Archives | (July 2002) Printer Friendly
------------------------------------------------------------------

Take for example, the arthritis painkiller Vioxx.

In 2000, Merck, the manufacturer of Vioxx spent over $161 million to promote the drug. Compare that figure with some other familiar products:

• Dell Computer spent $160 million to advertise all of its products.
• Budweiser spent $146 million to advertise Budweiser beer.
• PepsiCo spent $125 million to advertise Pepsi Cola.
• Nike spent $78.2 million to advertise its running shoes.
• Campbell’s Soup spent $58 million to advertise all of its products.

And that’s just one drug. Other examples include:

• $108 million to advertise Prilosec.
• $100 million to advertise Claritin.
• $92 million to advertise Paxil.
• $91 million to advertise Zocor.
• $90 million to advertise Viagra.
• $79 million to advertise Celebrex.
• $78 million to advertise Flonase.
• $67 million to advertise Allegra.
• $65 million to advertise Meridia.

In fact, 15 of the 50 most heavily promoted drugs spent more than Campbell’s Soup promoting their product.

What is particularly ironic is that two of the most heavily advertised drugs, Vioxx and Celebrex are promoted largely on the basis of being safer than other, older alternatives. A just-released study, however, suggests that these so-called “Cox-2 Inhibitors” may in fact have more serious side effects than the drugs they were intended to replace. Yet DTC ads consumers rely on for their information about Vioxx and Celebrex continue to tout them as safer.

The failure of Merck and Pharmacia to accurately portray the risks and benefits of their product in DTC ads should come as no surprise. In 2000 an official of the FDA testified before Congress that between 1997 and 2000, the FDA has issued 45 “notices of violation” and three warning letters to companies concerning their television ads, and 44 notices of violation and one warning letter concerning print ads. Most of these letters concerned either overstated claims, or failures to warn consumers of potential risks. What the FDA official failed to ad was that nothing was done to punish the offenders – even where they had repeatedly committed the same offense.

But DTC advertising is only part of the total. Overall, drug companies spent $15.7 billion on advertising in 2000, twice as much as they spent on pharmaceutical research. For example:

• Merck and Co. allocated 15% of its revenues to advertising and just 6% to research.
• Pfizer allocated 39% to advertising and 15% to research.
• Bristol-Myers Squibb allocated 30% to advertising and 11% to research.
• Pharmacia Corporation allocated 37% to advertising and 15% to research.
• Abbott Labs allocated 21% to advertising and 10% to research.
• American Home products allocated 38% to advertising and 13% to research.
• Eli Lily allocated 30% to advertising and 19% to research.
• Schering-Plough allocated 36% to advertising and 14% to research.
• Allergan Inc. allocated 42% to advertising and 13% to research.

But the lion’s share of promotional dollars was still focused on doctors. A survey of 2,068 doctors by the Kaiser family Foundation found that 61% had received trips, tickets or free meals from pharmaceutical companies. Fully 92% had received free drug samples. Another study of physicians in Maryland indicated that 37% had received some form of compensation from a drug company.

View this article in printer friendly format

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6