Drug companies spend enormous amounts of money on advertising their products. From TV commercials to print ads to bulk mail advertisements, they cover the entire spectrum of marketing techniques. However, change is afoot and most drug companies are reevaluating their advertising strategies and how they spend their money.
According to a recent Business Week article (“Drugmakers are Changing Channels”, http:www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/content/05_33/b3947055_mz011.htm), the companies have done considerable market research and as a result of the findings they have made significant changes to their marketing strategies.
Ad campaigns that blanketed the airwaves aimed at the end consumer are no longer as effective as they once were. Citing the strategy of Sepracor in marketing their new insomnia drug, they noted that they spent nearly $70M on the initial campaign. However, a rival maker was committing no money to TV ads. Their market research had determined that the market wasn’t growing and the money would be better spent targeting the doctors who prescribe the drugs. While a pitch to the individual may result in a request at the doctor’s office for a particular drug, the doctor has final say in the process, so this new strategy on the surface appears to make sense. Only time will tell if it is effective.
Another major factor in the realignment of advertising dollars is the absence of a major new drug offering tha...
In Melody Peterson’s “Our Daily Meds” , the history of marketing and advertising in the pharmaceutical industry is explored. The first chapter of the book, entitled “Creating disease”, focuses on how major pharmaceutical companies successfully create new ailments that members of the public believe exist. According to Peterson, the success that these drug manufacturers have experienced can be attributed to the malleability of disease, the use of influencial people to promote new drugs, the marketing behind pills, and the use of media outlets.
Almasi, EA. “What are the Public Health Effects of Direct-to-Consumer Drug Advertising?”.PLoS Med. 2006 Mar. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1656304. Web. 5 April 2014.
In order to take advantage of this demand, five billion dollars is spent by the pharmaceutical industry on marketing each year. This marketing, usually in the form of advertisements, often distorts facts and makes the necessity for drug treatment seem greater.... ... middle of paper ... ... Washington, D.C.:
DTC advertisements aim to persuade that their possibly less effective drugs work better than other drugs rather than to inform consumers of correct information about drugs. The reason that pharmaceutical companies abuse the power of DTC advertising is because the pharmaceutical industry does not have a strong ethical code for advertising; their sales are so obsessed with profits. To solve this problem, policy makers should prohibit indiscreet DTC advertisements on air and fund more informative services about new drugs so that patients could make clever
Within my group’s pro-Adderall campaign, we promoted adderall use among high school students who were struggling with a relatively poor attention span, inability to focus, and were thus unproductive in their schoolwork. We created a video commercial that follows the same tactics pharmaceutical advertisements use, described in Dumit’s Drugs for Life. Dumit emphasized how ambiguous pharmaceutical ads were in order to reach a broader audience, and reinforced that all people experienced the stated symptoms to some extent. The companies only needed a small fraction of the viewers to self-diagnose themselves and purchase the product. Likewise, we targeted students that were experiencing heavier workloads coming into high school, and understood that the majority would struggle in maintaining attention throughout long hours of lectures and worksheets.
The percentages of the two surveys prove that a greater percentage of doctors believe that prescription drug ads misinform patients. These ads misinform patients, encourage over-medication, and pressure doctors and medical providers. The counter side states that prescription drug ads educate patients, encourage the correct usage of drugs, and cause patients to ask their doctors about possible treatments. Both sides have examples and evidence, but the cons of prescription drug ads are stronger.
since the FDA allowed companies to advertise directly to consumers we saw an increase in
Why do consumers purchase specific drugs for various ailments, sicknesses or diseases they might have? Why do physicians prescribe certain drugs over competitive drugs that may be available to the public? Why is it that most of us can easily name specific drugs that fit the many ailments of today’s society? On the surface the answer might be as simple as good TV advertising or radio commercials or even internet adds. The truth of matter is the major pharmaceutical manufacturers own the patents on these drugs and this gives them all of the marketing budget and muscle they need to promote the drug and control the pricing. The incentives for larger pharmaceutical companies are very enticing and as a result, they don’t mind spending the time in clinical trials and patent courts to get their drugs approved. Some will even get patents on the process by which the drug is manufactured, ensuring that no competitor can steal the drug or the process. This protects their large financial investment and nearly guarantees a large return for their investors. Many consumer rights groups claim this is nothing more than legalizing monopolies for the biggest manufacturers.
As each product has its own unique segment, target market, and symptoms relief, those differences are going to be essential to promote each product value to prevent cannibalization. Thus the best advertising agency was selected to provide us the best response.
Prescription drug prices rose three times faster than inflation in the decade between 1981 and 1991, making the pharmaceutical industry the nation's most profitable business. Prescription drugs even exceeded the rapidly rising inflation rate for all other medical services. They now represent at least 10% of all the medical costs in the United States.1
Threat of new entrants is relatively high. Companies forming alliances are potential rivals. Even if earlier such company was not considered to be a threat, after merging with some research and development company or forming alliance with another pharmaceutical company it would become a rival to Eli Lilly. The threat is however weakened by significant research and development costs necessary to successfully enter the business. Eli Lilly’s focus on a relatively narrow market of sedatives and antidepressants weakens the threat of new entrants, but other products that form lesser part of company’s sales such as insulin and others are exposed to high threat of new entrants. The need of obtaining certificates and licenses also weakens the threat of new entrants. Discussed above leads to the conclusion that threat of new entrants is medium.
... middle of paper ... ... Six years later, in 2001, the majority of their income came from services to pharmaceutical companies (Martinez). This shows a definitive shift in the conduct of PBM’s.
For a drug to get to market it must go through several stages of research and development (Abbott and Vernon). Starting with discovery research, preclinical testing on animals, three phases of clinical trials on humans, and finally FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approval (Abbott and Vernon). Out of several thousands of drugs only a few will make it to the FDA approval stage (Abbott and Vernon). Testing is a highly regulated, time consuming, and expensive process. From beginning to end the process can take fifteen years and less than one of five compounds will make it to market where it is still not guaranteed to succeed (Abbott and
Jarvis, L. (2005, October 21). Pfizer faces challenges to growth. Chemical Market Reporter, 266, p. 10.
10. Collis, David, and Troy Smith. "Strategy in the Twenty-First Century Pharmaceutical Industry:Merck&Co. and Pfizer Inc." Harvard Business School, 2007: 8-12.