Search results

This article has been withdrawn as it was published elsewhere and accidentally duplicated. The original article can be seen here: 10.1108/10610420910972756. When citing the article, please cite: Herbert Jack Rotfeld, (2009), “Function and problems of brand name pharmaceuticals”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 18 Iss: 4, pp. 240 - 241.

The purpose of this paper is to explain that theories provide an important tool for practitioners in guiding decisions by explaining and predicting consumer decision making when new specific research data might be unavailable. This is true despite the problems caused by some academic journal articles’ use and abuse of theory development. The argument for this crucial role of theory in marketing practice explains reasons why many practitioners dislike academic research and related theory development, as well as points out where practitioners’ criticisms are valid.

Delineation of problems in journal articles and some research notes the overall value of work for marketing practice and (indirectly) points out the important value of practitioner-focused research publications.

While marketing practitioners are wrong to condemn all theory development as useless, too often in too many ways, researchers and journals deserve it. Yet, despite the problems, marketing practice needs marketing theory.

This paper points out an ongoing common myopia of marketing practice, whereby practitioners miss out on the value of theory development.

Under what might be one of the most well‐known new consumer protection activities in the USA, people can register their phone numbers with the “Do‐not‐call” registry that assures to block most commercial telemarketing calls. While it is hard to find a member of the general public who is opposed to the program, the telemarketing companies claim that it would cause a massive loss of jobs and some legal scholars assert that it violates provisions of the US Constitution. However, the regulation could actually improve telemarketing practice and the general efficiency of the business, making it more profitable.

The purpose of this paper is to recognize how common practices of selling textbooks to university educators provide the tools for the faculty to minimize their teaching efforts. When coupled with higher education practices that see students as customers, such as university administrators' day‐to‐day goals driven by concerns of complaint avoidance, students “voting with their feet” for popular courses or the evaluation of teaching by use of students' evaluations of faculty, actual education gets minimized.

The paper describes common supplemental teaching aids provided to adopters of textbooks, but noting that the extensive use of these tools results in decreasing outcomes of student learning. The textbook publishers are using good marketing practices in that these textbook supplements target faculty who teach large numbers of students every year. In turn, the faculty who rely on these aids can become very popular with students. However, marketing to these segments of faculty and (indirectly) to these students might actually encourage the growth of these segments to the detriment of the smaller numbers of students who actually want an education and faculty would be willing to do the work to provide it.

The paper finds that, while popular attention such as the US “No Child Left Behind” legislation has been toward the primary education levels to ensure students are actually learning to read and write and while high schools increasingly use high stakes testing before students are allowed to graduate, the marketing practices of higher education could be serving the decline of thinking among college graduates. Textbooks target sales to faculty who want quantities of teaching aids to simplify the work, and schools can make classes more popular by asking students to do less thinking.

The paper provides a critical statement of common higher education practices that are not widely known or whose dangers are ignored.

Looks at the use of brand names in the pharmaceutical industry in comparison with generic versions. Gives a brief history of brand name development. Concludes that brand names for pharmaceutical drugs should be banned since this is open to abuse in the area of cost enhancement.

The purpose of this paper is to note the advertising business overspending on advertising messages that is often done with minimal consideration to the impact or effects of many consumer exposures.

The paper notes textbooks statement of advertising budget spending as the money needed to attain pragmatic communications goals and compares this to the ongoing business reality of media planning that mostly devolves into maximization of audience exposures to mass media vehicles carrying the brand or company name.

The pragmatic business need is for more questioning the value of media spending, not as return on investment, but how it contributes to overall communications concerns. The media planners dilemma is the uncertainty of the effects of every additional audience exposure, thus (and too often) they take the easy route and simply resolve to purchase as many target audience impressions as possible for as low a price as can be negotiated.

This paper asks an important question that many people in the advertising business try to avoid: “Why is so much money being spent?”. While it is difficult to track the impact of every single vehicle placement, the media planners should at least try to question what is the real strategy behind efforts to maximize target audience exposures to vehicles carrying the company logo.

Focuses on the mismanagement by trade association leaders who focus on wrong areas. Suggests that they would do well to remember their experience as a member rather than as a leader in order for them to maintain their marketing perspective.

Discusses the growing problem of poor customer service due to the unskilled personnel that are employed. Provides anecdotal evidence of service encounters where the experiences of the customers were unsatisfactory. Expresses the concern that the orientation has shifted from the customer to the employees.

Focuses on “bad” advertising commercials and asserts that such advertising is not because of a lack of creativity, entertainment value or money for production. Bad advertising is often because advertising creators fail to focus on potential end customers, and what they need to see and hear.

This paper aims to note the imitation of apparently successful advertising as a replacement for thought by too many advertisers, misapplying the tactics of what seem to be past successes by other companies to current situations, sometimes not even attempting to find insight relevant to the current advertising situation. Imitation of what may be lucky accidents has become a tool for improper applications of old tactics to new problems.

Noting the frequent pronouncements by business journalists that many businesses do things because they know they “work,” the reality is that even among marketing professionals, conventional wisdom is often, at best, an oxymoron.

The pragmatic business need is to analyze new situations and consumer interests.

The paper shows that, since advertising decisions are often the recommendations from outside suppliers, business managers who pay for this advice must realize that past success by others does not mean that an imitative effort will enjoy similar success. Without data on how or why the other effort might have been successful means that imitation could be borrowing the worst parts of the earlier ideas.