Assessment of the selling skills and marketing strategies of pharmaceutical companies. (1996)

1996 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dana Salim Bayoun
Author(s):  
Aseel Bin Sawad ◽  
Fatema Turkistani

Background: Since COVID-19 spreads from one person to others, it is necessary to stay away from others or reduce contact. This habit or practice is called social distancing. It encourages people to stay at their homes and to avoid crowded and/or public places. Objective: To evaluate and discuss changes and shifts in the pharmaceutical marketing strategies due to COVID-19. Methods: This is a narrative review articles and we use triangulation method to collect the related information from multiple electronic database. The results and findings of the selected articles were summarized and synthesized. Results: As the number of COVID-19 infected people grows and the uncertainty of finding a cure continues, the people are becoming more apprehensive. Pharmaceutical companies made changes to their marketing strategies. From being too invested with in-person marketing, most companies are now exploring options that do not require as much physical interaction. Pharmaceutical companies have been reliant on telemarketing, digital marketing, and miscellaneous offers. This change is primarily driven by fear of being infected by the virus and self-preservation. Conclusions: Based on the studies collected and reviewed in this paper, the changes appear to be successful especially with regard to digital marketing. This review provides an insight to marketing managers in the pharmaceutical industryto continue adjusting and modifying theirmarketing strategies due to COVID-19.Because this study focused on a specific sector (i.e., pharmaceutical)the results cannot be generalized and extended to other sectors.Future studies are needed to investigate the trends of changes and shifts of the pharmaceutical marketing strategies due to COVID-19.


Terminology ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pascaline Faure

In times past, drugs often derived from plants and were quite naturally named after them. Nowadays, considering the significant economic issues at stake (Dutchen 2009), pharmaceutical companies increasingly entrust brand agencies with the naming of their products (Kenagy 2001). In this article, we offer to analyze the names of some brand and generic drugs, exploiting the French VIDAL dictionary, the British National Formulary and the US FDA corpora, with the aim to bring to light the evolution of lexical trends over the last century. Whilst doing so, we wish to demonstrate that, in the field of pharmacology, the process of naming is nowadays not so much underlain by a legitimate need for clarity and scientificity but rather by marketing strategies some of which prove to be misleading for patients. Considering the now international dimension of the pharmaceutical industry, drug names are often the same around the world. Yet, there are exceptions, which we point out and explain. Furthermore, we deemed interesting to underline the extent to which medicines are part of our everyday life by pointing out nicknames that patients tend to give to their treatments — usually sedatives, neuroleptics and the like — and metaphors they may resort to in English and in French. We conclude with the acknowledgement that medicines are henceforth like any other goods, whose financial stakes are such that, besides developing forceful new names, the pharmaceutical industry goes so far as inventing new diseases (disease mongering) to increase its market share (Even and Debré 2012).


2004 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 181-184
Author(s):  
Amy Garrigues

On September 15, 2003, the US. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that agreements between pharmaceutical and generic companies not to compete are not per se unlawful if these agreements do not expand the existing exclusionary right of a patent. The Valley DrugCo.v.Geneva Pharmaceuticals decision emphasizes that the nature of a patent gives the patent holder exclusive rights, and if an agreement merely confirms that exclusivity, then it is not per se unlawful. With this holding, the appeals court reversed the decision of the trial court, which held that agreements under which competitors are paid to stay out of the market are per se violations of the antitrust laws. An examination of the Valley Drugtrial and appeals court decisions sheds light on the two sides of an emerging legal debate concerning the validity of pay-not-to-compete agreements, and more broadly, on the appropriate balance between the seemingly competing interests of patent and antitrust laws.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document