What a terrible analysis. Pretty sure that number is just the "Selling, marketing and administrative expenses" line from the 10-K, which lumps all expenses outside of COGs, R&D and a few others.
That's not just marketing as people know it. It's all the other costs of running a company too.
Except drugs are different from other products. If a drug is actually a good idea for patients, with no profit motive behind it, it will sell itself. Doctors should be aware of the drugs the big drug manufacturers are producing, and prescribe accordingly based on need. If you need to hawk your drug by plastering TV ads all over the place, or by having salespeople push it to hospitals / etc., it's arguably not a necessary drug.
> If a drug is actually a good idea for patients, with no profit motive behind it, it will sell itself.
This is completely false.
There's a once-daily pill that prevents contracting HIV, yet most of the people who have the greatest risk of contracting HIV (Black gay men) aren't taking it. Why? According to mountains of peer-reviewed research, the predominant factor is that they don't know it exists. That is literally a marketing problem.
For patients who are aware of the drug, the most common reported reason for not taking it is that they can't find doctors who know it exists (or how the treatment regimen works). Again, this is literally a marketing problem.
In the case of this drug, there are additional barriers for many of these groups beyond just knowing of its existence, but that's the first and biggest one. It is 100% false to say that a drug that is a good idea for patients will "sell itself".
I can only think one or two examples of drugs that "sold themselves". The new HCV meds are a good example of a lot of pent up demand even prior to approval. That said, there were still physicians out there that were not aware of the approval, so marketing still had work to do.
> I can only think one or two examples of drugs that "sold themselves". The new HCV meds are a good example of a lot of pent up demand even prior to approval. That said, there were still physicians out there that were not aware of the approval, so marketing still had work to do.
Exactly - incredible demand for them, and even still Sovaldi didn't sell itself.
If a drug is actually a good idea for patients, with no profit motive behind it, it will sell itself.
This is entirely untrue.
The one thing I learned in the biotech space is that doctors range from those doing research and know all about the cutting edge drugs all the way to doctors who are surprised to learn about a new drug that was approved a year ago. And there are way more of the 2nd kind.
Changes to how conditions are treated actually happens really slowly. What often hinders adoptation of new drugs is information and that’s a key goal of marketing - actually letting doctors know something new is available.
And that's not to slam them. They often treat a ton of different diseases, and a new drug launch isn't the highest priority for them. They'll eventually learn about it, so marketing is an attempt to accelerate that.
Doctors don't just become magically aware of new drugs, it's not like every MD gets a newsletter a la "here's what shows are coming to Netflix". Treatments compete over the condition/disease just like any competitive market, even if a drug has a patent.
I assume they meant a non-promotional newsletter that isn’t from the manufacturer.
Those do exist, but not all doctors read them. However, those same doctors might spare 10 min to have a manufacturer rep stop by to answer questions.
I’ll also add that doctors aren’t dumb. They know anything from manufacturers is biased - they want to sell drugs. They usually rely on other physicians to give them info on real world experience with a drug.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-p...