3 ms·

> so that they'll have money to produce new drugs. That argument would be a whole lot more convincing if they didn't spend vastly more money on marketing than

by brazzy 12y ago

> so that they'll have money to produce new drugs. That argument would be a whole lot more convincing if they didn't spend vastly more money on marketing than on R&D...

Ntrails 12y ago
I have never got over my visits to North America and seeing endless adverts for prescription drugs - which never actually said what they were supposed to cure. Followed by, of course, a voice quickly firing off the list of side effects. "Ask your doctor if somthingodin is right for you." Just bizarre to me.
- andrewla 12y ago
  So you might have seen two types of ads. One type will say what the drug does, but if you say that a drug does something, then you have to list the side effects. Then there's the pure branding ads, where you can say the name of the drug, show pictures of people dancing in forests and playing with puppies, and say "ask your doctor if somethingodin is right for you", without having to spell out the side effects. So first you learn what the drug does, and all the horrific things it will do to you. Then, when you vaguely remember that the drug helps treat a thing you have, you see the branding ads, and then you talk to your doctor, who, while ethically bound to go over the side effects, is not being monitored by the FDA, and thus will hopefully present a rosier picture than the first ad.
refurb 12y ago
So your argument is that marketing is a net loss for the company? I don't think that's true.
- brazzy 12y ago
  My argument is that it's a net loss for society and a way to produce drugs that does not rquire billions to be wasted on marketing would produce better overall results.
rayiner 12y ago
http://truecostofhealthcare.org/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Gilead_Graphs.128143859.pdf http://truecostofhealthcare.org/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs... Over the last 10 years, Gilead has spent somewhat more on research than marketing. They still spent a big chunk of change on marketing, though: $9.4 billion. That being said, presumably they set their marketing budget at a point that maximizes their revenue (i.e. the point at which one more marketing dollar fails to bring in more than one more revenue dollar). Given the fact that the research budget is a fixed cost, obviously it makes sense to spend money on marketing to ensure that there are enough sales to recoup that expenditure and make a profit. So I guess I don't understand what your point is?
- brazzy 12y ago
  My point is that marketing for medicine is an almost 100% waste for society as a whole. It serves no useful purpose except to move market shares between functionally identical products. Oh, and a considerable percentage of "research" is really marketing, since its goal is to find minor variations of existing, perfectly effective drugs whose patent protection is about to run out.
  - twoodfin 12y ago
    My point is that marketing for medicine is an almost 100% waste for society as a whole. It serves no useful purpose except to move market shares between functionally identical products. Not true at all: Could you sit in an empty, white-walled room and tell us exactly which new drugs will be needed over the next decade and how they will appeal to doctors and different patient groups? Whether they'll be worth developing at all? How existing patients on inferior (or no) treatments will find out about them without you spending a nickel? Marketing is not just ads.
    - ArtDev 12y ago
      Its also golf trip and all expense paid vacations for doctors who prescribe certain drugs. As a society, marketing more than useless. It manipulates and confuses actual knowledge.
Shivetya 12y ago
facilities to produce the medicine don't come cheap, they are not cheap to maintain, so this odd dismissive stance so many make with regards to medicine always annoys me. the marketing of many drugs is done to convince consumers to pick a named brand over a generic. frankly the small print warnings they have to carry are more frightening than what is on a pack of smokes.

by brazzy 12y ago

> so that they'll have money to produce new drugs. That argument would be a whole lot more convincing if they didn't spend vastly more money on marketing than on R&D...

Ntrails 12y ago

I have never got over my visits to North America and seeing endless adverts for prescription drugs - which never actually said what they were supposed to cure. Followed by, of course, a voice quickly firing off the list of side effects. "Ask your doctor if somthingodin is right for you." Just bizarre to me.

andrewla 12y ago
So you might have seen two types of ads. One type will say what the drug does, but if you say that a drug does something, then you have to list the side effects. Then there's the pure branding ads, where you can say the name of the drug, show pictures of people dancing in forests and playing with puppies, and say "ask your doctor if somethingodin is right for you", without having to spell out the side effects. So first you learn what the drug does, and all the horrific things it will do to you. Then, when you vaguely remember that the drug helps treat a thing you have, you see the branding ads, and then you talk to your doctor, who, while ethically bound to go over the side effects, is not being monitored by the FDA, and thus will hopefully present a rosier picture than the first ad.

refurb 12y ago

So your argument is that marketing is a net loss for the company? I don't think that's true.

brazzy 12y ago
My argument is that it's a net loss for society and a way to produce drugs that does not rquire billions to be wasted on marketing would produce better overall results.

rayiner 12y ago

http://truecostofhealthcare.org/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Gilead_Graphs.128143859.pdf http://truecostofhealthcare.org/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs... Over the last 10 years, Gilead has spent somewhat more on research than marketing. They still spent a big chunk of change on marketing, though: $9.4 billion. That being said, presumably they set their marketing budget at a point that maximizes their revenue (i.e. the point at which one more marketing dollar fails to bring in more than one more revenue dollar). Given the fact that the research budget is a fixed cost, obviously it makes sense to spend money on marketing to ensure that there are enough sales to recoup that expenditure and make a profit. So I guess I don't understand what your point is?

brazzy 12y ago
My point is that marketing for medicine is an almost 100% waste for society as a whole. It serves no useful purpose except to move market shares between functionally identical products. Oh, and a considerable percentage of "research" is really marketing, since its goal is to find minor variations of existing, perfectly effective drugs whose patent protection is about to run out.
- twoodfin 12y ago
  My point is that marketing for medicine is an almost 100% waste for society as a whole. It serves no useful purpose except to move market shares between functionally identical products. Not true at all: Could you sit in an empty, white-walled room and tell us exactly which new drugs will be needed over the next decade and how they will appeal to doctors and different patient groups? Whether they'll be worth developing at all? How existing patients on inferior (or no) treatments will find out about them without you spending a nickel? Marketing is not just ads.
  - ArtDev 12y ago
    Its also golf trip and all expense paid vacations for doctors who prescribe certain drugs. As a society, marketing more than useless. It manipulates and confuses actual knowledge.

Shivetya 12y ago

facilities to produce the medicine don't come cheap, they are not cheap to maintain, so this odd dismissive stance so many make with regards to medicine always annoys me. the marketing of many drugs is done to convince consumers to pick a named brand over a generic. frankly the small print warnings they have to carry are more frightening than what is on a pack of smokes.