MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2185030980

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF BRANDING IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY

2005· dissertation· en· W2185030980 sur OpenAlexfundno aff
Zahra Ladha

Notice bibliographique

RevueSummit (Simon Fraser University) · 2005
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
ThématiquePharmaceutical Economics and Policy
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesSimon Fraser University
Mots-clésPharmaceutical industryBusinessAdvertisingBiotechnologyBiology
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Traditionally, and for several years, consumer goods companies have relied heavily on branding to successfully market and sell products.Recently, however, the pharmaceutical industry has recognized the importance and significance of branding even more and has re-structured their marketing departments t o now include brand managers for their products.Consumer goods companies have followed a particular structure in how they brand their products.It is still debatable, however, if this model can be transferred and adapted t o the pharmaceutical industry.This paper discusses the meaning of branding in general, and discusses the advantages and disadvantages of it.Next, the need for branding in the pharmaceutical company is discussed followed by the advantages and challenges of branding in this industry.Examples are given of pharmaceutical companies that currently use these branding strategies.The paper proceeds with a discussion about specific branding strategies that are effective for this industry, and finally, consumer perceptions of generic versus branded drugs are examined.I n addition to the secondary research discussed in this paper, additional primary research is conducted to answer several questions pertaining t o consumer views on branded versus generic medications in terms of perception of price differential, advertising differences, and purchase decision influences.The results are discussed followed by some implications and conclusions.Finally, the project concludes with some recommendations to pharmaceutical companies about the results of the paper and tips for successful branding.This paper involves research that is done on two levels, secondary, through library and internet searches, and primary, conducted by the author in order to answer some questions that were not necessarily answered sufficiently from prior research.The information presented in this section comes from the general conclusion of the secondary research, followed by findings of the primary research.Branding has persisted for centuries as a way t o distinguish one producer's goods from another manufacturer's products and services.An understanding of customer-based brand equity is essential in order to fully understand branding and it's advantages.Customer-based brand equity is the differential effect that brand knowledge has on consumer response to the marketing of that brand.I n the world of consumer goods and services, companies have used branding techniques to achieve competitive advantage for many decades.I n the fast moving consumer goods industry (FMCG) brands are viewed as the key assets of the company, and all resources are utilised to create and develop brands (Schuiling and Moss, 2004).While the core principles and strategies for branding a medical product is the same as for any product, there are some differences in the pharmaceutical industry.Due to differences in regulations of marketing and selling drugs, many of the strategies used to market consumer products are unacceptable practices in healthcare.As a result of profound change experienced by pharmaceutical companies, they must embrace marketing and branding strategies to a greater extent then they have in the past.Changes in the way medications are marketed and sold make it significantly important for these companies to brand their products.The early years of the prescription lifecycle will be important for drug companies to establish brands that are ready to be switched to over the counter.Branding can represent a new competitive advantage.Pharmaceutical branding is an important way to create awareness among potential benefits of drugs and medicines.Brand building during the period a new drug remains under patent can help prolong the commercial life of a product once its monopoly status lapses since once the drug's patent expires, the name of the drug has to be changed.Positioning, as well as other important element for branding including communicating the product's differentiation from rivals, pricing it competitively, and emphasizing its performance to physicians, will be instrumental in prescribing the drug.I n order to brand successfully, companies can use a combination of any of the following brand elements: logos, slogans, packaging, names, characters and symbols.Condition branding and corporate branding are also ways in which pharmaceutical companies can successfully market their products, create brand awareness and loyalty.Some research, however, does show that pharmaceutical branding may not actually work.As a result of concerns regarding regulation and the return on investment of direct-to-consumer advertising, pharmaceutical companies have had to re-think their advertising strategies.With respect to consumer perceptions of generic versus branded medication, the author's primary research results show that Tylenol is the first brand that comes to mind when thinking of cold medication.It is the brand chosen by 97% of the respondents.I n addition, although the majority know what Viagra is, only 25% know that it is actually manufactured by Pfizer, indicating that Pfizer, due to advertising regulations, does not use corporate branding on that particular medication.Other interesting findings based on descriptive frequencies are that 97 percent of these individuals are not likely to ask a physician about a brand they saw advertised.Moreover, the majority of the respondents are not likely to purchase a medication after hearing about it on an advertisement.Most of them are very likely to purchase the same brands they have historically purchased.Consumers perceived a difference in price between generic and branded drugs.People place much more importance on brand name as a key decision making influencer in purchasing non-prescription drugs than prescription drugs.I n terms of physician recommendation, pharmacist recommendation, advertisements, and family or friend recommendations, importance levels differ between prescription and non-prescription drugs.For example, people vii place much more importance on brand name for non-prescription drugs than prescription drugs, whereas for non-prescription drugs, they need to choose themselves. DEDICATIONThis project is dedicated to m y loving parents, brother, sister-in-law, and sister, whose limitless love and support -(both emotional and financial!), have always guided me on the path to successfully achieving all m y goals.Thank you for everything, I love you all.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,008
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,036

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,019
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,006
Communication savante0,0080,006
Science ouverte0,0000,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,047
Tête enseignante GPT0,281
Écart entre enseignants0,234 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2005
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueSummit (Simon Fraser University)Même sujetPharmaceutical Economics and PolicyTravaux en français237 207