Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 160 posts

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#151

Post by navigatesol »

mettamage wrote: post #148
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all marketing is "educating consumers about your product". Some of it is manufacturing a desire for your product. Look at car ads. Do they say "The new 2019 models are available"? A few do. Do they say "This car gets better gas mileage" or "This car is safer"? A few do. Most say "If you drive this car, you'll get the hot girl". That's not "educating consumers". That's trying to make consumers want your product on…

I simply wondered if I could play devil's advocate by looking up some research about men spending money for cars in order to attract women. I mean, most psychologists are men right? Surely, someone had the bright idea to look into this (I wonder if anyone has done it regarding the other way around, I'm too lazy to look it up since I can't play devil's advocate with that). As it turns out, there is research on it! The…

>"And indeed, a man who was seated in a luxury car was perceived as more attractive by women compared to the same man seated in a nonluxury car (Dunn & Searle, 2010).

Surprised the PC Police haven't demolished you for pointing out that, on average, women are attracted to men who convey wealth (even though it's blatantly obvious).

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#152

Post by navigatesol »

vonmoltke wrote: post #114
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all marketing is "educating consumers about your product". Some of it is manufacturing a desire for your product. Look at car ads. Do they say "The new 2019 models are available"? A few do. Do they say "This car gets better gas mileage" or "This car is safer"? A few do. Most say "If you drive this car, you'll get the hot girl". That's not "educating consumers". That's trying to make consumers want your product on…

> Look at car ads. Do they say "The new 2019 models are available"? A few do. Do they say "This car gets better gas mileage" or "This car is safer"? A few do. Most say "If you drive this car, you'll get the hot girl". That's not "educating consumers". That's trying to make consumers want your product on the basis of something completely unrelated to your product. You and I must be watching different commercials, beca…

>You and I must be watching different commercials, because I see far more of the former.

I think it's changed a lot since the 60s and 70s. Cars are seen as more utilitarian now, and younger people don't even care about getting their license, let alone being concerned with "what you drive".

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#153

Post by navigatesol »

tynpeddler wrote: post #104
cwkoss wrote: post #4

The marketing of medicine in inherently unethical because it seeks to override doctors and consumers information-based evaluations, and instead make a choice based on emotional propaganda. The harm caused by any given medical advertisement is directly proportional to its effectiveness. Every pharmaceutical sales rep is an immoral cancer on our society.

>The marketing of medicine in inherently unethical because it seeks to override doctors and consumers information-based evaluations, and instead make a choice based on emotional propaganda. This is far to simplistic. It's fairly common for doctors to be unaware or poorly informed on new or uncommon treatments. They have a finite amount of time and brainpower and are not all knowing.

>They have a finite amount of time and brainpower and are not all knowing.

Yeah, there seems to be this contradiction here that doctors are naive or corrupt and are going to be swayed into prescribing us drugs we don't need, but also that we should be leaving it 100% up to doctors to be informed and prescribe us what we need.

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#154

Post by blaser-waffle »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #126
harshreality wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody needs to discover what drugs are suitable for them. This is medicine, not a restaurant menu. If you're diagnosed with a medical condition or have a specific ailment, then you can investigate potential treatments. The status quo "compromise" solution gets this exactly backwards. "This drug will make your life better. So ask your doctor so they'll comb through your medical records and history looking for somethi…

> If you're diagnosed with a medical condition or have a specific ailment, then you can investigate potential treatments I know at least a few people who didn't realize they had an ailment until seeing the symptoms listed on an ad. There is a balance between promoting new drugs (and the affiliated afflictions) to the general public and pushing medicines to doctors.

That's because medical companies made it up to sell more drugs. Restless leg syndrome wasn't a thing until pharma starting pushing drugs for it.

Legit palsey is a completely different story.

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#155

Post by blaser-waffle »

foolbiter wrote: post #26
happytoexplain wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Every pharmaceutical sales rep is an immoral cancer on our society. This seems like one of the most cleanly horizontally divided opinions in all of the US - where nearly everybody agrees loudly and strongly with it except the wealthy and powerful. I wish a presidential candidate would have the balls to echo this severe but obviously popular thought and fix the fucking system with extreme prejudice.

There are at least two currently-running candidates who do seem have the balls to directly confront the pharma industry! Why do you think there aren't?

Because the people that will likely win the nomination will almost certainly have big money, to include Big Pharma, behind them. Ads, research, propaganda, and aggressive ground games work, but they need money. Like multi-national corp or nation-state level money[1].

