Bio Job Blog : Bio Jobs : Biotechnology Jobs : Biopharmaceutical Jobs : Bioscience, Biotech Jobs : Bio Job Blog : Biocareer : Bio-Business Training, Biotechnology Training : Jobs in Biology : Internships in Biology : Internships in Biotechnology

While big pharma continues to struggle with the use of social media to promote its products, direct-to-consumer advertising (DTC), the method of choice for American pharmaceutical advertising is alive, well and robust. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that big pharma is reallocating some its traditional DTC advertising dollars to deliver drug ads to mobile devices which are growing in popularity. 

According to a recent article posted on PharmaLive, drug companies are mainly using mobile devices —in addition to delivering ads—to “help educate patients and motivate them to seek, accept, and adhere to therapy.” In other words, to more effectively promote their products to improve sales and corporate profits. Regardless of the motive, medical communication agencies have recognized the trend and have responded by launching mobile divisions and initiatives at their firms. Some agencies are now generating close to 50% of their revenues from mobile initiatives and campaigns. Further, many pharmaceutical companies have finally realized that corporate websites can be more than simple placeholders on the Internet. To that end, the PharmaLive post notes that pharmaceutical brand websites are evolving into a robust resource structured to be easily searchable and maintained. Maybe a better understanding and use of social media is next up for drug makers.

Pfizer remains the leading spender and purveyor of DTC advertising despite a 15% overall decrease in 2010 as compared with 2009. PharmLive reports that the company allocated $903.8 million to brands such as Lipitor, Pristiq, Viagra, Chantix, and Lyrica. Of these brands, Pristiq saw the highest increase of DTC advertising in 2010, up 17% to $122.2 million compared to 2009.

As mobile media continues to grow, don’t be surprised if someone develops a TIVO-like fast forward app to skip all of the DTC ads on your iPhone or android devices.

Until next time..

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Depending upon the source, the cost of bringing a new prescription drug to market these days ranges from roughly $1.2 to 1.5 billion. While there is no question that clinical studies represent the most costly aspect of getting new drugs approved, the hidden costs—mainly promotion and marketing—are what actually inflate the costs of new drug development. Not surprisingly, drugmakers fail to disclose that these costs are included in the estimates for new drug development. If these costs were eliminated from the total, then the cost of developing new drugs will be significantly less than the current $1.2 to $1.5 billion price tag.

I suspect that many BioJobBlog readers—mainly those who work in the drug industry—will likely write me off as someone who doesn’t know what he is talking about. But, an interesting tidbit that I found in an article in today’s New York Times entitled “A Fight Over How Drugs are Pitched” suggests that my claims ought not be summarily dismissed simply because I am a “left-leaning histrionic democrat.” To wit, according to IMS Health (a competitive intelligence firm that tracks physician prescription rates) in 2009 alone, the branded prescription drug industry spent about $6.3 billion on marketing visits to doctors! This amount does not include costs associated with marketing and advertising that support direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising campaigns that are run by companies that sell approved prescription drugs. DTC costs are generally much higher than those spent on direct marketing to physicians.

It is important to remember that a drug maker’s main goal is to convince physicians to prescribe “their” drugs. After all, physicians not patients write prescriptions! That said, physician prescribing behaviors are vitally important to the success or failure of a marketed prescription drug. Consequently, it should come as no surprise that marketing costs are factored into the cost associated with new drug development. Obviously, if less money was spent on marketing than the cost of bringing new drugs to market would likely be substantially less.

Interestingly, the States of Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine recently enacted laws to limit the uses of a doctor’s prescription records for marketing. On Tuesday, the US Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case, Sorrell v. IMS Health that tests whether Vermont’s prescription confidentiality law violates the free speech protections of the First Amendment. The federal government, the attorneys general of several dozen states, AARP, professional medical associations, privacy groups and the New England Journal of Medicine have filed briefs in support of Vermont’s law. The National Association of Chain Drugstores, the Association of National Advertisers and news organizations like Bloomberg and The Associated Press have filed briefs aligning themselves with the data firm.

Although a Vermont federal district court upheld the law after a lawsuit challenging the statute brought by IMS Health and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, an appellate court overturned the decision suggesting that it violates free speech provisions afforded by the First Amendment of the US constitution.

