The main purpose of this research was to study the influence of the means that big pharmaceutical companies use to affect patients and doctors to make a choice of treatment. In case on prescription drugs, laws forbid in many countries (including Estonia) the mentioning of any medical brand names to the public. Because of those restrictions pharmaceutical companies have started to use more and more straight to consumer marketing getting to consumer through different educational programs like internet sites and media campaigns to rise the patient awareness. The marketing of erectile dysfunction drugs has been a study-book case of how to generate a new group of patients, encourage them about new treatment possibilities and then send them to doctors to get pills. Doctors on the other hand have been under the powerful advertising flow from the pharmaceutical companies for years. The key factor to the success has been regarded to be frequent repeating on ones message to the doctors which are channeled through medical representatives of each company. Yet there are very little information available about how patients and doctors regard the information that they have been offered to. This study examined how patients on doctors recognize different brands, how much and what kind of information they use, what kind of information is trustworthy to them and what are the channels that they prefer. It was found that patients with erectile dysfunction prefer to get information about they condition internet (mainly because of the anonymity), from close friend or from a doctor. The patients also had high awareness on brand names and other specific information about medications which they usually find from internet. Men knew the risks that cause erectile dysfunction, but it is rarely reflected on they general health behavior (it can be explained by the relatively old ages of average erectile dysfunction patients who find it difficult to change they habits at that age). Doctors were found to have excellent skills of sorting out information useful to them. They also make very good distinction between clinical trials that have been conducted by companies themselves and the results on trials that have been made by a neutral organization. The non-medical backround on medical representatives is not a problem to doctors, but they do want the visitations to be informative. It can be said that companies should avoid sending representatives to doctors with the same materials over and over again. The information to the doctors must be evidence based and focused on facts that have news value.