The most destructive ad campaign in history

Summary

Summary of "The Most Destructive Ad Campaign in History" – Nudge Podcast Episode

Podcast Title: Nudge
Host: Phill Agnew
Episode Title: The Most Destructive Ad Campaign in History
Release Date: April 21, 2025

---

Introduction: The Sackler Family's Philanthropic Facade

The episode begins by highlighting the Sackler family's long-standing reputation as esteemed philanthropists. For decades, their generous donations graced prestigious institutions worldwide, including the Serpentine Gallery, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Smithsonian, and Harvard Wings. Their name became synonymous with generosity, earning accolades in magazines and articles alike.

Host [00:00]: "For decades, one American family was admired and celebrated as notorious philanthropists."

However, this admiration took a sharp downturn in 2019 when the BBC questioned the family's reputation, suggesting they might now be the most hated family in America due to their role in the opioid crisis.

Host [00:24]: "There are families, billionaire families, whose names have become synonymous with a certain kind of damage done to this country."

The Sacklers' Descent: From Philanthropy to Infamy

The shift in perception was largely driven by the Sackler family's involvement in the opioid epidemic. Institutions that once proudly displayed their names began distancing themselves amid mounting lawsuits and public outcry.

Host [01:03]: "The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City... was once one of the art world's biggest benefactors. But after facing numerous lawsuits related to the Sackler's role in the opioid crisis, the Met is distancing itself."

In a landmark moment, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced a historic $7.4 billion settlement against members of the Sackler family and Purdue Pharma.

Co-host [01:31]: "New York Attorney General Letitia James has just announced an historic $7.4 billion settlement against members of the Sackler family and their company, Purdue Pharma."

Purdue Pharma's Marketing Mastery: The Blueprint for Disaster

The heart of the episode delves into how Purdue Pharma, under the Sackler family's leadership, engineered one of the most manipulative advertising campaigns in history to promote OxyContin, a potent opioid.

Arthur Sackler's Pioneering Marketing Strategies

Arthur Sackler, one of the three Sackler brothers, revolutionized pharmaceutical marketing with drugs like Valium. He introduced direct-to-doctor advertising, making medications like Valium "the best selling drug in the world."

Host [04:07]: "Arthur Sackler used a number of marketing tactics that became the playbook for future Sackler products."

Key strategies included:

• Drug Sales Reps: Persuading doctors of a drug's safety.

  Co-host [03:27]: "In such cases, when excessive anxiety and tension are interfering with rehabilitative efforts, Val Diazepam can help the transition back to work."

• Blurring Advertising and Science: Creating ads resembling journal articles to lend credibility.

  Host [04:11]: "Next, he blurred the line between advertising and science."

• Reframing Problems: Positioning everyday stress as medical conditions requiring medication.

  Host [04:25]: "He reframed everyday problems like stress, tension, nervousness as medical conditions that required pharmaceutical treatment."

• Emphasizing Safety: Portraying drugs as non-addictive despite inherent risks.

  Host [04:55]: "Finally, he emphasized safety. He portrayed Valium as non-addictive and mild."

OxyContin's Aggressive Promotion: Escalating the Crisis

Building on Valium's success, Raymond and Mortimer Sackler rebranded Purdue Frederick to Purdue Pharma in the early 1990s. They introduced OxyContin in 1996, marketing it as a first-line treatment for chronic pain, despite its high addiction potential.

Host [06:20]: "Promoting this drug wouldn't be easy because at the time, doctors and the general public viewed opioids with great suspicion."

To overcome existing stigmas, Purdue Pharma employed several behavioral science techniques:

• Reframing Perceptions: Changing the narrative around opioids from dangerous to necessary.

  Host [06:57]: "Now you'd assume this would be very difficult... But psychological studies on reframing showed how easy it is to change someone's perception."

• Specific Data Point Usage: Repeating precise statistics to build trust, such as the misleading "less than 1% addiction rate."

  Co-host [10:17]: "Less than 1% of patients taking opioids actually become addicted..."

  Host [12:03]: "Djick found that hospitalized patients who were administered opioids only by their doctor and in very small and controlled doses... they only had a 1% chance of getting addicted."