It will be interesting to see how the “Supremes” adjudicate the appeal given the growing recognition that laws and regulations designed to control medical costs and minimize safety risks associated with newly approved drugs are becoming increasingly necessary.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

While video may be losing some of its “newness" and cache in social media circles, it continues to grow and has become a mainstay of networking platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and of course YouTube!  Despite its popularity in most industries, the life sciences industry continues to eschew its use. The reasons for this are not clear but it is counter intuitive given the billions of dollars the pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies annually invest in direct-to-consumer advertising. 

Several big pharma companies, most notably Johnson & Johnson, have attempted to increase the use of video to connect with its stakeholders but its efforts haven’t yield much of an ROI. I suspect that most industry insiders will tell you that the main reason why video is not routinely used is the lack of regulatory guidelines guiding its use on social media platforms. While this is a facile explanation, the existing regulatory guidelines for direct-to-consumer television advertising certainly apply to video!

In a post today on the EyeonFDA blog, Mark Senak offers a variety of ways in which life sciences companies can leverage video to their advantage to promote good will among shareholders and stakeholders alike. His ideas make sense and are very much within the regulatory guidelines for direct-to-consumer advertising. Whether or not direct-to-consumer advertising is a good thing is a topic for another post!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I read a fascinating article today posted on MedEdNews Insider Blog about the formation of a new agency called Rx Entertainment that helps to match celebrities with direct-to-consumer advertising campaigns created by pharmaceutical companies. Admittedly, I hadn’t thought much about the matching process, but in the past I have posted a few rants about direct-to-consumer advertising (DTC), Brooke Shields hawking Latisse for Allergan and the Robert Jarvik Lipitor brouhaha.

So, the post about an entertainment agency that helps to match celebrities with DTC prescription drug advertising campaigns piqued my interest. The blog post was actually an interview that was conducted by the blogger with the founder of Entertainment Rx (I love the name)! The interviewer asked the Rx Entertainment founder for examples of her agency’s matching maker prowess.  The list (see below) is very impressive:

1. Claire Danes and Brooke Shields for Latisse
2. Food Network’s Ellie Krieger for Centecor in the area of arthritis
3. Gretchen Wilson for LapBand
4. Jennifer Lopez for childhood vaccines
5. Vanessa Williams and Virginia Madsen for Botox
6. Sally Field for Boniva
7. Jim Belushi, Bruce Jenner, Danica Patrick, and Patty Loveless for COPD
8. Keri Russell on a campaign for Sanofi-Aventis  on the Sounds of Pertussis vaccine campaign
9. Angelica Huston to help launch the well-known Merck Manual
10. Elisabeth Hasselbeck and Marg Helgenberger for a fundraiser sponsored by P&G  where all the proceeds went to breast cancer research
11. Robert DeNiro to help launch a nicotine patch. He was premiering one of his films in NY and a fundraiser for cancer research was tied to the event.
12. Dara Torres worked with Centecor, and The National Psoriasis Foundation on a public service campaign to raise awareness for psoriasis
13. Hector Elizondo on a campaign for CaringforAlz; campaign focused on the caregivers of Alzheimers patients (Hector’s mother suffered from the condition).  This was a national campaign supported by the Exelon brand team at Novartis.

According to the post, Rx Entertain manages the negotiation process between the celebs and pharmaceutical/biotechnology from beginning to end. There was no mention of the salaries paid to the celebrities for their participation in the DTC ads.  However the Rx Entertainment founder did offer several bits of cautionary advice:

The celebrity spokesperson ought to have a legitimate tie to the disease and that A-list celebrities may not always be the most appropriate spokespeople because of the baggage (scheduling issues, entourage and additional difficulties) they may bring to the campaign. 

That said who knew that B-list celebs had good shots at potential careers in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries? Talk about alternate career paths!

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (ever consider acting????) !!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Medicis Pharmaceutical, the maker of Dysport a drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to smooth skin furrows between the eyebrows, recently introduced a marketing campaign that offers people who use Dysport drug discounts and a patient satisfaction rebate guarantee. The campaign, which runs through April 30, was intentionally designed to elevate Dysport’s image and cannibalize market share in the anti wrinkle market from Allergan the maker of Botox and the market leader.

