How Big Pharma Leverages its Financial Clout to Shape Media Narratives
Pharmaceutical companies are spending billions to influence media coverage, ensuring only positive stories about their drugs and vaccines dominate the headlines.
By Megan Redshaw
What if the same companies producing controversial drugs and vaccines also controlled the narrative about them? What if they hired entire teams dedicated to building relationships with lawmakers and media outlets to shape public perception? With billions at their disposal, these pharmaceutical giants could not only influence coverage—they could ensure that only positive stories made headlines, effectively drowning out any dissenting voices.
This isn’t speculation—it’s a well-documented strategy employed by pharmaceutical giants, the media, and a powerful trade association to manipulate what the public sees, hears, and believes about drugs and vaccines.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, media coverage of the pharmaceutical industry shifted dramatically in favor of these companies. A December 2022 audit of the top five U.S. newspapers found that, before the pandemic, media coverage focused on the opioid crisis and high drug prices. After the lockdowns, the narrative pivoted to highlight the pharmaceutical industry’s efforts in vaccine development.
In a study published in the International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing, researchers analyzed 493 front-page articles and editorials from the 12 months before and after March 2020. They categorized each article as “positive, negative, or neutral” toward the pharmaceutical industry. The findings were telling: Before lockdowns, only 20 percent of articles about Big Pharma were net positive. After, that number shot up to 80 percent. This suggests that billions spent on advertisements, newsletter sponsorships, and public relations played a decisive role.
The Influence of Big Pharma’s Ad Spend
The amount of money pharmaceutical companies spend on advertising is staggering. According to Statista, pharmaceutical companies in January 2023 spent an average of 1.1 billion dollars per month on advertising.
Pfizer alone spent $3.7 billion in 2023—nearly $900 million more than the year before. This investment wasn’t just about selling a product; it was about shaping the public narrative.
The COVID-19 pandemic made Americans keenly aware of pharma’s influence on the media. When Kansas City Chiefs’ Travis Kelce partnered with Pfizer in 2023 to encourage people to get a “twofer”—a COVID-19 and flu shot—it was a calculated move to leverage his influence. This followed similar campaigns with stars like John Legend, Michael Phelps, and Martha Stewart, all aimed at shaping perceptions around COVID-19 vaccines.
Pfizer also invested heavily in prime-time visibility. During the 2023 Oscars—sponsored by Pfizer—the company paid $5.7 million for a single airing of its Paxlovid ad, “If it’s COVID, it’s Paxlovid.” Moderna, not to be left behind, sponsored the “Shot-of-the-Day” during the U.S. Open, integrating its messaging into one of the most-watched sporting events of the year.
Pharma Uses Powerful Trade Association to Influence Public Perception
Pharmaceutical companies don’t stop at ads. They exert influence through the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), a powerful trade association headquartered in Washington, DC. PhRMA represents industry giants like Pfizer, Merck, and Johnson & Johnson, and is led by top executives from these same companies—executives with a vested interest in policies that benefit Big Pharma.
PhRMA’s influence is vast. According to OpenSecrets.org, PhRMA in 2021 spent $30 million on lobbying Congress. This significant expenditure marked a record year as the organization sought to influence policies during a time when COVID-19 vaccine mandates and other pandemic-related regulations were being implemented.
Both PhRMA and Pfizer were listed as top lobbying spenders in 2023 for their efforts to influence government policy, and in a 2020 study published in JAMA PhRMA was listed as a top lobbying spender at $422 million. Pfizer ranked second.
But lobbying is just one part of their strategy. PhRMA also invests in “advertising and promotion,” spending over $67 million annually from 2017 to 2020, according to tax filings. This included sponsoring events and conferences where journalists and policymakers gathered, such as The Hill’s “Pathways to Patient Affordability” panel in 2023 and a December 2022 Axios event featuring post-midterm election health care policy. More recently, Pfizer, a member of PhRMA, sponsored Politico’s July 2023 event “The Next Generation of Health Care Therapies.”
PhRMA Sponsors Major Media Newsletters
PhRMA’s influence extends into newsrooms too. For instance, it sponsors newsletters like Politico’s “Pulse” and Axios’ “Vitals,” subtly pushing industry talking points to professionals in the healthcare, pharmaceutical, and policy sectors, including industry leaders, lobbyists, and policymakers.
In 2019, PhRMA spent $1.4 million on email newsletter sponsors and the majority of PhRMA’s sponsors appeared in Vitals. Approximately 12 of 26 newsletters analyzed by Rational 360 were sponsored by PhRMA.
In a 2023 interview with advertisers, Politico’s executive VP of consumer business Cally Baute, admitted that sponsorships Politico receives can influence the content of their daily newsletters, even if it is unintentional.
Because brands are looking for the best way to reach Politico’s audience, there is “a consultive nature to the engagements with clients” that has “really evolved and enhanced over time,” she said.
Baute stated that Politico’s business model has two main types of advertising: “advocacy” and “corporate reputation” and that brands “doing corporate reputation” often funnel their dollars to associations to “do advocacy” on their behalf.
“Many of the individuals working with Politico have themselves worked in government, and they understand that Politico is an important vehicle to reach the government because they themselves read it and relied upon it,” she said.
Baute’s comments paired with other Politico revenue streams make clear that relationship between pharmaceutical companies and media outlets goes beyond boosting publicity.
