3 ms·

I agree that marketing is not a zero sum game, but I mostly disagree with your first paragraph above, at least as it happens in the US. You're probably aware o

I agree that marketing is not a zero sum game, but I mostly disagree with your first paragraph above, at least as it happens in the US. You're probably aware of the egregious cases of Daraprim[0], Acthar[1] (there are at least 5 cases from the last 10 years that I've read about, these two come to mind). They are only unique in the sense that there was no "slow boiling process", but rather an immediate extreme hike. Many other out-of-patent medicines experienced slower but significant hikes, such as the Epipen[2] are happening all over the place. You should also read the Epipen article paragraph about the public-facing marketing, which is deceiving and life endangering, and about the policy-facing marketing, which is also not in any way compatible with your description. It is my impression that your first paragraph is fantasy. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/08/01/what-happened-to-the-750-pill-that-catapulted-pharma-bro-martin-shkreli-to-infamy/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/08/01/what-... [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/business/questcor-finds-profit-for-acthar-drug-at-28000-a-vial.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/business/questcor-finds-pr... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/04/business/angry-about-epipen-prices-executive-dont-care-much.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/04/business/angry-about-epip...

tptacek 9y ago
I'm not sure what companies jacking up the price of their products because there are no substitutables and the market clearing price is nosebleed high has to do with marketing expenses.
- beagle3 9y ago
  Per my first paragraph, I was commenting on your first paragraph about "competition" (or lack of it), I agreed about marketing not being a zero sum game. My point is that marketing expenses are far from just informative - e.g., in the case of Acthar and Epipen, they go towards convincing doctors and policy makers that a specific brand is superior or magical, when no such evidence exists; and it is my opinion (which would take me forever to find the facts for, I admit) is that a significant part of the marketing budget, perhaps upward of 50%, goes to such deceitful practices; another one that comes to mind is Oxycontin[0], which was marketed deceitfully, and is a major contributor to the opioid epidemic. [0] https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/11/17001926/oxycontin-purdue-opioid-drug-marketing-doctors https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/11/17001926/oxycontin-purdue...
  - tptacek 9y ago
    The examples you're citing are all cases of abuses that occurred due to lack of competition, so I am completely lost as to what you're trying to argue here. I just have a very simple point to make about pharma marketing costs. It was not my argument that there aren't abusive pharma companies; clearly, there are.
    - beagle3 9y ago
      acthar, epipen and even oxycontin have $10 competitors which have been shown to be at least as good for their use cases. The belief that they do not (which is encoded into some medical recommendations and public policy) is a testament to how effective that marketing is. In fact, oxycontins claim to fame is its uniqueness in how long it acts for and therefore reduced addiction potential, which does not actually work this way. The “non competition” belief is itself a marketed reality for many drugs.

tptacek 9y ago

I'm not sure what companies jacking up the price of their products because there are no substitutables and the market clearing price is nosebleed high has to do with marketing expenses.

beagle3 9y ago
Per my first paragraph, I was commenting on your first paragraph about "competition" (or lack of it), I agreed about marketing not being a zero sum game. My point is that marketing expenses are far from just informative - e.g., in the case of Acthar and Epipen, they go towards convincing doctors and policy makers that a specific brand is superior or magical, when no such evidence exists; and it is my opinion (which would take me forever to find the facts for, I admit) is that a significant part of the marketing budget, perhaps upward of 50%, goes to such deceitful practices; another one that comes to mind is Oxycontin[0], which was marketed deceitfully, and is a major contributor to the opioid epidemic. [0] https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/11/17001926/oxycontin-purdue-opioid-drug-marketing-doctors https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/11/17001926/oxycontin-purdue...
- tptacek 9y ago
  The examples you're citing are all cases of abuses that occurred due to lack of competition, so I am completely lost as to what you're trying to argue here. I just have a very simple point to make about pharma marketing costs. It was not my argument that there aren't abusive pharma companies; clearly, there are.
  - beagle3 9y ago
    acthar, epipen and even oxycontin have $10 competitors which have been shown to be at least as good for their use cases. The belief that they do not (which is encoded into some medical recommendations and public policy) is a testament to how effective that marketing is. In fact, oxycontins claim to fame is its uniqueness in how long it acts for and therefore reduced addiction potential, which does not actually work this way. The “non competition” belief is itself a marketed reality for many drugs.