John Mack attributes one of my contributors words to me. So first some remedial education. When I say that this is The Industry Veteran’s views on XYZ, and here are The Veteran’s words, and I introduce that in an indented paragraph, I mean that a guy calling himself The Industry Veteran wrote it and he is NOT me. If an article appears here without such a paragraph you can assume that I wrote it. Sorry to be pedantic, but my desire to have differing view-points up here why this is called The Health Care Blog and not Matthew Holt shoots his mouth off about health care. It’s the same theory as the New York Times having Paul Krugman and David Brooks both writing op-eds. I have enough opinions of my own without wishing to have other people’s attributed to me–even if I agree! And just to prove it I’ll have another article from Eric Novack up here very soon..
Meanwhile, what John has to say about the Veteran’s words is pretty interesting. He notes that the tone set by pharma comes from the top, and I think that the Veteran would agree.
Considering that almost on a daily basis, one hears or reads about unethical pharmaceutical marketing to some degree, one could conclude that the pharmaceutical companies do not strive to be ethical, or are they required to be so by those who are suppose to regulate thier activities.
Yes, I’ve known Jack for years. I couldn’t even leave a comment thanking him for a link to me!
It didn’t appear to me that IV was saying this was the fault of the marketers. Usually when you’re talking about longterm strategy, you’re not directing your criticisms towards sales reps, it’s criticism of the people who set the longterm strategy, i.e. top management.
Perhaps Mr. Mack is a little touchy about the assault on Pharma marketing (“Hey, I’m not soulless, I’m in marketing, it’s the CEO’s job to give me a soul!”). He also doesn’t accept comments, so I’ll comment here.