• Mere Exposure Effect: Repeating claims to increase belief in them.

  Host [13:01]: "This is known as the mere exposure effect. The more we're exposed to something, the more likely we are to believe it."

• Authority Bias: Utilizing doctors, pain groups, and celebrities to endorse OxyContin, leveraging their authoritative influence.

  Host [15:10]: "Purdue used doctors because they understood the authority bias."

• Avoiding Reactance: Employing pain advocacy groups to present opioids as solutions without appearing coercive.

  Host [17:16]: "To avoid reactance, Purdue endorsed a number of pain groups to repeat their message."

Consequences: The Opioid Epidemic Unfolds

Despite Purdue Pharma's manipulative tactics, the consequences were devastating. The aggressive promotion of OxyContin led to widespread addiction and addiction-related deaths.

Host [25:40]: "Through manipulative advertising, the Sacklers managed to convince doctors and the American public that opioids were safe... Today, millions are addicted and an estimated 224 people die from their addiction every day."

As public awareness grew, institutions began severing ties with the Sackler family. Lawsuits mushroomed, with nearly 2,000 filed against Purdue Pharma and the family.

Co-host [24:37]: "Lawyers began suing the Sacklers on behalf of victims."

Despite settlements, many critics argue that the compensation is insufficient given the scale of the crisis.

Host [25:30]: "But for many, that $4.7 billion is simply not enough."

Conclusion: The Legacy of a Destructive Campaign

The episode concludes by emphasizing the profound impact of Purdue Pharma's advertising strategy. By leveraging behavioral science to reframe opioids as safe and necessary, the Sackler family orchestrated an ad campaign that not only succeeded in selling millions of pills but also precipitated one of the most significant public health disasters in modern history.

Host [25:40]: "They used reframing to change opinions, specific numbers to build trust, the mere exposure effect to make their message more persuasive, and pain group endorsements to reduce reactance. Yet today, millions are addicted and an estimated 224 people die from their addiction every day."

Phill Agnew asserts that Purdue Pharma's OxyContin marketing strategy is arguably the most hated ad campaign in American history, given its catastrophic societal consequences.

---

Supporting Resources and Acknowledgments

• Shatterproof.org: A nonprofit organization advocating for policy change and stigma reduction related to the opioid crisis. shatterproof.org

• Book Recommendation: Empire of Pain – A detailed exploration of the Sackler family and their marketing strategies. Available via show notes.

---

This episode of "Nudge" provides a comprehensive examination of how strategic advertising and behavioral manipulation can have far-reaching and devastating effects on society. It serves as a cautionary tale about the ethical responsibilities of corporations and the profound impact of marketing on public health.

Transcript

[Host]

For decades, one American family was admired and celebrated as notorious philanthropists. Buildings and galleries honoured their generous donations by proudly displaying their names.

[Co-host]

Well, 43 years after the opening of the Serpentine Gallery, they will now open the door to their 14 and a half million pound extension. The serpentine Sackler Gallery, along with British.

[Host]

Galleries, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Smithsonian and Harvard Wings were named after the family. Magazines and articles proudly commemorated the family, but it didn't last. In 2019, the BBC questioned whether this same family was now the most hated in America. There are families, billionaire families, whose names.

[Co-host]

Have become synonymous with a certain kind.

[Host]

Of damage done to this country. But disguised behind ritzy galas, quietly etched.

[Co-host]

Into the world's most prestigious art galleries and museums, has been a particular family, an empire even that's played a dark.

[Host]

And pivotal role in our nation's opioid epidemic. Those galleries that proudly honored their names turned their backs.

[Co-host]

For decades, the Sackler name was a fixture at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. The family was once one of the art world's biggest benefactors. But after facing numerous lawsuits related to the Sackler's role in the opioid crisis, the Met is distancing itself.

[Host]

And now the family is being sued for billions.

[Co-host]

New York Attorney General Letitia James has just announced an historic $7.4 billion settlement against members of the Sackler family and their company, Purdue Pharma.

