IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this book chapter or follow this series

The Roles of Marketing, Product Quality, and Price Competition in the Growth and Composition of the U.S. Antiulcer Drug Industry

In: The Economics of New Goods

Author Info

  • Ernst R. Berndt
  • Linda T. Bui
  • David H. Lucking-Reiley
  • Glen L. Urban

Abstract

The introduction of Tagamet in the United States in 1977 represented both a revolution in ulcer therapy and the beginning of an important new industry. Today there are four prescription H2- antagonist drugs: Tagamet, Zantac, Pepcid and Axid, and they comprise a multi-billion dollar market for the treatment of ulcers and other gastric acid conditions. In this paper, we examine the determinants of sales in this market, using a carefully constructed data set made possible by IMS America. We concentrate particularly on the marketing of these drugs to physicians through detailing and medical journal advertising, and we make an innovative attempt to distinguish between 'industry-expanding' and 'rivalrous' marketing efforts. We find that the impact of total marketing on the expansion of overall industry sales declines as the number of products on the market increases. In addition, we find that the stock of industry-expanding marketing depreciates at a near-zero rate, while the stock of marketing oriented towards rivalrous market share competition depreciates at a 40% annual rate. We also find that the products' sales are affected significantly by price, quality attributes (such as number of FDA- approved indications and number of adverse drug interactions), and order of entry into the market.

(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c6070.pdf
Download Restriction: no

as
in new window

This chapter was published in:
  • Timothy F. Bresnahan & Robert J. Gordon, 1996. "The Economics of New Goods," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number bres96-1, May.
    • This item is provided by National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc in its series NBER Chapters with number 6070.
    Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberch:6070
    Contact details of provider: Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.
    Phone: 617-868-3900
    Web page: http://www.nber.org
    Email:


    More information through EDIRC

    Keywords:

    Other versions of this item:

    Find related papers by JEL classification:
    • D43 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Oligopoly and Other Forms of Market Imperfection
    • L65 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - Chemicals; Rubber; Drugs; Biotechnology

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. Schmalensee, Richard., 1980. "Product differentiation advantages of pioneering brands," Working papers 1140-80., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    2. Diewert, Erwin, 2007. "Index Numbers," Economics working papers diewert-07-01-03-08-17-23, Vancouver School of Economics, revised 31 Jan 2007.
    3. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "R&D and Productivity Growth at the Industry Level: Is There Still a Relationship?," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 213-240 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Glen L. Urban & Theresa Carter & Steven Gaskin & Zofia Mucha, 1986. "Market Share Rewards to Pioneering Brands: An Empirical Analysis and Strategic Implications," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(6), pages 645-659, June.
    5. Cocks, Douglas L & Virts, John R, 1974. "Pricing Behavior of the Ethical Pharmaceutical Industry," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(3), pages 349-62, July.
    6. Berndt, Ernst R & Wood, David O, 1979. "Engineering and Econometric Interpretations of Energy-Capital Complementarity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(3), pages 342-54, June.
    7. Reekie, W Duncan, 1978. "Price and Quality Competition in the United States Drug Industry," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(3), pages 223-37, March.
    8. Bresnahan, Timothy F & Reiss, Peter C, 1990. "Entry in Monopoly Markets," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(4), pages 531-53, October.
    9. Gurumurthy Kalyanaram & Glen L. Urban, 1992. "Dynamic Effects of the Order of Entry on Market Share, Trial Penetration, and Repeat Purchases for Frequently Purchased Consumer Goods," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(3), pages 235-250.
    10. David B. Montgomery & Alvin J. Silk, 1972. "Estimating Dynamic Effects of Market Communications Expenditures," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(10), pages B485-B501, June.
    11. Leffler, Keith B, 1981. "Persuasion or Information? The Economics of Prescription Drug Advertising," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(1), pages 45-74, April.
    12. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. " Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    as in new window


    Cited by:

    1. Jonathan Skinner & Douglas Staiger, 2005. "Technology adoption from hybrid corn to beta blockers," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
    2. Iain M. Cockburn & Aslam H. Anis, 2001. "Hedonic Analysis of Arthritis Drugs," NBER Chapters, in: Medical Care Output and Productivity, pages 439-462 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Ching, Andrew & Ishihara, Masakazu, 2007. "The Effects of Detailing on Prescribing Decisions under Two-Sided Learning," MPRA Paper 4935, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Marco Ottaviani, . "Monopoly Pricing with Social Learning," ELSE working papers 035, ESRC Centre on Economics Learning and Social Evolution.
    5. Ching, Andrew T., 2010. "Consumer learning and heterogeneity: Dynamics of demand for prescription drugs after patent expiration," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 619-638, November.
    6. Berndt, Ernst R. & Pindyck, Robert S. & Azoulay, Pierre, 1970-, 1998. "Network effects and diffusion in pharmaceutical markets : antiulcer drugs," Working papers WP 4059-98., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    7. Abbott, Thomas III, 1995. "Price regulation in the pharmaceutical industry: Prescription or placebo?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(5), pages 551-565, December.
    8. Amitabh Chandra & David Malenka & Jonathan Skinner, 2013. "The Diffusion of New Medical Technology: The Case of Drug-Eluting Stents," NBER Chapters, in: Discoveries in the Economics of Aging, pages 389-403 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Venkataraman, S. & Stremersch, S., 2007. "The Debate on Influencing Doctors’ Decisions: Are Drug Characteristics the Missing Link?," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2007-056-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    10. Andrew Ching, 2000. "Dynamic Equilibrium in the US Prescription Drug Market After Patent Expiration," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 1242, Econometric Society.
    11. Sara Fisher Ellison & Catherine Wolfram, 2001. "Pharmaceutical Prices and Political Activity," NBER Working Papers 8482, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Access and download statistics

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberch:6070. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ()

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.