According to a May 2023 article in Politico “presented by PhRMA," PhRMA launched a seven-figure nationwide ad buy spanning TV, radio, social media, and print that “slams pharmacy benefit managers” (PBM) in a yearslong campaign against the industry.
A PBM is a third-party company that serves as an intermediary between insurance providers and drug makers. They determine which prescription drugs are covered by a health plan and negotiate discounts with drug manufacturers, manage drug benefits on behalf of health insurers and government programs such as Medicaid and Medicare.
Ultimately, PBMs can affect the marketability of a pharmaceutical company’s product, access to particular drugs, sales, and, by extension, profits—which is why PhRMA and Big Pharma in general do not like PBMs.
In July 2022, Politico Focus conducted a project paid for by PhRMA titled “Health Care in America: Uncovering the Barriers to Progress,” which consisted of a moderated town hall with voters in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The report and town hall attendees’ responses criticized PhRMA’s adversaries, insurers, and PBMs, but Politico Focus centered on PBMs.
“It’s obvious that drug markers are spending tens of millions shifting blame for high drug costs away from themselves and onto PBMs,” congresswoman and Consumer Product Safety Commission acting chairwoman Ann Marie Buerkle told Reform Pharma in an email.
“When confronted with the facts, I believe most will see past the PR spin to realize that Pharma is buying media outlets with advertising dollars so they'll parrot their talking points and cover them favorably,” she added.
Although Axios does disclose that PhRMA sponsors its “Vitals” newsletter in each edition, the media outlet does not disclose in its health care reporting that it actively supports PhRMA with political messaging and public relations projects alongside sponsorships.
Additionally, Axios markets its past partnerships with PhRMA to potential advertising customers. Specifically, Axios uses a PhRMA project that explained “how biopharmaceutical companies are tackling the COVID-19 pandemic,” as a marketing tool.
Major Media Outlets Do PR for Pharma Companies
Unbeknownst to many, Politico also operates a little-known consulting and public relations business, Politico Focus, which has worked for PhRMA on multiple occasions to “galvanize audiences and advance agendas.”
Self-described as Politico’s “award-winning brand content studio,” Politico Focus is less than five miles from the White House, Capitol Hill, and the Pentagon—at Politico headquarters.
Politico Focus states on its website, “We imagine and deliver intelligence-led brand content solutions that earn clients a seat at the table in Washington and in power centers across the globe.”
Like Politico, Axios operates an affiliated public relations firm called Smart Brevity Studio that has published projects for PhRMA.
LinkedIn Profiles Show Close Ties to Media
It’s not just about sponsorships and ads—it’s about access and relationships. PhRMA’s senior staff openly tout partnerships with major outlets like The Atlantic and The Washington Post, curating stories and op-eds that cast the industry in a favorable light. Pfizer’s media relations team works closely with Politico and PBS to amplify the company’s messaging.
Pharma executives’ LinkedIn profiles show how closely the pharmaceutical industry is with media outlets. The following examples contain language PhRMA and Pfizer staff use to describe their work on LinkedIn.
The senior director of public affairs for PhRMA states that she works with “key national outlets, including The Atlantic and The Washington Post, and trade publications, including STAT and FiercePharma, on thought leadership opportunities,” and manages employees and consulting agencies to “develop clear and compelling stories about the industry and innovation through op-eds, letters to the editor and social copy.”
The senior director of strategic communications at PhRMA executes strategic communications and advocacy campaigns that advance PhRMA's mission and vision. According to his LinkedIn profile, he aligns organizational values with brand messaging to position PhRMA as a "thoughtful leader in science and policy communications" and has maintained strong relationships with key stakeholders, including policymakers and the media.
Pfizer’s former manager of digital communications said part of his role was to create digital video content that focused on themes of “science, reputation, and diversity with internal stakeholders as well as external partners” such as PBS, Politico, and PhRMA by “supporting creative ideation, project management, day-of and post-production, and strategic planning of publication.”
The senior director of media relations at Pfizer says she is “responsible for the development of proactive media initiatives to defend and enhance the Company’s reputation, position Pfizer as an industry leader committed to delivering value to patients, promote [the] launch of new medicines, maintain the efficacy and safety profile of established products, and elevate the profile of Company executives.”
Pfizer's senior associate of global media relations says, “I excel in securing reputation-enhancing, strategic and innovative media placements for organizations across various industries.”
Big Pharma’s Influence on Public Perception
The pharmaceutical industry’s powerful grip on media, policy, and public perception is undeniable. By leveraging billions in advertising dollars, strategic partnerships, and cozy relationships with major media outlets, these pharmaceutical companies have successfully managed to control the narrative surrounding their products.
The shift in media coverage during the COVID-19 pandemic—from critical scrutiny to glowing praise—was not coincidental. It was a deliberate effort, financed by an industry that stands to benefit from keeping public criticism at bay.
The use of trade associations like PhRMA only strengthens this influence, allowing pharmaceutical companies to not only lobby lawmakers but also craft favorable narratives through PR campaigns and media sponsorships. Whether it’s through newsletters, events, or even "brand content studios" embedded within media organizations, Big Pharma has embedded itself deep within the machinery of modern journalism, leaving little room for critical discourse or dissent.
As pharmaceutical giants continue to pour billions into media and advertising, the public is left with an incomplete picture—one that often prioritizes profits over patients. Only through transparency can we reclaim a media landscape that serves the public, not corporate interests. The first step is understanding the extent of this influence. The next is demanding change.