The Dysport promotion, running on the product’s Web site and in a few glossy magazines like Us Weekly, offers a $75 rebate check on an initial Dysport treatment for wrinkles between the eyebrows, a procedure that can cost consumers $300 to $500. Satisfied customers can receive a $75 rebate on a follow-up Dysport treatment, while dissatisfied customers who want to switch can receive a $75 rebate on a Botox treatment.

While this is an unprecedented and novel campaign, it demonstrates the lengths that Medicis is willing to go through to garner market share from Botox which enjoyed a monopoly on injectable toxins in the US until the introduction of Dysport last year. Last year, worldwide sales of Botox were roughly $1.3 billion. Industry analysts estimate that Medicis may be able to capture a 20 to 25 percent share of the US market.  

While the marketing campaign may seem a bit odd and brash, Medicis isn’t the first pharmaceutical company to use rebates and drug discounts to inspire patient brand loyalty. For example, Sepracor offers a seven-day free trial of its popular sleeping pill Lunesta. Merck is running a print ad with a voucher for a free 30-day supply of its Januvia tablets for Type 2 diabetes. Another Merck ad carries a $20 coupon for the allergy and asthma drug Singulair. However, the use of product rebates and drug discounts is mostly used to market so-called vanity medicine drugs (like Latisse, Botox and Dysport) which have been approved by FDA for clinical use but are not covered by medical insurance. Patients who use these drugs are paying out of pocket and, in essence, are buying from physicians. Many worry that this practice may induce doctors and patients to make medical decisions based on money not safety or efficacy. 

In the case of Botox and Dysport neither product is entirely risk free. For those of you who may not know, both are purified forms of botulinum toxin — a toxin produced by Clostridium botulinum that interferes with nerve transmission and involuntary muscle contractions. The injections cause temporary cosmetic problems like droopy eyelids or uneven eyebrows. And these drugs now carry federally mandated “black box” warnings on their labels stating that botulinum toxins have been associated with rare but potentially life-threatening health problems.

Although promotional programs like the one being offered by Medicis may be inappropriate or seemingly reckless, it—like those of Sepracor and Merck—are permissible under current direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising regulations. Isn’t it time to reevaluate regulations that allow powerful, potentially-dangerous prescription drugs to be treated as consumer goods where price, not medical need, safety or efficacy, promotes their acceptance and use?

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Looking!!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There was another article in today’s New York Times lamenting the marketing practices utilized by drug companies to inform physicians about their products. While these practices may be troubling to legislators and the American public, everybody who works in the life sciences industry including regulatory agencies like the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) understands the “rules of the game” and how it is played. However,

over the past three years, there has been a full frontal assault on direct-to-consumer advertising and marketing and sales practices used by drug makers to hawk their products to physicians and the American public. This has largely been an over reaction to the lack of regulatory oversight of drug manufacturers during the Bush administration. The new regulations have severely limited what sales representatives can offer physicians e.g. gifts and free lunches and dinners, for more face time to sell their products. Consequently, the only means left available to drug makers to reach large numbers of physicians is marketing through medical education.

This is how it works. Companies annually budget monies to pay highly recognized physicians aka key opinion leaders (KOLs) to give lectures to physicians that might influence their prescribing habits. These lectures often take the form of informational seminars that focus on treatment options for certain therapeutic indications which often times subliminally highlight the advantages of the sponsor’s product over its competitors. Not surprisingly, the effectiveness and success of these programs is usually directly proportional to the sums of money invested in them. For example, in 2004, Forrest Laboratories (the subject of the NY Times article) planned on spending “$34.7 million to pay 2000 physicians to deliver 15,000 marketing lectures about Lexapro (an antidepressant) to their peers in one year.” The investment appears to have paid off; sales Lexapro reached $2.3 billion in 2008 even though a lower cost generic version of the drug is available. And, while the Forrest investment in medical education may appear to be a large one, it pales in comparison to the sums invested in medical education programs by much larger companies like Pfizer, Merck and others.

