I thought this might be a pretty good post to have by itself because it would carry different comments compared to the other thread, but the reason that so many drug ads are on US television compared to anything else is because the US and New Zealand are the only countries that don't outright ban direct-to-consumer drug advertisements. This ban was lifted under Bill Clinton's FDA in 1997 under the caveat that the ads list all the side effects, but of course they didn't realize how much they'd advertise.
Advertising directly to doctors was never banned, which is how Purdue Pharma, run by the Sackler family, members of the Triple Parentheses Gang, were able to outright lie to doctors about how OxyContin was non-addictive, resulting in its over-prescription and the current opioid epidemic.
https://jheor.org/post/2674-with-tv-drug-ads-what-you-see-is-not-necessarily-what-you-get
You see pharma ads for the same reason you see Boeing ads. You think Boeing is trying increase their visibility and to reach airline executives through the fucking TV?
It's a protection racket. "Hmm, you're thinking about running a news story about negative side effects of our drugs or talking about the likely assassination of whistleblowers? Sure would be unfortunate you lost hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising revenue."
TV stations -- and everyone on them -- work for the advertisers, not for you.
This is a good insight.
I will add that sometimes ads for non-consumer businesses like boeing or basf are targeting lawmakers as part of a lobbying effort. Senators watch the news and if a million dollar ad campaign swings one opinion it can net a multi-billion dollar contract.