4 ms·
If it costs a billion dollars to develop a drug and pharma spends 6.5 billion on ads, that would mean an implausibly small number of drugs being developed, no?
by nerfhammer 5y ago
If it costs a billion dollars to develop a drug and pharma spends 6.5 billion on ads, that would mean an implausibly small number of drugs being developed, no?
I don't see any reason to believe that pharma spends more on ads than R&D. Do you?
- diffeomorphism 5y ago> that would mean No. > Do you? The fact that you just reposted your above comment without any change despite knowing it was wrong and despite being called out on that. That seems like a strong point in favor of the opposite of whatever your position is.
- ABCLAW 5y agoJust to chime in; the poster you're replying to is correct regarding your incorrectness related to the relative weighting of R&D vs. Marketing spend. Pull a public filing for these companies and take a look at their balance sheets; it's pretty straight forward.