Content area
Full Text
The weekly science section that appears in the Tuesday issue of the New York Times is, without question, the leader in offering readers a plethora of information in the areas of science and health care. I was perusing some past issues when I saw an article by Benjamin J. Ansell, MD, in the Sept. 17, 2002, edition, that evaluated the efficacy and overall marketing of vitamins and dietary supplements related to the prevention of a heart attack. I was intrigued by his findings.
It's no small secret that the vitamin and diet supplement industries have witnessed unsurpassed growth in the past two years, but my question is, "Why?" According to Dr. Ansell, the medical industry frowns on marketing vitamins and supplements as therapeutics for heart disease, largely because of their ineffectiveness. He further asserts that the effectiveness of certain vitamins related to cardiovascular treatment have proven to be no more effective than placebos. However, Dr. Ansell concedes that the appeal of supplemental medications is understandable, especially when the costs, complexities and publicized risks of prescription medications are all on the rise.
Well, there you have it: a medical doctor addressing the obvious.
But it's not that simple, is it? This same scenario can be applied to chiropractic, which has grown exponentially. Demand continues to rise, but to be fully accepted, it must play by the same sandbox rules as conventional medicine.
How should the chiropractic industry position, promote and market itself in the ever-changing world of health care? The answer is quite simple: Focus more on the essence of marketing, and less on the principals of chiropractic. Currently, the traditional practice management "gurus" will tell you to assess a value to your services (i.e., $29.95 for a full exam), or they will tell you to sell chiropractic through education. These techniques are amateurish, ineffective, and do not positively position...