4 ms·

>In 2012, the pharmaceutical industry spent more than $27 billion on drug promotion— more than $24 billion on marketing to physicians and over $3 billion on adv

by bluthru 12y ago

>In 2012, the pharmaceutical industry spent more than $27 billion on drug promotion— more than $24 billion on marketing to physicians and over $3 billion on advertising to consumers (mainly through television commercials). This approach is designed to promote drug companies' products by influencing doctors' prescribing practices. http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2013/11/11/persuading-the-prescribers-pharmaceutical-industry-marketing-and-its-influence-on-physicians-and-patients http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheet...

npsimons 12y ago
Exactly; not sure where I found it, so completely unreliable, but I once read that pharma companies advertising costs were something like 85+% of budget for a drug.
refurb 12y ago
Take a look at the graph in your link. Almost 75% of that budget is on sales reps and free drugs. Having face-to-face conversations with physicians doesn't come cheap. Also, don't forget that drug companies are only allowed to promote to FDA approved indications. I don't see why drug companies advertising is such an issue. Despite what most people think, great drugs don't sell themselves.
- vdaniuk 12y ago
  Great drugs don't sell themselves only because the game as in game theory is set this way. If the incentives/punishment structure setup would be different, drug marketing in the US could be much more beneficial for the end user.
- iandanforth 12y ago
  > drug companies are only allowed to promote to FDA approved indications. Ever heard of Forteo? It's an osteoporosis drug and not one you want to find out you need. It's got some nasty side effects (like cancer) and is a pain to take (it's a daily injection.) Drug reps push it hard because it works in a novel fashion actually causing bone regrowth rather than slowing bone loss. That said the very very specific circumstances of who should be on it are almost never mentioned (in in person discussions, the FDA mandates the website mentions everything). It is talked about as a treatment for osteoporosis generally. It's talked about as a treatment to prevent fracture. Both of those are technically true, but the slope here is so slippery that the concept of 'approved indications' is like an open window to a fly. There's a lot of room to maneuver. People are susceptible to advertising. Doctors are people. And when an attractive 26 year old in a tight skirt walks into your office to talk about writing just a few more prescriptions a month of something you already do, well that's going to have an impact. The distinguishing factor here though is that the consumer is left out of the loop, the person who has to suffer the side effects is not part of the marketplace. This is not your standard free market exercise where caveat-emptor is an appropriate response. This is behind the scenes manipulation of people who are often trusted blindly by their patients. I pay good money to have access to people with the experience and expertise to diagnose and treat my ailments. However if I find out that they are being asked to be invulnerable to cognitive errors like the recency fallacy then I'm screwed. It's unreasonable to ask people to be immune to manipulation and so the only reasonable course is to limit manipulation as much as possible.
eitally 12y ago
My wife works for a small pharmaceutical company and of there roughly 900 employees, about 550 are sales force. This is a profitable company that is currently valued at about $8B and does about $700m/yr revenue, but which doesn't do any consumer advertising whatsoever.

by bluthru 12y ago

npsimons 12y ago

Exactly; not sure where I found it, so completely unreliable, but I once read that pharma companies advertising costs were something like 85+% of budget for a drug.

refurb 12y ago

Take a look at the graph in your link. Almost 75% of that budget is on sales reps and free drugs. Having face-to-face conversations with physicians doesn't come cheap. Also, don't forget that drug companies are only allowed to promote to FDA approved indications. I don't see why drug companies advertising is such an issue. Despite what most people think, great drugs don't sell themselves.

vdaniuk 12y ago
Great drugs don't sell themselves only because the game as in game theory is set this way. If the incentives/punishment structure setup would be different, drug marketing in the US could be much more beneficial for the end user.
iandanforth 12y ago
> drug companies are only allowed to promote to FDA approved indications. Ever heard of Forteo? It's an osteoporosis drug and not one you want to find out you need. It's got some nasty side effects (like cancer) and is a pain to take (it's a daily injection.) Drug reps push it hard because it works in a novel fashion actually causing bone regrowth rather than slowing bone loss. That said the very very specific circumstances of who should be on it are almost never mentioned (in in person discussions, the FDA mandates the website mentions everything). It is talked about as a treatment for osteoporosis generally. It's talked about as a treatment to prevent fracture. Both of those are technically true, but the slope here is so slippery that the concept of 'approved indications' is like an open window to a fly. There's a lot of room to maneuver. People are susceptible to advertising. Doctors are people. And when an attractive 26 year old in a tight skirt walks into your office to talk about writing just a few more prescriptions a month of something you already do, well that's going to have an impact. The distinguishing factor here though is that the consumer is left out of the loop, the person who has to suffer the side effects is not part of the marketplace. This is not your standard free market exercise where caveat-emptor is an appropriate response. This is behind the scenes manipulation of people who are often trusted blindly by their patients. I pay good money to have access to people with the experience and expertise to diagnose and treat my ailments. However if I find out that they are being asked to be invulnerable to cognitive errors like the recency fallacy then I'm screwed. It's unreasonable to ask people to be immune to manipulation and so the only reasonable course is to limit manipulation as much as possible.

eitally 12y ago

My wife works for a small pharmaceutical company and of there roughly 900 employees, about 550 are sales force. This is a profitable company that is currently valued at about $8B and does about $700m/yr revenue, but which doesn't do any consumer advertising whatsoever.