3 ms·

Haven't seen Goldacre's stuff, but I had heard (can't find a source right now) that it's actually closer to 80-85% of pharma companies costs are advertising and

• danielweber 14y ago
  They spend money on marketing because it makes them money. Say you spend $1 billion to develop a drug. That $1 billion number is a sunk cost; it is irrelevant to figuring out how much to spend on advertising and marketing. Limiting marketing to less than that $1 billion that was spend on research makes no sense.
  • npsimons 14y ago
    Limiting marketing to less than that $1 billion that was spend on research makes no sense. Perhaps; even if true, the fact is that drug companies claim they need patents (and other protections, both explicit and implied) to be able to recoup their R&D costs. If their R&D costs are swamped by their advertising costs, perhaps the problem isn't the cost of R&D, but mismanagement? I mean, honestly, it's not like they are producing luxury items. These companies are supposedly making a product that sells itself because their customers will die without it. To add to all that, arguments can (and have) been made that pharmaceutical advertising is a negative input to society by unduly influencing prescribers.