3 ms·
I'm not arguing that it isn't expensive, but when, for instance Johnson & Johnson spends $8.2B/yr on R&D, and spends $17.5B that same year on marketing those sa
by jerrysievert 8y ago
I'm not arguing that it isn't expensive, but when, for instance Johnson & Johnson spends $8.2B/yr on R&D, and spends $17.5B that same year on marketing those same drugs, it's hard to argue that the cost of R&D is the major issue here.
edited to add: especially when you look at the US R&D tax credit, available under section 41 of the tax code.
- maxerickson 8y agoYou're counting ads for baby shampoo and band aids as drug marketing. I'm sure Johnson & Johnson does spend an awful lot on marketing drugs, but boy do the details hidden in SGA sure get hand waved away.
- aaavl2821 8y agoas another commenter said, that marketing spend also includes JNJs massive consumer products business and med device business Also, pharma increasingly buys new products through acquisitions rather than develop them in house these days. So you have to look at the balance sheet, not just the p&l. Note that JNJ spent $30B buying actelion last year among other smaller acquisitions