[a_puppy]

But presumably the advertising department pays for itself, right? So if they cut the advertising department, wouldn't they have less total money in the end? The advertising supports the R&D, not competes with it.

(The one exception is when two pharma companies have competing drugs that are basically equivalent. So they get trapped in a "Red Queen's race" where they both spend money on advertising to try to gain market share. In the end they've both spent a bunch of money on ads and ended up back where they started. For those cases, I think government regulation would be valuable.)

[AlbertCory]

You seem to have supplied your own conclusion here. I didn't say UCB should do anything in particular: cut it, increase it, or keep it the same.

[sudosysgen]

If there wasn't a competing drug there would be no need for ads, the only drug would get prescribed anyways.

[AlbertCory]

They want the "ask your doctor about..." bits to be heard and followed, I'm guessing. People who thought they just had to live with it will now go in and ask for Bimzelx.

[sudosysgen]

As someone with psoriasis, I seriously doubt anyone with severe plaque psoriasis is going to go from no treatment to monoclonal antibodies. In fact, your insurance won't even pay for it no matter how good it is unless you try other courses of treatment first. The effect is going to be changing from one course of treatment to the next, asking your doctor about it is a call to action.

[Physkal]

To counter a Red Queens race is to spend twice as much in advertisements?