[Host]

Today on Nudge, I look back at the Sackler family, their role in the opioid crisis and the marketing campaigns they deployed to get millions hooked on their drugs. All of that coming up. Angel City Football Club didn't become the world's most valuable women's sports franchise by accident. They did it with a little help from HubSpot. When they started, data was housed across multiple systems. But HubSpot unified their website, their email marketing and their fan experience in one platform. This allowed their small team of three to build an entire website in just three days. The results were nearly as good as the results happening on the pitch. They saw 350 new signups a week and a 300% database growth in just two years. If you want to grow like Angel City Football club, then visit HubSpot.com to hear how HubSpot can help you grow better. The story of the Sackler family begins with three brothers, Arthur Mortimer and Raymond Sackler. Arthur Sackler was the eldest and became a pioneering medical advertiser. Before the opioid crisis, Arthur Sackler transformed the pharmaceutical marketing industry with his promotion of Valium, a Drug used to treat anxiety, seizures and alcohol withdrawal symptoms. Sackler promoted his new product with novel direct to doctor advertising. Marketing materials sent directly to doctors, including promotional videos like this.

[Co-host]

In such cases, when excessive anxiety and tension are interfering with rehabilitative efforts, Val Diazepam can help the transition back to work.

[Host]

Arthur Sackler wasn't just a psychiatrist. He owned this medical advertising firm. And he had a stake in a medical journal, giving him unprecedented control over both content and promotion. Meaning he could make claims like this.

[Co-host]

Valium works promptly to relieve excessive anxiety and apprehension.

[Host]

Under Arthur Sackler's influence, Valium became the best selling drug in the world. Specifically, Arthur Sackler used a number of marketing tactics that became the playbook for future Sackler products. First, he pioneered the idea of a drug sales rep, someone who could persuade individual doctors that Valium was safe.

[Co-host]

Side effects other than drowsiness, fatigue and ataxia are rarely encountered.

[Host]

Next, he blurred the line between advertising and science. His agency produced ads which looked like journal articles, giving them an air of credibility.

[Co-host]

Within days, the typical patient feels significantly calmer.

[Host]

He reframed everyday problems like stress, tension, nervousness as medical conditions that required pharmaceutical treatment. Valium wasn't for the mentally ill, but for anyone with stress. He turned it into a lifestyle drug.

[Co-host]

The patient finds it easier to feel hopeful about the future.

[Host]

Finally, he emphasized safety. He portrayed Valium as non addictive and mild. It was sold as a regular part of daily life despite the extremely high addiction risk.

[Co-host]

Valium for the response, you know, want and trust.

[Host]

This playbook worked tremendously well for valium. By the 1970s, it became the first hundred million dollar drug in the pharmaceutical industry. And it was the top selling drug in the US for over a decade. But it also created a blueprint for future drug marketing. A blueprint that was quickly used for an even more dangerous drug. In 1952, Arthur's brothers Raymond and Mortimer Sackler brought Purdue Frederick, a small drug manufacturer based in New York. After seeing Valium's success, the brothers decided to rebrand the company as Purdue Pharma, a company that created prescription pain relief medication. In the early 1990s, Purdue developed OxyContin, a time release version of oxycodone intended to treat moderate to severe pain. The drug was approved by the FDA in 1955, primarily based on Purdy's claim that the time release mechanism made it less addictive. The Sacklers championed the drug internally, pushing it to be seen not as a last resort, but as the first line treatment for chronic pain. It publicly launched in 1996. With an aggressive marketing campaign and some compelling evidence like this advertising featuring Dr. Alan Spanos, there's no question that our.

[Co-host]

Best, strongest pain medicines are the opioids.

[Host]

However, promoting this drug wouldn't be easy because at the time, doctors and the general public viewed opioids with great suspicion.

[Co-host]

Opioids once had a powerful stigma. The public was taught they were highly addictive and doctors would only prescribe them for the most serious cases.

[Host]

To make the drug a success, Purdue Pharma had to reframe the narrative. They had to get news reports like this on CBS to focus on the positive aspects of the drug.

[Co-host]

OxyContin is one of America's new prescription wonder drugs. In the right hands it's a powerful.

[Host]

Painkiller and not the negative aspects of the drug.

