Big Pharma Spends More On Advertising Than Research
A drug company is a commercial business whose focus is to research, develop, market and/or distribute drugs, most commonly in the context of healthcare; from wikipedia. But according to a study by two York University researchers estimates the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spends almost twice as much on promotion as it does on research and development, contrary to the industry’s claim.
But how could this be you might ask yourself. Well the answer is fairly easy; regardless of its purpose of helping people it is a bussiness and thus it has to make money and the way of making money is by advertising more and researching less. The researchers’ estimate is based on the systematic collection of data directly from the industry and doctors during 2004, which shows the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spent 24.4% of the sales dollar on promotion, versus 13.4% for research and development, as a percentage of US domestic sales of US$235.4 billion.
In case you are wondering who made this study well the research is co-authored by PhD candidate Marc-André Gagnon, who led the study and Joel Lexchin, a long-time researcher of pharmaceutical promotion, Toronto physician, and Associate Chair of York’s School of Health Policy & Management in the Faculty of Health.
“In our paper, we make the case for the need for a new estimate of promotional expenditures by the U.S. pharmaceutical industry,” says Gagnon. “We then explain how we used proprietary databases to construct a revised estimate and finally, we compare our results with those from other data sources to argue in favor of changing the priorities of the industry.”
[digg-me]This study is very important as it shows the most accurate image yet of the promotional workings of the pharmaceutical industry, says Lexchin. But even this could be wrong a bit because there are other advertising campaigns which could not be taken into consideration such as ghost-writing and off-label promotion so in fact these companies are probably spending more than twice advertising rather then researching. As well, note the authors, the number of meetings for promotional purposes has dramatically increased in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry, jumping from 120,000 in 1998 to 371,000 in 2004, further supporting their findings that the U.S. pharmaceutical industry is marketing-driven.
If you enjoy our posts, then you might consider subscribing to our full RSS feed. Or enter your e-mail address bellow and receive our posts in you inbox. Thanks for visiting!
Andrei is no scientist, but from an early age, he has been fascinated by science; that's why he went to college, and signed up for Geophysics. Feeling that there's a huge gap between science and average people, he rallied TP, started ZME Science, and gave it a green twist too.
Share on Digg
Share on reddit
Bookmark to del.icio.us
Share on StumbleUpon
Share on Mixx
Share on Twitter
Share on Facebook
January 14th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Thanks for reprinting a press release with ad links.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
thanks for the information, interesting..
January 14th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
You lost me at “bussiness” and “who made this study well the research”. Besides that the stats are interesting.
January 15th, 2008 at 8:26 am
24.4% on promotion
13.4% on research and development
What is the other 62.2% spent on?
How did Marc-Andre Gagnon and Joel Lexichin define “promotion” and “R&D.”
Was the cost of equipment and the salaries for the researchers included in the “R&D” cost?
What percentage is spent on meeting government guideline and FDA related expenses?
“…proprietary databases to construct a revised estimate and finally, we compare our results with those from other data sources…”
If the databases were proprietary how did they get access to the information? If they had access to the proprietary databases, why is there a need for other data sources? What are these other data sources and how were they factored into the results?
“…to argue in favor of changing the priorities of the industry.”
Now the truth comes out. Marc-Andre Gagnon and Joel Lexichin performed this “study” with a goal in mind; the goal of showing drugs companies spend too much money on advertising.
I guess it is too much to ask for people to simply seek the truth.
January 15th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
“Now the truth comes out. Marc-Andre Gagnon and Joel Lexichin performed this “study” with a goal in mind; the goal of showing drugs companies spend too much money on advertising.”
Not necessarily. They did the study to find the proportional differences between the two expenditures. Their results would lead MOST people to draw that conclusion though. And I’d agree. Now go take your cialis and a little zyrtec and chill out. I’ve never been prescribed these, yet I know their names and I bet you do too… HMMM
January 16th, 2008 at 6:34 am
true to information 100%
January 16th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Definitely some good information. Thanks.
