4 ms·
> big pharma spends more on marketing than R&D: So what? They clearly believe the marketing helps them make more revenue with the drug; that has nothing to do
by microcolonel 7y ago
> big pharma spends more on marketing than R&D:
So what? They clearly believe the marketing helps them make more revenue with the drug; that has nothing to do with covering the cost of R&D.
Your argument would make sense if marketing reduced their ROI, but they clearly believe it does the opposite.
I'm sure developers in San Francisco spend more on housing than on professional/personal development, but that doesn't mean one is precluding the other.
- sprafa 7y agoI think it demonstrates pharma has excess cash. Also in countries where there’s a public system pharma usually has 0 advertising because people have no choice anyway.
- chimeracoder 7y ago> I think it demonstrates pharma has excess cash. It's only "excess cash" if you assume the ROI on marketing is negative, which is a bold and unsubstantiated claim. > Also in countries where there’s a public system pharma usually has 0 advertising because people have no choice anyway. Direct-to-consumer advertising is only one tiny portion of marketing. European pharmaceutical companies spend massive amounts of money on marketing within Europe.
- sprafa 7y agoWhy does RÓI have to be negative? Do you think that if marketing has good ROI then whatever money they put in they get back, meaning it creates a positive circle? Am I getting this right?