So, they might be getting back 1000% more than the marketing is costing, or they might get back 10% more, or some other value. We really can't tell just from the price difference.
It also wouldn't surprise me if the makers of Neurofen (the branded one) were to be running both the branded and unbranded versions off their production line. Why should they ignore the generic market when they have production already in place that can exploit it?
This also ignores that the branded Neurofen is probably more effective despite being chemically identical to the generic. The placebo effect is remarkably strong, and one thing that triggers it is apparent extra investment in the treatment.
]]>Of course, a plain text mesage saying "$NewCharlesStrossNovel is now available" is more likely to get me to a bookshop than a full page advert saying "$NewGameofThrones_Novel is now available" is. And the facts of them being guest bloggers here sold me Kari and Stina's novels.
]]>This also ignores that the branded Neurofen is probably more effective despite being chemically identical to the generic. The placebo effect is remarkably strong, and one thing that triggers it is apparent extra investment in the treatment.
Bellinghman @108: True and true for the above. Again drawing from the experiences my significant other as a registered nurse, branded and unbranded are indeed chemically identical and often produced off the same production line. The unbranded version of over-the-counter meds are usually what is dispensed in NHS hospitals (for obvious reasons), and the placebo effect is reinforced further in these circumstances; many patients automatically believe the doses they receive in hospital are stronger, and respond accordingly.
]]>Really? Thanks! Did they give you a reason why? I'm curious because I see entries on authors with far less published in Wikipedia. (They're older and male, of course.)
]]>There is also a delusion among many US folks that it is the only country that does any drug research and development work, ditto for all medical research and treatments and the Rest Of The World relies totally on the generosity of the much-put-upon American public in matters medical. This leads to a belief that drugs are cheaper elsewhere because the US pharmaceutical companies are somehow forced to sell them at a loss there and furthermore they make up those losses by overcharging their US customers.
]]>OMG, this. The bulk of the ads on American TV these days are for giant trucks, fast food, or drugs--more often? Drugs. The change over the past few years has been so drastic that when my best friend (an ex-American who lives in London) visited she couldn't believe what she was seeing. It's appalling. I have to wonder what's the point? I mean, it's not as if we can prescribe the drug for ourselves. I know I've never asked my doctor for a drug advertised on television. Never.They also throw free samples at doctors as if they were candy. An ex-friend of mine is in pharmaceutical sales, and wow, the money she makes. She's a sales person. Their marketing budget has got to be crazy. So, pardon me while I call bullshit.
]]>My point was that it's sometimes possible to understand "pop culture" references without having listened to/read/seen the referenced material.
]]>That can't be good for keeping your job, unless you like assuming responsibility for not meeting investors' unrealistic expectations. After all, those unrealistic investors are trying desperately to amass enough money to afford the drugs they'll need at the end of life...
That's what was so unfortunate about the Supreme Court's ruling. It's legally valid, first amendment stuff, but at the same time, it's a net negative for everyone except subcontractors to the drug marketing companies. Drug costs have gone up 30-50% simply to cover marketing, doctors now get pestered with patients self-diagnosing and demanding drugs, despite the evidence (the latest? Testosterone shots for aging Boomers and Gen-Xers to get their rage on, never mind the side effects), and drug marketing goes from a rather genteel inform-the-professionals job to the obscene Red Queen drag race we have now.
Worse, perhaps, any drug that can't be advertised doesn't get developed. Testosterone doping shots get funded (even though it's a minor health issue for all but a very few), malaria pills and targeted antibiotics do not. Stupid.
]]>I did that. Wondering if DA was as popular back where made in the UK as here. Part of the is IAWL well known in the EU commentary.
]]>Of course. Grocery stores and food makers/packagers have been doing this for years in the US.
Back to drugs, Wal-Mart, Target, various drug store chains, etc... have their own private labels for various over the counter drugs. Walmart's is called Equate. Never dug deep but given the packaging, pill shapes, dosages, etc... you have to assume they are made by one of the big names. And as a part of the deal they likely give the big name a better shelf slot than all the other names. It is this kind of thing that drives the mom and pop folks out of business. They just don't have access to a house brand like the big chains.
HP and Stapes got into a big fight a few years back over Staples' generic ink and toner brands. It was settled by HP becoming Staples' lead brand for such and Staples still has their generic brand but it is now never directly compared to the HP brands. Everyone is is at the back of the bus.
]]>