The Roles of Marketing, Product Quality and Price Competition in the Growth and Composition of the U.S. Anti-Ulcer Drug Industry
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.
|Date of creation:||Oct 1994|
|Publication status:||published as Berndt, Ernst R., Linda T. Bui, David R. Reiley and Glen L. Urban. "Information, Marketing, And Pricing In The U.S. Antiulcer Drug Market," American Economic Review, 1995, v85(2), 100-105.|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.|
Web page: http://www.nber.org
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Diewert, Erwin, 2007. "Index Numbers," Economics working papers diewert-07-01-03-08-17-23, Vancouver School of Economics, revised 31 Jan 2007.
- 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.
- Schmalensee, Richard, 1982.
"Product Differentiation Advantages of Pioneering Brands,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 349-365, June.
- Schmalensee, Richard., 1980. "Product differentiation advantages of pioneering brands," Working papers 1140-80., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
- Reekie, W Duncan, 1978. "Price and Quality Competition in the United States Drug Industry," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(3), pages 223-237, March.
- 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.
- Perloff, Jeffrey M. & Suslow, Valerie Y. & Seguin, Paul J., 1995. "Higher Prices from Entry: Pricing of Brand-Name Drugs," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt75g4k1nt, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Perloff, Jeffrey M. & Suslow, Valerie Y. & Seguin, Paul J., 1996. "Higher Prices from Entry: Pricing of Brand-Name Drugs," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt1sh175fc, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
- Perloff, Jeffrey M. & Suslow, Valerie Y. & Seguin, Paul J., 1995. "Higher Prices from Entry: Pricing of Brand-Name Drugs," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt1ts674n2, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Timothy F. Bresnahan & Peter C. Reiss, 1990. "Entry in Monopoly Market," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 57(4), pages 531-553.
- 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.
- Zvi Griliches & Frank R. Lichtenberg, 1984. "R&D and Productivity Growth at the Industry Level: Is There Still a Relationship?," NBER Chapters,in: R&D, Patents, and Productivity, pages 465-502 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- 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 342-354, June.
- 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.
- Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
- 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 349-362, July.
- Gasmi, F. & Laffont, J. J. & Vuong, Q. H., 1990. "A structural approach to empirical analysis of collusive behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 34(2-3), pages 513-523, May.
- David B. Montgomery & Alvin J. Silk, 1972. "Estimating Dynamic Effects of Market Communications Expenditures," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(10), pages 485-501, June. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)