Subscribe to RSS feedTop 3 Bestselling Drugs spent $460.5 Million on Ads in 2006
In the wake of the drug safety scandals of the past few years (Vioxx, Celebrex, Paxil, etc), there were widespread predictions that Direct-to-Consumer Advertising (DTCA) of prescription drugs (TV commercials, magazine ads, etc) would become less prevalent and less effective. Both predictions have proven false — spending on consumer drug ads hit an all-time high in 2006 of $4.8 billion. And the makers of the top three best-selling drugs in the U.S. in 2006 spent a combined total of $460.5 million on drug ads last year. See the chart below.
(Sources: IMS Health, “Top 10 Products by U.S. Sales”, and DTC Perspectives, June/July 2007)
Of course, not every prescription for these drugs is due to advertising. But, for each of these drugs, aggressive advertising to consumers has significantly contributed to their sales. The worst (or best, depending on your perspective) example of this is Nexium. Nexium, the so-called “healing purple pill” is nothing more than an isomer of Prilosec — in essence, Nexium is a molecular “mirror” of the Prilosec molecule. However, there’s essentially no difference between Nexium and Prilosec in terms of their effectiveness. AstraZeneca has aggressively marketed Nexium as though it were some miraculous improvement, despite an amazing lack of evidence that this is the case.
For this, Nexium earned one of Prescription Access Litigation’s coveted “Bitter Pill Awards” in 2005: The “Least Extreme Makeover Award: For Dressing Up an Old Drug with a New Name and a New Price Tag.” It is truly a strange world in which a drug that is essentially no better than its now-much-cheaper predecessor can rake in $4.3 billion in sales in the U.S. alone. The reason? Aggressive marketing — not just to consumers, but to physicians as well.
It calls to mind an excellent quotation by Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine and author of The Truth About the Drug Companies:
T]o rely on the drug companies for unbiased evaluations of their products makes about as much sense as relying on beer companies to teach us about alcoholism…The fact is that marketing is meant to sell drugs, and the less important the drug, the more marketing it takes to sell it. Important new drugs do not need much promotion. Me-too drugs do.”
And that’s enough right there to give you heartburn.
September 7th, 2007 at 8:57 PM
Confused — are the numbers advertising costs or sales revenues?
September 8th, 2007 at 8:12 AM
The third column is sales revenue and the final (fifth) column is ad spending.
December 23rd, 2007 at 11:37 PM
How much of your funding comes from health insurance companies?
December 26th, 2007 at 1:19 PM
Response to “Works for me:”
None of our funding comes from health insurance companies.
January 6th, 2008 at 5:54 PM
DTC (direct-to-consumer) Advertising is one of the most controversial practices the drug industry uses to market its various products.
Supporters of this form of advertising, which is banned in nearly almost all countries (excluding the United States and New Zealand) say it provides a real service to consumers, informing them of new drugs and alerting them to health problems they may be unaware of.
Critics feel this form of advertising promotes only the most expensive new blockbuster drugs, when older and cheaper versions of drugs might be just as effective, thus driving up overall health care costs, with much emphasis placed on the high costs of prescription drugs.
Aggressive promotion can pay off big time. Merck, maker of Vioxx, the most promoted drug, spent $161 million advertising it in 2000, and sales of Vioxx quadrupled to $1.5 billion.
In fact, Merck spent more advertising Vioxx, according to NIHCM (National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation), than the $125 million spent promoting Pepsi or the $146 million spent on Budweiser beer ads. It even came close to the $169 million spent promoting GM’s Saturn, the nation’s most advertised car.
The drug industry says its ads not only educate consumers but also prompt people who might otherwise go undiagnosed to see their doctors. Many doctors agree.
RxPop.com would love to hear your opinion as to whether or not you feel prescription drug advertising costs are a direct reflection to the high costs of prescription drugs in the United States.
Enjoy a nice collection of prescription drug commercials funded by BIG Pharma at:
http://www.rxpop.com/commercials.asp