While certain members of Congress may be “shocked and outraged,” these practices are sanctioned by FDA. And, as long as drug makers are compliant and adhere to the rules they shouldn’t be faulted or penalized for their efforts. The point that I am trying to make is that drug makers, like all other for-profit entities, must maximize sales to generate sufficient profits remain in business. Therefore, it should come as no surprise to legislators or the American public for that matter, that drug makers use all legally available means to maximize the sale of their products. If Congress doesn’t like what drug makers are doing, then they ought to stop complaining and legislate changes to the rules. Put simply, it’s time for Congress to “put up or shut up.”

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

No doubt that many of you already know that DTC advertising is an effective way for pharmaceutical companies to “push” their drugs. However, when I saw the amount of money that was spent on DTC in 2007 I was shocked! In 2007 alone, drug companies spent $5,375,117,382 on advertising. Yes, that's $5.375 billion dollars (think of how many research grants could have been funded or how much money could have been spent on universal healthcare!).  The aggregate ROI for 25 pharma companies examined was impressive–totaling about $32 billion or roughly 7-fold!

A table published by Consumer Reports AdWatch highlights 25 of the biggest spenders along with their sales, giving an indication of how much their ad spending has paid off —or not! The drugs that received the biggest bang for the buck are bolded. Despite the conflict of interest and false advertising DTC flap over Lipitor, it still managed to have the third best return among the 25 products analyzed.

¹Consumer Reports Consumer Drug Reference, 2008.
²Data compiled by Nielsen Media research, March 2008.
³Data provided by Drug Topics and Verispan, March 2008.


No wonder why everybody wants to work for a pharmaceutical company–despite the downsizing there is still substantial money to be made!

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

The newest culprit in the direct-to-consumer (DTC) television ad cat and mouse game between pharmaceutical manufacturers and US regulators is Cordis, a medical device subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. The ad in question deals with promotion of the use of a cardiac stent called Cypher that is manufactured by the company. The television ad is the first ever to market a medical device. Nevertheless, according to an article published in this week’s New England Journal of Medicine, the ad overstates the benefits of the stent without mentioning possible adverse effects that can include heart attack and stroke.

The current brouhaha is nothing new in the ongoing battle between drug manufacturer (and now, medical device companies) and regulators over DTC advertising. As some of you may know, the US is one of a few industrialized countries in the world that allows DTC advertising.  Further, DTC ads don’t require FDA review or approval before they are aired or printed–although in some instances, companies do request FDA review. 

Because of growing problems with DTC ads (especially television spots), there is mounting pressure on FDA to limit consumer medical advertising or, at the very least, increase regulatory oversight of it. To that end, on Friday, an FDA advisory panel will convene to discuss whether television ads for prescription medications ought to include a statement encouraging consumers to report any adverse side effects via a toll free number to the agency. At present, this type of disclaimer is only required for DTC print ads.

For those of you who don’t know, FDA has (by law) a post marketing surveillance network in place to allow consumers to report any side effects (big or small) that they may experience after taking prescription or over the counter medications. Further, companies are required by FDA regulations to immediately report any and all side effects associated with their products.

Of interest, in a hearing last week on drug advertising (being conducted by the House Energy and Commerce Committee), several drug company representatives in attendance were asked whether or not they would support a toll free number on television ads to encourage viewers to report adverse side effects. Surprisingly (perhaps not) they could or would not directly answer the question. According to John D. Dingell, chair of the committee and advocate of greater regulatory oversight of DTC advertising, “Some ads appear to be misleading and others appear to be downright deceptive.” Imagine that!

What is particularly disturbing about the DTC controversy is that government officials and legislators are frequently incredulous when they learn about DTC advertising abuses. As I have stated time and time again, there are larges sums of money at stake here. This coupled, with little or no regulation, and mounting pressures to keep company stock price shares high, is a sure recipe for disaster (as we have begun to witness over the past 5 years or more). In my opinion, there is only a single solution to the problem–craft more stringent regulations and greater FDA oversight for DTC advertising. Asking drug and medical devices companies to regulate themselves in any area is tantamount to allowing a fox to live in a hen house—the pickings are easy and only the fox gets fat!

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link