<<Permanent is permanent whether some percentage of hair grows back or not.>>
Perhaps, but customers had better be provided realistic expectations of treatment outcomes, which must be priced competitively with conventional therapies. So far, that has been the exception, not the rule.
<<Palomar released 5 years worth of research to get this exclusive right to claim "permanent hair reduction">>
Bullshit! Rox Anderson's oldest reported human study is the pilot study on 13 subjects conducted in Sep'94, not quite four years ago. Moreover, the study followed all of the subjects for only 6 months, and did 1 and 2 year followups on seven of them. I am amazed that FDA appears to have accepted the results of that study (one of two submitted by Palomar), given that in 1996 it rejected Palomar's original Epilaser 510(k), which was based on the same study.
Interestingly, the one and two year followup results of that pilot study have been published in this month's Archives of Dermatology, a major peer-reviewed journal. Even more interesting is the editorial in the same issue, which criticizes the study design, and questions its findings. It also implicitly criticizes FDA's market clearance process, as a disincentive to the conduct of properly designed clinical studies.
The second study appears to have been one that is summarized in a Palomar/Coherent promotional article by Anderson, distributed at this year's Spring AAD meeting. That study followed subjects for one year, and revealed an average of about 70 to 80 percent regrowth. Big deal!
<<The "price of treatment" has nothing to do with permanent or not permanent, but helps cloud the issue.>>
Oh really! Tell that to consumers! For the typically high price of treatments, consumers expect substantially complete and permanent hair removal as the final outcome of treatment.
No doubt you are aware of the class action suit that has been filed in California, against Thermolase, alleging:
"that the results of the treatment were not permanent and were similar to results obtained by less expensive methods of hair removal, and that ThermoLase and its licensee advertised SoftLight laser hair removal as long lasting with the knowledge that such treatments did not achieve that result."
As I warned in my reply to your earlier post, clinics that proclaim Epilaser results as permanent, without explaining just how minimal the hair reduction is likely to be, and how brief the clinical followup was, will be courting similar lawsuits.
<<Marketing strategies usually start a product (or service) at the highest price that can be obtained, with prices falling as demand picks up.>>
Nonsense! Prices RISE as demand INCREASES, and FALL as demand DECREASES!
I have seen quite a bit of price-slashing by clinics. It might be argued that this is due to increased competition, as the number of laser clinics has grown. However, increased competition normally results in increased advertising, to maintain/build market share. But I have noticed a decline in advertising, leading me to suspect that consumer interest is drying up. So I regard the price-slashing as a desperate attempt to get customers in the door.
I believe my theory is supported by the complete and utter failure of the laser hair removal clinic's owned/shared by Thermolase, Palomar and MEHL/Biophile.
<<This "multi-billion dollar" industry just might start paying off.>>
What billion dollar industry?! Palomar is not a serious participant in the treatment side of the industry, nor do I see any sign that it intends to be. So what is left? Selling devices!
The estimates I have seen are for 1500 to 2000 hair removal lasers to be sold this year, which even if PMTI/COHR cornered the market, and based on $150,000 per unit, would be worth only $300 million. And if Candela continues to do well with its $60,000 box, then you are talking about a $120 million device market.
<<You do remember that they already have other lasers, I guess!>>
Name one that they are actually selling!
<<You've been right about the price drop but, in my opinion, for the wrong reasons. You know it took too long to get FDA approval. Spending millions on research and fledgling start-up companies required them to keep selling more stock while they couldn't even market their hair removal lasers because FDA had no incentive to review and promptly approve them.>>
FDA cleared Thermolase's SoftLight, the first such product reviewed, in the normal 90 day period, because they provided adequate clinical data. FDA rejected Palomar's first applicaton after 210 days, because of inadequate clinical data. One would have thought PMTI's senior technical management would have known that a pilot study is no substitute for a properly designed clinical study. In my opinion, Palomar alone is to blame for the protracted FDA clearance process.
<<New management put an end to unlimited spending on research.>>
That has not been demonstrated in any of the earnings released to-date. I would not be shocked to see them slash R&D spending in a desperate attempt to achieve profits, but as I recall, their deal with Coherent requires them to spend at least $5 million this year. We'll know soon enough whether R&D was cut in Q2.
<<Notice Coherent's press release: except for Palomar laser sales which have been strong, their other sales are down.>>
That appears to be because Coherent spent too much time selling LightSheers, from which they revenued FAR less than the decrease in the other products.
Ted Molczan |
