 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / June 2005more research spending...$60-80 Mil
It's research. Not marketing. Costs so much to__research__these drugs doncha know? That's why they don't have the money to monitor side effects. Research costs so much. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hotlines: A Handful of Shops to Pitch $60-80 Mil. Lipitor Account Mon Jun 27, 5:23 PM ET NEW YORK A short-list of as many as five agencies will pitch for direct-to-consumer creative duties on Pfizer's Lipitor, which Omnicom's Merkley + Partners has handled since 2000, sources said. ADVERTISEMENT click here Merkley is defending and the list is believed to include both roster and non-roster shops. Billings are estimated at $60-80 million. A Pfizer rep confirmed the review, but declined to identify the participants, which sources expect to be briefed this week. > It's research. Not marketing. Costs so much to__research__these drugs > doncha know? That's why they don't have the money to monitor side > effect actually it does...cost so much to research I mean.. average to get a drug to market is about 800 MILLION(getting to market obviously INCLUDES monitoring side effects) soo.... the article you post says 60 - 80 to "pitch"...ie market... hmmmm....so marketing costs 10% of development costs...... what's your problem now look up how much say...Mercedes spends to develop a new model car,,,then how much to pitch it...just curious > Research costs so much. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Pfizer rep confirmed the review, but declined to identify the > participants, which sources expect to be briefed this week. > > It's research. Not marketing. Costs so much to__research__these drugs > > doncha know? That's why they don't have the money to monitor side > > effect > > actually it does...cost so much to research I mean.. No it doesn't. > average to get a drug to market is about 800 MILLION(getting to market > obviously INCLUDES monitoring side effects) Would you be able to give me a cite for that? Both the cost, and that the figure includes monitoring side effects. > soo.... > > the article you post says 60 - 80 to "pitch"...ie market... No it didn't say that was the cost to get Lipitor to market. The article I posted said $60-$80 Mil for *one* new marketing campaign. Lipitor is already on the market, and there have been many campaigns. > hmmmm....so marketing costs 10% of development costs...... No it doesn't. > what's your problem > now look up how much say...Mercedes spends to develop a new model car,,,then > how much to pitch it...just curious I'm always at a loss to know what to do when you embarrass yourself as you have just done Hawki. Should I try to hold your head above water until the rescue boat arrives...or should I just swim away and let you drown? Approximately 35% of (a drugs's) revenue goes to marketing and administration (versus about 18-19% for R&D) but that amount is almost never broken down. The source is Marcia Angell's book "The Truth About the Drug Companies". This excerpt discusses R & D and marketing but you may have to read the book for the analysis and charts. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244 > > Research costs so much. > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Pfizer rep confirmed the review, but declined to identify the > > participants, which sources expect to be briefed this week. So sue like everyone else or have the government do it and then you can't sue them. Have the government develop drugs and like vaccines they can protect themselves against lawsuits. >> > It's research. Not marketing. Costs so much to__research__these drugs >> > doncha know? That's why they don't have the money to monitor side [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No it doesn't. oh?? >> average to get a drug to market is about 800 MILLION(getting to market >> obviously INCLUDES monitoring side effects) > > Would you be able to give me a cite for that? Both the cost, and that > the figure includes monitoring side effects. be happy to...perhaps you don't have google...btw..."figure of r and d costs including monitoring of side effects in development stages..ie clinical trials...average time to get a new drug to market can be up to 10-12 years... cites: www.cptech.org/ip/health/econ/frank/2003.pdf snip "DiMasi et al (2003) have estimated the average costs of bringing a new drug to market to be US$ 403 million in 2000 dollars. Accounting for the time between investment and marketing raises the cost to US$802 million...." "not to mention that about 78% of new products never make it to market"...but still incur huge r and d costs.. btw..be prepared to learn about "out of pocket" and "capitalized costs".... ""we have always provided both out of pocket and capitalized cost estimates. The out of pocket costs are cash outlays incurred ober a lengthy development period..as much as a 12 year timeline from discovery to regulatory approval..Capitalized cost is the total cost that really must be considered..It accounts for what I would call the "time cost" associated with an investment..These costs estimates also include the testing of drugs that fail in development..The total out of pocket cost is about $400 million per approved drug,,and the total capitalized cost is about $800 million per appropred drug" (paraphrased from : www.manhattan-institute.org/html/mics 8.htm) >> soo.... >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > until the rescue boat arrives...or should I just swim away and let you > drown? merely pointing out that EVERY industry has considerable marketing costs.... hold MY head above water?? lol... > Approximately 35% of (a drugs's) revenue goes to marketing and > administration (versus about 18-19% for R&D) but that amount is almost [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> > Pfizer rep confirmed the review, but declined to identify the >> > participants, which sources expect to be briefed this week. > >> > It's research. Not marketing. Costs so much to__research__these drugs > >> > doncha know? That's why they don't have the money to monitor side [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > >> > Pfizer rep confirmed the review, but declined to identify the > >> > participants, which sources expect to be briefed this week. You completely miss the point Hawki. I have no intention of holding you by the hand and pointing out where you have gone wrong. It's your responsibility. You continue to make it abundantly clear why having a medical license is not enough reason alone to pay any attention to what the holder says. Zee >> >> > It's research. Not marketing. Costs so much to__research__these >> >> > drugs [quoted text clipped - 115 lines] > > Zee nor does claiming that one is a "journalist" means the holder can interpret business articles.. btw....Marcia Angell....yeah that's a truly unbiased source..and only one at that.. interesting that you did not comment on my several cites you requested that documents the $800 million r and d costs!! that was your request to me... > >> >> > It's research. Not marketing. Costs so much to__research__these > >> >> > drugs [quoted text clipped - 126 lines] > > that was your request to me... Now just go back and read the words over slowly Hawki. Until it dawns on you .... Zee
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.