[Co-host]

In the wrong hands, it can be a killer.

[Host]

Now you'd assume this would be very difficult. Most would imagine that changing decade old beliefs about the potency of opioids, especially amongst doctors, would be almost impossible. But when I delved into the psychological studies on reframing, I realized just how easy it is to reframe someone's perception. Lets start with a simple study on reframing which showcases how effective reframing can be. It has nothing to do with medicine. Instead, this 2006 study involves mango smoothies. Here's the researcher Raj Raghunathan explaining the study. My colleagues and I started examining this.

[Co-host]

In the context of food.

[Host]

First, in the context of food, more.

[Co-host]

Tasty equals less healthy. And most people, if you ask them do you think that healthy food is less tasty or unhealthy food is tasty?

[Host]

They'd probably see yes. But Ragunefan didn't just ask people. He ran an experiment among diners sampling mango smoothies. Those told the smoothie was unhealthy rated its taste 55% higher than those told the exact same smoothie was healthy. Subtly reframing the description calling the smoothie unhealthy made people enjoy it 55% more. Now you might assume reframing only works for small decisions by non experts. But that's not the case. Experts fall for the same trap. In 2001, an experiment fooled 54 wine sommeliers into thinking a white wine was actually a red wine. The researchers coloured the white wine red and most sommeliers didn't notice the difference. In 2023, Winery PH repeated the experiment and found the same results. Here's one of the sommeliers reaction at being surprised to learn their red wine was actually white.

[Co-host]

No, this is a White wine colored with food coloring. Oh, my gosh.

[Host]

These were experts with years of training fooled by simple food colouring. And even doctors can be nudged. Doctors who are literally trained to ignore their perception and follow evidence backed approaches. In 2018, the Australian government carried out a study into how to best reduce antibiotic prescription. Six thousand medical practices were placed into five groups, each receiving one of the following interventions. The first was no letter, this was the control group. The second was an educational letter explaining the problems with antibiotics. The third was an educational letter plus social proof. So the social proof element was a line which said you prescribe more antibiotics than 85% of the prescribers in the Australian capital. The fourth option was social proof, just like that, plus delayed prescriptions. And the fifth option was social proof plus an illustrative graph to make the comparison more salient. Now, the least successful message was the education message, which only reduced prescriptions by 3.2% compared to the control. The most effective message was social proof plus that graph. This intervention reduced the number of antibiotics prescribed by doctors by 12.3% over six months. Reframing with social proof dramatically changed whether or not doctors offered antibiotics to patients. This is a significant change in prescribing behaviour based on nothing more than reframing the situation, not on medical evidence. And it's precisely what Purdue Pharma used to sway opinion.

[Co-host]

Less than 1% of patients taking opioids actually become addicted and any drowsiness that might occur when you start to take the medication will soon wear off in most patients.

[Host]

Purdue didn't just claim the drug was safe for the majority, they used a stat. They said only 1% or less get addicted. They knew a specific data point like this would be more persuasive than a generic claim. Evidence suggests that we're less likely to question a claim if it is backed by specific data. A study on second hand car negotiations helps reveal this. It reviewed negotiations that started with a precise price, like £1,865 or £2,138 versus those that started with a rounded price, like £2,000. Buyers who encountered a specific price ended up negotiating worse. On average, they paid 10% more than those shown a rounded price at the start of the negotiation. Using specific numbers made offers seem more justified, leading to higher final selling prices. And Perdue used a specific number over and over again.

[Co-host]

Perhaps 1% or less of those people actually become addicted. Fewer than one half of 1%, less than 1% ever become addicted. They show there's virtually no risk of.

[Host]

Addiction Perdue used it repeatedly because it worked, but that didn't mean it was accurate.

[Co-host]

So this 1% statistic comes from a letter to the editor to the New England Journal of Medicine, and it was just intended as a letter, not as a study. But that 1% figure was repeated over and over again by the industry to claim that most people would not become addicted to opioids.

