Pfizer Competitor Analysis
RiDUCES and Competitor Analysis
Pfizer, Inc: Branded Pharmaceutical Industry-Oncology Pharmaceuticals
Executive Summary
The value that the branded pharmaceutical industry adds to the US economy is growing slower than US GDP (Snyder, 2012). Rivalry has intensified while the rate of blockbuster drug development has slowed due to an increase in regulation from the government and the industry trade association, PhRMA. The number of new entrants is fairly low and some are exiting or consolidating through mergers and acquisitions. Downstream and upstream factors are crucial to the specialty pharmaceutical sector of this industry since supply and distribution are different than in traditional branded pharmaceuticals. Complementors such as antiemetics and substitutes such as marijuana and acupuncture exist but currently do not play a large enough role to affect rivalry. In the pharmaceutical market, the degree of market concentration changes as one looks more narrowly at specific therapeutic areas (Schweitzer, 2006). For this analysis, that area will be the targeted therapies class of oncology pharmaceuticals. The RiDUCES analysis will focus on three of the main five companies that compete in this class. An analytical framework for understanding the competitive environment in which Pfizer competes will be outlined by describing the industry/market structure and analyzing the accompanying competitive dynamics, tactics, and strategies.
The analysis shows the factors that significantly impact competition in the branded pharmaceutical industry include rivalry, upstream and downstream trade channels, and entry barriers. Rivalry is intense as the industry is in a mature life cycle. One competitive advantages belonging to Pfizer regarding trade channels is the ability to maintain control as the company shifts away from wholesaling and toward specialty pharmacy usage. All companies benefit from the industry’s high barriers to entry which contains the threat of new companies
Pfizer, Inc: Branded Pharmaceutical Industry-Oncology Pharmaceuticals
Executive Summary
The value that the branded pharmaceutical industry adds to the US economy is growing slower than US GDP (Snyder, 2012). Rivalry has intensified while the rate of blockbuster drug development has slowed due to an increase in regulation from the government and the industry trade association, PhRMA. The number of new entrants is fairly low and some are exiting or consolidating through mergers and acquisitions. Downstream and upstream factors are crucial to the specialty pharmaceutical sector of this industry since supply and distribution are different than in traditional branded pharmaceuticals. Complementors such as antiemetics and substitutes such as marijuana and acupuncture exist but currently do not play a large enough role to affect rivalry. In the pharmaceutical market, the degree of market concentration changes as one looks more narrowly at specific therapeutic areas (Schweitzer, 2006). For this analysis, that area will be the targeted therapies class of oncology pharmaceuticals. The RiDUCES analysis will focus on three of the main five companies that compete in this class. An analytical framework for understanding the competitive environment in which Pfizer competes will be outlined by describing the industry/market structure and analyzing the accompanying competitive dynamics, tactics, and strategies.
The analysis shows the factors that significantly impact competition in the branded pharmaceutical industry include rivalry, upstream and downstream trade channels, and entry barriers. Rivalry is intense as the industry is in a mature life cycle. One competitive advantages belonging to Pfizer regarding trade channels is the ability to maintain control as the company shifts away from wholesaling and toward specialty pharmacy usage. All companies benefit from the industry’s high barriers to entry which contains the threat of new companies
Bibliography: Batelle. (2011 Dec). 2012 Global R&D Funding Forecast. R&D Magazine . DeGregorio, T. (2012). Using clinical Trials activity to assess competitor Strategies. Citeline. New York: Informa. Farrukh, C., & Fraser, P. e. (2004). Developing an Integrated Technology Management Process: How Glaxo Wellcome Took Up the Challenge to Develop a Company-Specific Technology Management System. Research-Technology Management , 47 (4), 39+. Goldstein, J. (2010, Jan 26). New Novartis CEO: Cafepharma Reader, Former Heinz Exec. Wall Street Journal . Loftus, P. (2012 30-Nov). Pfizer to Shrink US Sales Force, Cites 'Future Needs ' of Business. Wall Street Journal Online . McKesson. (2012). Pharmaceutical Manufacturers. Retrieved 2012 4-12 from McKesson.com: http://www.mckesson.com/en_us/McKesson.com/For%2BManufacturers/Pharmaceutical/Pharmaceutical%2BManufacturers.html Megget, K Novartis. (2012, Nov 8). Media releases. Retrieved Dec 13, 2012, from Novartis.com: http://www.novartis.com/newsroom/media-releases/en/2012/1656098.shtml Pfizer Inc Pfizer. (2012). Pfizer Leadership and Structure. Retrieved 12 13, 2012, from Pfizer.com: http://www.pfizer.com/about/leadership_and_structure/leadership_structure.jsp PhRMA Schmidt, K. T. (2012, July 2). Glaxo Agrees to Pay $3 Billion in Fraud Settlement. The New York Times . Schweitzer, S. O. (2006). Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Seeking Alpha. (2012, April 26). Pfizer 's Declining R&D: Count Me Out. Retrieved Dec 13, 2012, from Seeking Alpha: seekingalpha.com/article/532561 Snyder, S