December 7th, 2008 at 12:57 am
Люди в таких вот случаях так говорят - Белую ворону и свои заклюют.
December 8th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
like this is any big news…..all pharm companies spend 3-4 x as much on advertizing that research….typicallly 20 on research 40-60 percent on ads…
use to work at a big pharm…..they care as much about your health as the cigarette companies, they are out to make money…go figure….
December 13th, 2008 at 5:22 am
@greg: “What is the other 62.2% spent on?”
Probably patenting and law suits to protect their patents and administration which would include executive salaries.
December 13th, 2008 at 10:02 am
LOL, must be nice having bags of money laying around!
http://www.anonymity.pro.tc
December 27th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Читал про это в Википедии. Вообще конечно интересная тема.
January 4th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Нехорошее употребление материальных благ часто является вернейшим путем к величайшим невзгодам.
January 29th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Сравнительно недавно попал на Ваш блог, теперь каждое утро захожу глянуть, не написали ли чего новенького.
К сожалению только Вы не каждый день Ваш блог обновляете 
January 30th, 2009 at 1:54 am
Вот именно поэтому и иногда не хочется идти вперёд!
January 31st, 2009 at 4:16 am
Я тоже также думал, пока не увидел пару аналогичных статей по этой же теме.
February 4th, 2009 at 6:05 am
Да, было бы смешно, если б к сожалению не было так грустно …
February 8th, 2009 at 4:02 am
Я совершенно случайно зашел на этот сайт, но вот обосновался тут надолго. Задержался, потому что все очень интересно. Обязательно скажу о вас всем своим друзьям.
February 25th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Видел что-то наподобие в англоязычном интернете, в Русскоязычном интернете про такие вещи как-то не особо часто посты увидишь.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
На таких громких заголовках и шумихе можно делать и не такие успехи
May 25th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Любопытно, а есть хоть кто-то, кто не согласен с автором?
May 28th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Благодарю, что просветили, и, главное, как раз вовремя. Подумать только, шесть лет уже в инете, но про это первый раз слышу.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:11 am
Important to know the figures behind the development and promotion of drugs - due to the rocketing cost of development and governments worldwide squeezing profits and shortening exclusivity rights on the end products, pharma have to make as much as possible in an increasingly short time and competitve environment - a viscious cirlce. If we extend exclusivity then pharma could charge less and promote less and be more confidnet to invest in future research. Why does Paul McCartney get 50 years protection on the frog chorus and pharma get 5-10 years exclusivity on drugs that saves lives and costs $500M to get to market?
July 17th, 2009 at 8:53 am
As usual, the webmaster intelligently published this article. Frankly, good news, thanks.
July 18th, 2009 at 5:33 am
I of course, there is little that understood in this topic, but try to understand.
July 18th, 2009 at 9:46 am
I almost accidentally went to this site, but stay here for long. Delayed, because everything is very interesting. Be sure to tell you about all your friends.
July 19th, 2009 at 9:28 am
The publication is very well-published, the webmaster to explain everything, is what to think.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:31 am
Now everything is clear on this subject. And I just do not understand where there is communication with the headline …
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:46 am
A very promising direction disclosed in the subject of this post. You should have read where some of this.
July 22nd, 2009 at 9:39 am
The author of a very objective and revealed the theme of the articles, for he is a great pleasure. Celebrate it and other articles.
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:31 am
At one site I have read almost the same compilation of information and articles, but still the author thanks.
July 25th, 2009 at 3:09 am
Hi! Not the first time I read your blog. I can not only understand how you can subscribe to your RSS-feed? I would like to read you, and more.
July 25th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Gratifying that your blog is constantly evolving and updated with new articles. Such positions only adds popularity
August 9th, 2009 at 6:20 am
It is nice to read your blog. It is my understanding of many topics.
August 10th, 2009 at 9:39 am
I’m just dropping by to say that I very much liked seeing this post, it’s very clear and well written. Are you considering posting more about this? It appears like there is more fodder here for more posts.