(And more definitively, the Pharmaceutical Research and
Manufacturers Association is happy to tell you that its members
spend over
$33 Billion a year on R+D, while the entire industry (perhaps
just in the US, they're not clear) spends only $21B on product
promotion. I think we can all agree that 33 is a bigger number than
21, yes? Indeed, it's half again bigger.)
Though, even if they did, what's the problem with that? Do
you think that maybe they might need ... income, in order to fund
further research? And that income is generated partially through
the efforts of what the sales guys call "marketing"? And that since
most R+D money brings exactly zero return, maybe marketing
expenditures that makes more money in terms of sales are
necessary to keep the company afloat in-between Drugs So
Useful They Sell Themselves.
(Derek Lowe over at
In The Pipeline is a pharmaceutical researcher (ie, the guy who
actually goes trying to find and make the new drugs), and has more
about the latter.)
It's very easy to stamp your feet and complain that Nasty Mean Big
Drug Companies aren't pumping out new useful drugs left and
right... but, well, it ain't easy. And unless you want the
state to fund them (nevermind the inefficiencies that would
have to cause), they rather have to fund themselves, partially by
the use of wicked, nasty, not-spending-on-what-you-want Marketing -
even if they do, in fact, spend half again as much on R+D.
Comment statistics for Sigivald on the Making Light blog
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Sigivald:
Show all comments by Sigivald.