A Quote by Marcia Angell
Drug companies say they need to charge ever-higher prices to cover their research costs, but they spend far less on research and development than they do on marketing and administration, and afterwards they actually keep more in profits.
Quote Topics
Quote Author
Related Quotes
Drug companies spend more on advertising and marketing than on research, more on research on lifestyle drugs than on life saving drugs, and almost nothing on diseases that affect developing countries only. This is not surprising. Poor people cannot afford drugs, and drug companies make investments that yield the highest returns.
Requiring the payment of higher wages will lead to a loss of some jobs and a raising of prices which drives companies to search for automation to reduce costs. On the other hand, those receiving higher wages will spend more (the marginal propensity to consume is close to 1 for low income earners) and this will increase demand for additional goods and services. Henry Ford had the clearest vision of why companies can actually benefit by paying higher wages.
The irony here is this administration is spending more money on climate change research and development than any administration in all the rest of the industrialized world combined.
IBM isn't investing billions of dollars every year into research and development - and winning more patents than our top 10 competitors combined for more than a decade - as an academic exercise. But research is now being driven much more by what people need rather than just by what is possible.
Big companies are looking closer term, and even the most technological companies spend less than 1% of sales on research. Startups have suffered the burst bubble.
It's easy to complain that pharmaceutical companies place profits over people and apparently care more about hair loss than TB. However, many in the pharmaceutical industry would be glad for the opportunity to reorient their research toward medicines that are truly needed, provided only that such research is financially sustainable.
America needs the best education system in the world. We have it in higher education. We do not have it in general education for all of our people - the K-12 education. Other nations are far, far outdoing the United States in that area. We still have the lead in research, but once again, other nations are pouring more into research also. We still have a lead, but to me it's just very, very important that we keep that lead in basic research.
If you look at the expenses of a great pharmaceutical company, they pay between about 10 to 15 percent of their expenses for research, but they use 30 to 40 percent of their incomes for marketing and promotion. It is not completely wrong that they spend so much, but it is not correct to say that there is a direct connection between the price of drugs and the cost of research. It could be more between the cost of marketing and the cost of the drugs.
We are working to understand the tastes of people born in the 1980s and 1990s - it is very different from my generation. We do our own research. Marketing research companies, I think, are relatively academic.
Drug companies should not be allowed to reap excessive profits or spend unreasonable amounts on marketing if they want to receive support that is designed to encourage life- saving and health-improving treatments.
Most innovation is not done by research institutes and national laboratories. It comes from manufacturing - from companies that want to extend their product reach, improve their costs, increase their returns. What's very important is in-house research.
US spend more on research and development than the other countries, so we shouldn't be making the internet a more hostile, a more aggressive territory.
When companies minimize their costs, they can spend more on R & D and marketing. It's just very logical.
This morning, prompted by increasing concerns about terrorism, oil prices reached a record high as the cost of a barrel of crude is a whopping $44.34. Wow, it seems shocking that a product of finite supply gets more expensive the more we use it. Now the terror alert means higher oil prices, which oddly enough means higher profits for oil companies giving them more money to give to politicians whose policies may favor the oil companies such as raising the terror alert level. As Simba once told us: "It's the circle of life."
To economists, prices serve as crucial signals to producers and consumers. In a regulated market, the state sets prices high enough for private companies to cover their costs and earn a guaranteed profit for their investors. But in a deregulated market, prices should vary with demand and supply.
Having a higher purpose is more than just about profits. You actually end up making more profits in the long run because employees really are a lot more engaged and customers see the higher purpose in the company.
Related Authors
Andre Leon Talley Quotes
American
Editor
Anna Wintour Quotes
English
Editor
Bari Weiss Quotes
American
Editor
Carine Roitfeld Quotes
French
Editor
Claire Saffitz Quotes
American
Editor
Denis Diderot Quotes
French
Editor
Diana Vreeland Quotes
American
Editor
George Jean Nathan Quotes
American
Editor
Heather Mac Donald Quotes
American
Editor
Joanna Coles Quotes
American
Editor
Jon Meacham Quotes
American
Editor
Kevin Kelly Quotes
American
Editor
Lewis H. Lapham Quotes
American
Editor
Susan L. Taylor Quotes
American
Editor
Thelma Schoonmaker Quotes
Algerian
Editor
Tina Brown Quotes
American
Editor