{"id":13760,"date":"2011-04-27T09:30:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-27T07:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.fedaiisf.it\/griffati-usa-in-calo-vendite-e-spesa-promozionale\/"},"modified":"2011-04-27T09:30:00","modified_gmt":"2011-04-27T07:30:00","slug":"griffati-usa-in-calo-vendite-e-spesa-promozionale","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.fedaiisf.it\/en\/griffati-usa-in-calo-vendite-e-spesa-promozionale\/","title":{"rendered":"Griffati Usa, sales and promotional spending are down"},"content":{"rendered":"

Sales of 'designer' drugs are down in the United States, with implications also for the promotion sector. In fact, marketing spending fell by 4.1%, above all by the most important 'players' such as Pfizer, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline, which in 2010 dedicated almost 740 million dollars less to the 'push' of their brands than in 2009. observes Melissa Leonhauser, strategic marketing director of Sdi. <\/p>\n

<\/font><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

Last week, Ims Health data showed a 2.3% increase in overseas drug sales in 2010, a much slower progression than in 2009, when +5.1% was recorded. In this context, 'designer' medicines suffered a drop of 0.7% to 229 billion dollars. So all this was followed by a resizing<\/strong> resources dedicated to the promotion of the various brands, especially for information to doctors and meetings, while there was an increase in spending on advertising in scientific journals<\/strong>. <\/p>\n

<\/font><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

Pfizer, Merck and GSK have favored direct promotion to consumers, permitted in the US, while Pfizer was the only one of the three brands to expand resources for e-promotion.<\/p>\n

<\/font><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

Barbara Di Chiara \u2013 April 27, 2011 . FarmaKronos<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/em><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Calano le vendite dei farmaci ‘griffati’ negli Stati Uniti, con implicazioni anche nel settore della promozione. La spesa per marketing è infatti scesa del 4,1%, soprattutto da parte dei ‘giocatori’ più importanti come Pfizer, Merck e GlaxoSmithKline, che nel 2010 hanno dedicato alla ‘spinta’ dei loro marchi quasi 740 milioni dollari in meno rispetto al …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":9846,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[90],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13760","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-fedaiisf-archivio-storico"],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fedaiisf.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13760","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fedaiisf.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fedaiisf.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fedaiisf.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fedaiisf.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13760"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.fedaiisf.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13760\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fedaiisf.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9846"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fedaiisf.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13760"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fedaiisf.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13760"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fedaiisf.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13760"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}