000 TV ads vs 2,700 radio ads. What did they find?
That radio’s creative effectiveness is 92% that of TV — while costing ¼ the CPM.
Wow! So radio wins, right? Hold on. Let’s actually read the data.
The best-performing radio ads outperformed 48% of all TV ads tested. That sounds good… until you realize that the bottom half of TV ads are garbage anyway. Meanwhile, skin care, haircare, and QSR brands — categories that are highly visual — showed very little difference in effectiveness between radio and TV.
So is this proof that radio works? No.
It’s proof that most TV ads suck — and that good storytelling works in any format. Also — and this is very important — TV advertising is significantly more complex than radio. This alone proves that TV is a more powerful medium. However, due to its complexity, it’s harder to get it right.
In pharma, You’re not just telling a story. You’re building belief in a product that alters someone’s body. You can’t do that with sound alone.
Another thing everyone forgets in this “radio vs video” debate? And it’s really made me crazy. TV has sound too. So when someone says “sound is more emotional than image” — remember: TV gives you both!
At the same time. In sync. Even if you close your eyes. But with TV You get voice, face, gesture, lighting, frame, background, and symbol — all working together to activate archetypes, trigger projection, and initiate transference.
That’s how pharma ads sell.
That’s how they move people from confusion to trust — from doubt to action. If you’ve watched my videos from the Shoot It Right course — especially the ones about advertising psychodynamics — then you already know what comes next. A voice on the radio? It may alert you. But it can’t embody the archetype of the Healer. It can’t show the transformation of the Patient. It can’t present the Medicine as the Philosopher’s Stone. In other words — it might grab attention… But it won’t transmute belief.
So why is this myth everywhere?
Simple. Budget cuts and total misunderstanding of how advertising really works! Radio is cheap. And marketers love a good chart that justifies doing less for less. It’s the same crowd that says:
“Let’s shoot a video on a phone.”
“Let’s use AI to write the script.”
“Let’s run everything as programmatic audio — people don’t watch TV anymore anyway!”
I’ve got news for you. People still watch TV — but let’s be clearer — people still watch video content.
They still feel safe when they see how medicine works in the real world, not only in their imagination — even if stimulated by sound and voice. You know the saying:
“Seeing once is better than hearing a hundred times.”
Well, in pharma advertising — that’s not just a proverb. It’s a production rule. You can repeat the message over and over on the radio, dress it in melody, voice, rhythm — but it still won’t do what a single, well-crafted visual frame can do. One glance. One look into the eyes of the Patient. One act of trust between Healer and Medicine. That’s when belief is born. And belief sells.
They still feel trust when the product is handed to them visually, framed with archetypal clarity, and lit like a sacred object. Try doing that with a voice-over. So — does radio have a role?
Yes.
But it’s not to replace TV. It’s to amplify what TV has already embedded. Radio is for reminders, not introductions. It’s for reinforcement, not persuasion. In pharma, TV builds belief. Radio echoes it.
But let me be brutally honest. I don’t believe radio has any meaningful role in pharmaceutical advertising. Not even as a reminder. Not even for awareness. I see no reason to waste media budget on a format that can’t carry the psychological weight this category demands. Not when we’re dealing with real pain.
Real fear. Real decisions.
Radio just doesn’t cut it — not even as background noise. So let’s be clear:
Sound alone can’t carry the psychological complexity of a pharma ad. Radio might score well on creative benchmarks, but it fails at symbolic embodiment. TV is not just “sight” — it’s sight and sound and archetype and narrative — and all of it matters when you’re asking people to put something in their body.
If you still believe radio and TV are equals — Maybe go advertise potato chips. But if you’re serious about selling medicine — You better shoot it right.
Most experts stop at one thing — getting attention. But that’s just the beginning. Subscribe to this channel if you’re ready to go deeper — Because in the next videos, we’ll break down how to hold attention, focus it, and ultimately — control it.
That’s where real advertising begins. The term attention also answers a bigger question — What’s the true role and place of creativity in pharma advertising?
Because let’s be honest: Attention is where creativity starts to matter. Not in wordplay. Not in color palettes. But in the moment your idea breaks through the noise. That’s where creative thinking earns its place — Not chasing shiny headlines or superficial conclusions, but digging deep into how to command attention with purpose.
Hit the like button, subscribe, and turn on notifications! Join our Facebook community and visit my website to learn things about advertising you’ve never heard before!