Hilary had some uncomfortable ties to Wall Street -- she was a Senator from NY, mind you -- and the DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz picked up a lot of Budweiser money by scrapping any DNC talk of Marijuana Legalization (DWS has long battle MJ Legalization in Florida, so she's been taking their money for a while, or was a sympathetic bribe for Alcohol). But I could have lived with that in exchange for working health care and sane foreign policy.

[1] see also: the russian firehose of propaganda -- https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#156

Post by fuzz4lyfe »

jplayer01 wrote: post #146
umvi wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think society would benefit immensely from banning the advertising of drugs. This includes both medicinal and recreational drugs. Make all drugs legal, but mandate they have boring text/information-only labels, put the more dangerous ones behind the counter in smaller quantities, and let the only thing influencing their purchase be doctor recommendations/prescriptions or personal research. It should apply evenly fr…

Isn't the opioid crisis caused by sales reps directly marketing to doctors and promising benefits that didn't really exist (lower risk of addiction, lower dosis required for certain amounts of time)? Not sure how removing marketing to consumers changes the situation.

In my view it is that combined with the welfare reform act. Once welfare was limited to 5 years people moved to SSDI to receive payments, opiate drugs became more popular and now we have a system when the government will pay you and give you heroin if you jump through the right hoops. As we have effectively subsidized addiction it shouldn't be surprising that it has increased dramatically.

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#157

Post by mettamage »

navigatesol wrote: post #151
mettamage wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I simply wondered if I could play devil's advocate by looking up some research about men spending money for cars in order to attract women. I mean, most psychologists are men right? Surely, someone had the bright idea to look into this (I wonder if anyone has done it regarding the other way around, I'm too lazy to look it up since I can't play devil's advocate with that). As it turns out, there is research on it! The…

> "And indeed, a man who was seated in a luxury car was perceived as more attractive by women compared to the same man seated in a nonluxury car (Dunn & Searle, 2010). Surprised the PC Police haven't demolished you for pointing out that, on average, women are attracted to men who convey wealth (even though it's blatantly obvious).

A couple of things:

I said:

> Personally, I don't car (sic! also no pun intended) about any of this. However, academically (from an evolutionary psych. view, lol): yes, men are seen as a more desirable mate!

So first, I see evolutionary psychology as a joke and I don't care about the research because I think it's all lies anyway. I'm a bitter man when it comes to the promises of psychology being truthful about how humans think (the field has too many issues).

Secondly, I simply quoted research. And remember from point 1, distanced myself from that opinion.

Thirdly, in my experience I never needed to flaunt my wealth in order to attract women. I think the same is true for most if not all of my friends (both sexes). Disclaimer: I'm Dutch (maybe culture is a thing).

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#158

Post by kube-system »

flukus wrote: post #144
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're diagnosed with a medical condition or have a specific ailment, then you can investigate potential treatments I know at least a few people who didn't realize they had an ailment until seeing the symptoms listed on an ad. There is a balance between promoting new drugs (and the affiliated afflictions) to the general public and pushing medicines to doctors.

In Australia you're allowed to advertise about the existence and symptoms of medical conditions just not to recommend any specific treatment other than "talk to your doctor". The pharmacist is also obliged to offer generic versions of drugs at purchase.

I think that’s a good compromise.

BTW, it’s actually pretty common in many US states for pharmacists to be required by law to fill prescriptions with their generic equivalents.

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#159

Post by ciupicri »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #87
enraged_camel wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> This may come as a shock to you, but marketing pharmaceuticals is really no different than marketing other products. Really? You don't see the difference between marketing, say, a car or a smartphone, and marketing a drug that treats a life-threatening condition? Perhaps you should think about this subject a bit more deeply. >> I'd say less than 5% of doctors are cutting edge enough that they require no additional…

I'm not a fan of drug advertising (I want it regulated, not banned) but I don't see how it's categorically different than other advertising. Chronic pain (and a whole host of other issues) aren't life threatening. Until the mid 20th century people just lived with chronic pain and tons of other things. Look at the kinds of TV ads you see, they're for drugs that minimize the symptoms of some some negative, but not life…

On the other hand heroin and other drugs were available.

Re: McKinsey Advised Johnson and Johnson on Increasing Opioid Sales

#160

Post by happytoexplain »

sverige wrote: post #120
happytoexplain wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Every pharmaceutical sales rep is an immoral cancer on our society. This seems like one of the most cleanly horizontally divided opinions in all of the US - where nearly everybody agrees loudly and strongly with it except the wealthy and powerful. I wish a presidential candidate would have the balls to echo this severe but obviously popular thought and fix the fucking system with extreme prejudice.

[flagged]

Why play the victim before anybody has attacked you? I agree, that's my favorite thing he's done. He can be a bad orange man on the par too.
Post reply on HN