[Host]

That's Scott Hickham, a reporter at the Washington Post. He's referring to an arbitrary letter by Herschel Jick published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Djick found that hospitalised patients who were administered opioids only by their doctor and in very small and controlled doses, while they only had a 1% chance of getting addicted. This was not a double blind experiment. The population sample was nowhere near sufficient and Jick himself said it was a very informal study. Yet this one stat became the focal point of Perdue's marketing campaign and it led the way for a new era of opioid treatment. Perdue published this in pamphlets and handing doctors pamphlets claiming about 1% of opioid users became addicted. They promoted it in adverts.

[Co-host]

The rate of addiction amongst pain patients who are treated by doctors is much less than 1%.

[Host]

And eventually this claim started to change people's minds.

[Co-host]

Story of the Sackler family and part of the reason that even though OxyContin is just one of many opioids, it was really the one that sparked the opioid crisis is that this is a company that, when it first introduced the drug, very consciously set out to change the minds of doctors.

[Host]

By repeating the claim over and over again, it became more persuasive. This is known as the mere exposure effect. The more we're exposed to something, the more likely we are to believe it. In a study of 567 UK adults, participants rated obscure statements as more true after seeing them multiple times. Immediately after the repetition, their belief in a statement increased by 0.68 points on a 7 point scale. And this effect lasted for a month. The more you hear a claim, the more you believe it. And that belief was only cemented after Perdue filmed patients like Johnny Sullivan praising the drug.

[Co-host]

I got my life back now. Now I can enjoy every day that I live. I can really enjoy myself. And before even a good day was hell. I mean, I couldn't enjoy nothing, but now I can enjoy myself. That's what I said. Wonderful.

[Host]

They funded pain groups to promote it as well.

[Co-host]

Two major health associations, the American Academy of Pain Medicine and the American Pain Society, have now taken an historic step formally supporting the wider use of opioids for the treatment of chronic pain.

[Host]

And they paid doctors to promote it, too.

[Co-host]

One of the statistics in this filing is that Purdue's budget just for food bought for physicians who prescribe opioids every year was $9 million a year.

[Host]

Some doctors, like Russell Portnoy, were readily available year after year to promote the drug.

[Co-host]

Still seems rather magical. Pain might be reduced there's no question that doctors have historically overestimated the risks.

[Host]

Associated with these drugs for chronic pain. Purdue used doctors because they understood the authority bias. Most people feel inclined to follow those with authority, and doctors command some of the highest authority there is. In their book Medical Errors, Causes and Preventions, the Temple University professors Michael Cohen and Neil Davis show how much authority the doctors command. According to Cohen, in case after case, patients, nurses, pharmacists and other physicians do not question the doctor's prescription. Take, for example, the classic case of the rectal earache. This is reported by Cohen and Davis in an interview. A physician ordered ear drops to be administered to the right ear of a patient suffering with pain and infection in their ear. Instead of writing out the complete location right ear on the prescription, the doctor abbreviated it so that the instructions read place in our ear or if you're reading a bit quickly, place in rear. Upon receiving a prescription, the duty nurse promptly put the required number of ear drops into the patient's anus. Obviously, rectal treatment of an earache makes no sense, but neither the nurse nor the patient questioned it. The important lesson of the story is that in many situations in which a legitimate authority has spoken, what would otherwise make sense is irrelevant. In these instances, we don't consider the situation as a whole, but follow the instructions of those in authority. Purdue sold millions of opioids because they persuaded millions of doctors.

[Co-host]

We doctors were wrong in thinking that opioids can't be used long term. They can be, and they should be.

[Host]

Here's Dr. Julia Perry explaining just how effective this persuasion was.

[Co-host]

In 1991, about 76 million prescriptions were given out. By 2013, that had tripled to 207 million. Doctors are handing this out, and we were told to do so because we wanted to treat pain.

[Host]

But the reframing specific numbers and authority bias wasn't enough. They also needed to find a way to avoid reactance. Most people don't like being told what to do. We experience this reactance, a need to push back if we feel our autonomy is being limited. A novel 2023 study proved this nicely. The Researchers found that adding a suggested tip amount on a restaurant bill reduced people's rating of the restaurant by 8% and didn't even increase their tips. Simply telling people to leave a tip caused reactance. To avoid reactance, Purdue endorsed a number of pain groups to repeat their message.

