.
If they don’t spend the money they will taxed on it so if you were them what would you do?
Cut 90% of the $ for commercials, divert that 90% to R&D.
Your quite clueless dude. here is your lesson for the day. Study it well then come back with an informed post. I’m going to go swim so you’ll have some time.
First off, the FDA approves all the language in the ads before you see them. you see drug companies are not allowed to make claims unless they have been proven. They are also not allowed to talk off label in commercials or anywhere else for that matter, so go pick up a PI for your reading pleasure. If the commercial says what the drug is used for they must also list the most promient side effects (thats just for your knowledge base you you can be more educated when you spout off).
Second the ROI is rather high meaning that pharma can spend more money on R&D, if it chooses or it can pay a bigger dividend if it chooses. If they cut 90% of marketing costs then they would actually have less money coming in, again less for possible R&D use. In my previous company all the money spent on marketing amounted to 6% of the cost of development of the drug. So if they cut out 90% of that then that is still a rather small amount of money. Maybe enough to get a good cancer lab started but then they would have no money to do research. The recent drug they brought to market cost just over 1 billion dollars. The day they hit market they had zero in the bank to show for it. Thats a lot of prescriptions in case you can’t figure that out.
The reason you see five ads is b/c it’s not a huge waste. Drug companies are quite savy when it comes to marketing, it the ads didn’t work, you would not have to see them. There is a direct correlation between the top ten most heavily DTC’d (direct to consumer) advertised drugs and the number of prescription written. In fact you can almost directly compare the lists, so someone is looking at the ads and asking for or writing the drugs.
Where do you draw the line, well thats the best thing you’ve typed all day. The companies will draw the line where they need to.
As a side note 9% of all med school research dollars are supplied by drug companies. No research = no new drugs =no ads, maybe thats where you draw the line.
Just so you know 6% of $1billion is only 6 million. The avg double blind placebo controlled research study costs 20 million. The FDA requires two showing much greater efficacy than placebo just to bring a drug on the market. So your still short about $34million after the 90% reduction in ad dollars. Better check under the couch cushions.
I really like that older babe is the Cialis commercials. She is such a fox. Do you really want to deprive me of that “quality viewing experience?”
.
Should the Government tell a private company how they should spend their money?
Should the Government tell private citizens how to spend their money?
Without Cialis and Viagra, drug companies couldn’t afford to continue to devote the dollars they do to research of (dare I say it) more vital drugs. The only problem I have is that ads for drugs may contribute to the growing culture in America that seems to think everybody should be on something to fix whatever is wrong in their lives. Can’t get it up, take our drug. Can’t concentrate at work, take our drug. Don’t like your bald spot, take our drug. I understand the desire to keep the public informed about advances in medicine, but I think this just makes people think they know what shortcut cure is best instead of going to the doctor and letting the expert tell you what you really need.
You got that right. Putting a picture of her playfully biting her lip on the bottle would work as well as the pills inside (and without the optical nerve damage)
Jeez, Art, there you are as far to the right as I am to the left, and we agree COMPLETELY on this. Just think - if all of the politicians of our approximate vintage (I’m 56 and I know you’re getting up there) had their brains in their genitalia, the world would be a much less disputatious place!
.
.
What unethical activities are you refering to?
.
Fair enough.