Talk:Pharmaceutical marketing/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

This article seems like a statement of personal point of view against pharmaceutical industry advertising. There is no presentation of an opposing viewpoint. Maybe this should be removed or revised to include statements of fact from both sides of the argument.NanaLana 00:34, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

SO FIX IT. It's a wiki. JFW | T@lk 18:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What about the benefits of pharmaceutical marketing? By providing peer reviewed documentation in the form of studies to doctors, the doctors are able to have accurate and timely information. Marketing also allows drug companies to provide samples to patients and in many cases free medication. Pharmaceutical marketing is not just advertising on television like this article portrays.

That's right. Away with the witchhunt. Imagine a world without pharmaceutical companies willing to take tremendous risks to develop new and better medication. JFW | T@lk 18:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The biblio reads like a library of how-to-market-drugs, not useful resources on more objective topics such as advertising policy. And just as a point of info, the "peer-reviewed documentation" in study form is often a) sponsored and b) inaccurate; the real problem is DTCA, which targets consumers and their lack of detailed pharmaceutical training, replacing it with fear of every single thing on the planet as well as convincing them it can all be treated with a $100 pill. Literature provided will show th

You can interpret this anyway you guys wish. This "opinion" seems to be driven by the fact of how this industry is huge money raking organization. If someone feels like this is "witch-hunt" or a "personal point of view”, which is criticizing this field you could be wrong. With out wanting to look for things of this nature it is presented to you in every way possible. Facts are facts, and numbers are number. Everyone wants a piece of the pie. When you go from millions to billions, something right is being done here. There's no reason to hate on another man's success, but it’s just obvious that this market went from helping people to creating a huge tactical force on the best and most efficient ways on how to make profit. Drugs do help people in many cases, but today people are extremely vulnerable to turning to drugs because this genius billion dollar marketing structure works on people. No one wants sticks things out anymore. ~ tr88

organized and expanded a little

I organized and expanded the treatment a little. The text for a number of headings is a little sparse. I intend to start filling in this text over the next few days. CommodiCast 22:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Great work, though the table of contents is now a bit over large. - SimonP 22:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I will try to do something with the table of contents CommodiCast 19:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article received a cleanup tag from SecretLondon. I am somewhat new to wikipedia, so I did not know exactly what cleanup he was specifically referring to. He did not leave a message. I cleaned some things up anyway and will continue to do so. I removed the cleanup tag.CommodiCast 23:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Citing sources

The major weakness of this article, as it stands now, is that it needs to do a much better job of citing sources. I haven't tagged every assertion with "citation needed", cause that would just be obnoxious, but we should probably work on referencing some of the assertions. I started with some minor grammar/style edits, but let's work on sourcing the comments since otherwise the article is a good start. MastCell 19:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Peer influence

I am concerned about this edit which added the sentence: "Some pharmaceutical companies identify influential colleagues through commercially available prescription writing and patient level data (see list of data providers in this article)." The "see list of data providers in this article" appears out of context. Was this copied from somewhere? -AED 23:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of information

I removed the following sections from the article. They appear to be lecture notes rather than encyclopedic prose. I'm not clear on what is trying to be said, so I am unable to rewrite. I would ask that citations be provided if the information is rewritten and reincluded. -AED 00:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Sales force optimization

Design sales territories in a manner that evenly spreads the work load across territories, districts, and regions. Minimize the amount of time a sales representative spends driving and maximize the time the representative has to meet with physicians.

Call planning

Design the optimal timing for each individual physician sales call. Forecast each physician's prescribing response to a sales call over the next few weeks. Minimize the "annoyance factor."

Sales force effectiveness

Monitor the performance of the sales force in the target universe of physicians. Adjust market message, reach, frequency, timing, territories, or other actions in order to increase sales.

These are details of different activities relating to tuning the sales organization. I saw the reference to Epocrates and did not think it was cool to link externally like that? I would propose that it gets deleted. Epocrates just republishes the PDR with links to a system of that reports the formulary status for the Palm. --Chrispounds 02:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WellbutrinWoman.png

Image:WellbutrinWoman.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WellbutrinWoman.png

Image:WellbutrinWoman.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Request of removal of an external link

I think ad pharm is a commercial blog (spam) promoting the mother site: ad pharm .net which is not a free site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.83.159.216 (talk) 06:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand and Reference:16

The reference pointing to information about New Zealand considering banning direct to consumer advertising of prescription pharmaceuticals is giving a 404, either we should find a live reference, or remove that information from the article. 99.99.50.100 (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bkovit.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Why does the Skeptical Inquirer citation not link to the actual source? Rather, it is another Wiki article. Bkovit (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Marketing budget "far exceeds" R&D

I hear this claim a lot, but the sources given don't link to a primary source of info. One commonly cited source on the web is this BBC article, but it no longer shows the table: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-28212223 ...but I found the data at archive.org: https://web.archive.org/web/20141119101441/https://www.bbc.com/news/business-28212223 As a source, it just says a GlobalData study, but no link.

This article relies on industry self-reporting (though the data was given to Congress, so probably isn't an outright lie): https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2019/7/do-biopharma-companies-really-spend-more-on-market

I've removed these references:

• NYT link doesn't say anything about R&D vs marketing spending: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/20/opinion/sunday/no-justification-for-high-drug-prices.html
• This source https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18982834/ cites https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp058136 (Waxman) as the source of 'marketing over R&D', but that article just states how much is spent relative to medical education: "The pharmaceutical industry spends more than $5.5 billion to promote drugs to doctors each year — more than what all U.S. medical schools spend to educate medical students. Major drug companies employ about 90,000 sales representatives — one for every 4.7 doctors in the United States, according to the American Medical Association."
• The text of this is behind a paywall: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18713478/

Also, the Skeptical Inquirer link is only available to subscribers: https://skepticalinquirer.org/2018/03/drug-therapy-hype-the-misuse-of-data/

More review and sources would be good. (I forgot to sign my comment.) Unclevinny (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)