[Co-host]

In the early years, we found that companies were funding pain advocacy groups.

[Host]

These pain groups provided a different opinion. It wasn't just Purdue encouraging the use of opioids. It was large organisations supposedly representing millions of pain sufferers. And that allowed Perdue to spin the narrative. Rather than blaming the drug for causing addiction, Purdue could instead blame the pain epidemic.

[Co-host]

Despite your good intentions, didn't your company create a monster here that is in fact killing people today and turning people into addicts? No. The monster in this country is the epidemic of untreated pain.

[Host]

This message was shared by salespeople, by doctors and by pain groups, and it was also endorsed by celebrities like Jennifer Grey, the star in the movie Dirty.

[Co-host]

Dancing, about partners with pain and why you why you jumped on on their bandwagon. Well, it's called partners against pain.com and it's a really interesting educational program. It's a campaign that was meant to help people become advocates for themselves.

[Host]

All of this led to a potent mix of persuasive messages, transforming beliefs about a highly addictive drug and reframing it as something casual and safe to take. However, this reframing had dramatic consequences, which we will cover after this short break. The podcast I'd like to recommend today is Creators are Brands, hosted by Tom Boyd and of course brought to you by the HubSpot Podcast Network, the audio destination for business professionals. Creators are Brands explores how storytellers are building brands online, from the mindsets they use to the tactics they apply, including some of the business troubles they get into. This podcast breaks down what's working so you can apply the tactics to your work. It's a fantastic show, so listen to Creators, our brands wherever you get your podcasts. If you're anything like me, that period before you have to come up with an idea for a campaign is terrifying. You don't know what to do. You don't want to just rely on gut instinct. It's hard to think of a good idea, but there is a very interesting solution. It's GWI Spark, your free AI powered research assistant. GWI Spark gives you fresh insights on your target audience in seconds so you can get inspired, validate hunches and build smarter campaigns backed by rock solid consumer data. Don't go into your next campaign Blind use spark for your next big idea. Sign up for [e-mail] podcast that's gwi.com podcast Purdy Pharma Leveraged behavioral science to change opinion. They reframed opioids not as an addictive substance, but as something normal to take.

[Co-host]

There's no question that our best, strongest pain medicines are the opioids.

[Host]

They used a specific number to add potency to their claim.

[Co-host]

The rate of addiction amongst pain patients who are treated by doctors is much less than 1%.

[Host]

They used doctors, pain groups and celebrities to endorse their message. And their Strategy worked.

[Co-host]

In 2000, at a company sales conference, a Purdue executive boasted, we're burning up the competition with our sales of OxyContin. The long term goal, he said, was to make the whole pie bigger, not only for us, but for our competition as well.

[Host]

Once the sales started flooding in, Purdue Pharma only ramped up their marketing.

[Co-host]

Even as the opioid crisis was raging, drug companies went to great lengths to motivate their sales teams. Opioid manufacturers gave tens of thousands in bonuses to their top sellers.

[Host]

At company conferences, reps would be told the most persuasive ways to sell. These booze filled conventions involved vice presidents of sales singing.

[Co-host]

Them all down.

[Host]

At a 2011 conference, sales reps made this cringy promotional music video about a new painkiller. In the early 2000s, some sufferers started to ring the alarm bell. A Senate hearing linked Purdue's marketing to the opioid crisis.

[Co-host]

A disproportionate abuse of OxyContin may be partially due to a very aggressive marketing and promotion campaign. I do not agree with the statement made here today that Purdue has marketed OxyContin aggressively. That is simply not the case.

[Host]

And a 2001 CBS article started to reveal how OxyContin could lead to drug abuse.

[Co-host]

Despite your good intentions, didn't your company create a monster here that is in fact killing people today? No.

[Host]

In fact, many of the patients who were filmed promoting the drug, like Johnny Sullivan from the earlier clip, were now suffering from dependence.

[Co-host]

I went to the point where I had to put his socks and shoes on his clothes, on his shaving, wash his hair, look out of him just like you would look out at a 2 or 3 year old.

[Host]

In 2007, Purdue were forced to pay an initial fine.

