Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : MRV Communications (MRVC) opinions? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: opalapril who wrote (25619)	10/18/2000 1:45:13 PM
From: kvkkc1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42804

ot: Too bad their return on social security is so pathetic. If they had their own money to invest, they would have surpassed that growth by far.knc

To: opalapril who wrote (25619)	10/18/2000 2:07:26 PM
From: Greg h2o	Respond to of 42804

that's COMPLETELY assanine! first, even if you add up the "separate" (i'll get back to that in a second) costs of marketing (not just strictly advertising), yo still only get $21.9 bil against $26bil spent on "finding new drugs and then winning approval for them". i believe actual R&D %tages are higher, but that was a great way of dodging that bullet (symantics). now, those "separate" costs that are mentioned have HUGE overlaps, so they shouldn't be simply added together to get the total marketing costs....first, the $7bil for sales people is included in the $13.6 bil for "promoting to the medical profession". secondly, let's not forget that a LARGE part of that promotion is providing SAMPLES that go directly to the consumers. now, they spent over $1.1 bil on advertising on tv and $1.8 promoting their products to the consumer...duh, tv advertising is INCLUDED in promoting to the consumer.... this is the most blatantly unreliable piece of crap "research i've seen...well, maybe aside from Mr. Gore, himself. btw, let's see the #'s on litigation increases since the present administration went into office and the amount of PAC money they received from the various attorney associations....heck, let's just see how much they received from frickin' CHINA! enough said. if you believe that crap you posted, you really need to have a reality check. heck, if nothing else, just use your brain a little and check the actual numbers from some of the pharmaceutical companies... don't forget to add in the R&D from the myriad of biotechs many of the "large drug companies" invest in.... <<The industry spends about twice as much for marketing and administration as it does for research and development. This year drug makers will spend $26 billion, or 20 % of revenue, finding new drugs and then winning approval for them. The industry utilizes about 70,000 U.S. salespeople costing nearly $7 billion per year. Prescription drug sales totaled in excess of $100 billion for the first time in 1999. The drug companies spent $13.6 billion in 1999 promoting their products to the medical profession. They spent over $1.1 billion on advertising their prescription drug products on television, and spent a total of $1.8 billion promoting their products to the consumer. The industry spent over $75 million last year in lobbying Congress. According to researchers at Brandeis University, prescription drugs costs for insured individuals rose 29 % annually between 1996 and 1999. These are huge numbers any way you look at them.>>

To: opalapril who wrote (25619)	10/18/2000 2:16:55 PM
From: delmarbill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42804

Thanks for the thorough response...but I'm not sure anybody has the right answer. The numbers seem to focus only on "big pharma". It's my impression that most of the pharmaceutical R&D occurs outside of big companies, where research groups are lean and mean. The big companies do support small drug companies like the one I worked for, typically through equity investment and joint collaborations. I'm not sure how this is all accounted for in the studies you mention. The pharmaceutical industry goes way beyond big pharma. I certainly won't argue that a lot more money is being spent on advertising these days. I'm not sure its all bad, though.