Apples to oranges but nice dodge. The more people know about the designer drugs the better chance they ask about them if their having an issue.

 

My my question still stands.

 

Well, I don't know those numbers and I doubt anybody here does, unless they're a CEO-type at one of these companies.

 

I'll ask a different way: Given the extreme saturation of those ads — and the commercial breaks are most definitely extremely saturated with them — don't you think they could get by spending maybe a third as much? Those ads fill every single commercial break, and I find it to be extreme overkill. Gosh, with a more reasonable amount of advertising (for products I still contend are wholly unnecessary), maybe they could actually reduce the cost of those drugs to a reasonable amount.

Well, I don't know those numbers and I doubt anybody here does, unless they're a CEO-type at one of these companies.

 

I'll ask a different way: Given the extreme saturation of those ads — and the commercial breaks are most definitely extremely saturated with them — don't you think they could get by spending maybe a third as much? Those ads fill every single commercial break, and I find it to be extreme overkill. Gosh, with a more reasonable amount of advertising (for products I still contend are wholly unnecessary), maybe they could actually reduce the cost of those drugs to a reasonable amount.

So you admit you know zero about the financial facts yet you continue to make claims that they could spend far less and make just as much. How can you say that when you don't even know what they spend or what they make?

I make no bones about my loathing of the way the corporate world operates.

 

Those numbers you are quoting — which seem to not include lobbying costs — seem very exorbitant. Do they really need to do $1.2 billion in advertising? Seems like $200 million would more than suffice, and cut down on the ridiculous amount of unnecessary vanity drug advertising on TV.

 

You clearly have no business experience in your background...

Well, I don't know those numbers and I doubt anybody here does, unless they're a CEO-type at one of these companies.

 

I'll ask a different way: Given the extreme saturation of those ads — and the commercial breaks are most definitely extremely saturated with them — don't you think they could get by spending maybe a third as much? Those ads fill every single commercial break, and I find it to be extreme overkill. Gosh, with a more reasonable amount of advertising (for products I still contend are wholly unnecessary), maybe they could actually reduce the cost of those drugs to a reasonable amount.

 

About two thirds of the ads are watching people doing stuff while we listen to all the bad things that can happen if one actually takes the drugs. Otherwise, I will assume that a pharmaceutical company develops a drug because there is a demand or need for it. And, I don't think one of us can necessarily judge these drug's importance until we have "walked in those shoes".

Well, I don't know those numbers and I doubt anybody here does, unless they're a CEO-type at one of these companies.

 

I'll ask a different way: Given the extreme saturation of those ads — and the commercial breaks are most definitely extremely saturated with them — don't you think they could get by spending maybe a third as much? Those ads fill every single commercial break, and I find it to be extreme overkill. Gosh, with a more reasonable amount of advertising (for products I still contend are wholly unnecessary), maybe they could actually reduce the cost of those drugs to a reasonable amount.

 

Ironically, I kind of feel this way about advertising for people to stop smoking. Maybe cancer could be cured, or cigarettes made more safe, or better methods to quit made available instead of spending all the money on advertising.