There has been an interesting (though not new) debate this week on In the Pipeline about whether Big Pharma actually spends more money on marketing its products than on developing them. Many of the detractors for this industry think much more is spent on the former -- as if Big Pharma were purely a bunch of hucksters.
This morning In the Pipeline produces some data from 2010 that bascially indicates about 2x is spent on R&D as is spent on marketing. This should end the debate. Anyway, I'm not sure why critics would think that a company would take the time to develop its products but not to market/sell them? Why should pharma be any different than other industries? I guess if you believe pharma actually spent 10x on marketing compared to development, you might have some sort of point, but short of that I'm not sure what that point might be.............are critics really suggesting pharma is just selling snake oil? Seems far-fetched doesn't it?
Posted by Bruce Lehr May 23rd 2013.