[Co-host]

Good evening. The maker of a hugely popular painkiller has some pain of its own. Tonight, the company and its top Officers will pay $634 million in fines for lying to the public but it was.

[Host]

Too little, too late. By now, millions were addicted and hundreds were dying each day. All the while, the family behind the drug was stretching its philanthropy.

[Co-host]

Fourteen and a half million pound extension. The serpentine Sackler Gallery.

[Host]

Renowned galleries and world famous universities had plastered the Sackler name across their wings and exhibitions. But quickly, sufferers from the opioid epidemic started to protest Sackler money.

[Co-host]

Sackler money is blood money.

[Host]

It's blood money not just in the U.S. but in Europe as well.

[Co-host]

Doesn't storm the Guggenheim Museum. To protest donors alleged ties to the opioid crisis, demonstrators chanted and carried signs demanding the Guggenheim Museum stop accepting donations from the Sackler family.

[Host]

Slowly, the public started to link the opioid crisis with the Sacklers. There are families, billionaire families, whose names.

[Co-host]

Have become synonymous with a certain kind of damage.

[Host]

And this momentum only built after this famous John Oliver segment.

[Co-host]

And it is hard not to be angry at the drug companies like Purdue, whose promise of cheap, quick, easy pain solutions helped put us in this f mess.

[Host]

After increasing pressure, organizations finally started to cut ties with the Sacklers.

[Co-host]

Well, the Sacklers have denied any wrongdoing. And now many organizations that have accepted millions of dollars in donations from the family are cutting ties.

[Host]

And lawyers began suing the Sacklers on behalf of victims.

[Co-host]

Well, nearly 2,000 lawsuits have been filed against Purdue Pharma and the billionaire family that.

[Host]

Despite that, the Sackler families seem to show very little remorse.

[Co-host]

In light of all of this, Mr. Sackler and Dr. Sackler, I'd like to ask you one final question. Will you apologize to the American people? I would be happy to apologize to the American people for all of the pain they've suffered. I think that. I know you're angry and I'm sorry, but that's not the apology we were looking for. You apologize for the pain people have suffered, but you've never apologized for the role that you played in the opioid crisis.

[Host]

The family have been ordered to pay back billions and billions of profit that they made from selling OxyContin.

[Co-host]

New York Attorney General Letitia James has just announced an historic $7.4 billion settlement against members of the Sackler family and their company, Purdue Pharma.

[Host]

But for many, that $4.7 billion is simply not enough. The opioid epidemic is one of the worst public health disasters to affect the USA and Canada. Over the past two decades, nearly 600,000 people have died from an opioid overdose in these two countries. And an estimated 1 to 2 million people could die from an opioid overdose by 2029. Through manipulative advertising, the Sacklers managed to convince doctors and the American public that opioids were safe. That the problem wasn't with potential addiction, but with the so called pain epidemic. They used reframing to change opinions, specific numbers to build trust, the mere exposure effect to make their message more persuasive, and pain group endorsements to reduce reactance. Yet today, millions are addicted and an estimated 224 people die from their addiction every day. The BBC article I cited right at the start of this episode questioned whether this family are the most hated in America. They very well might be. But I finished this episode certain that the OxyContin marketing strategy is easily the most hated ad campaign in American history. Okay folks, that is all for today's episode of Nudge. The opioid crisis is a horrible part of American life for millions. There are many working to improve things and one of those is shatterproof.org shatterproof is a non profit that advocates for policy change and stigma reduction. They're a nationwide organization aiming to end opioid crisis. Millions have used their services to find treatment and they've helped successfully pass addiction policy reform in 30 states. They are a non profit that accepts donations and I've left a link to their site in the show notes if you would like to donate. I couldn't have created this episode without the fantastic book Empire of Pain. It is an incredibly detailed book looking at the Sackler dynasty and all of the marketing strategies and tactics. It's genuinely a must read. It's fairly horrifying, not just because it documents how purd use marketing strategies to get where they are today, but also the greed and hypocrisy of the Sackler family as well. I've left a link to that book in the show notes if you would like to check it out. That is all from me today. I'll be back next Monday for another episode of Nudge. Bye.