Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
How to conduct strategic analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Pfizer Analysis INTRODUCTION Pfizer is the largest American pharmaceutical company and one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. It competes with Merck and Glaxo, and markets such well-known medications as Celebrex and Viagra. However, the pharmaceutical industry as a whole has undergone changes in recent years with significant consolidation taking place and with increased scrutiny regarding the ways in which drugs are developed, tested and marketed. In addition, recent controversies have erupted regarding Merck's drug Vioxx, and Pfizer has been the target of unwanted publicity regarding its painkiller Celebrex. This research considers the strategic position of Pfizer, including its strengths and weaknesses as well as the opportunities and threats that it faces, its strategic priorities and the acquisition strategy that it might follow. SWOT ANALYSIS Pfizer's primary strength is its size and expertise in the industry. Its reputation has suffered somewhat in recent months as controversy has surrounded the industry as a whole due to the Vioxx issue, and Pfizer has suffered because of its own problems with Celebrex. In general, however, the company's size gives it the ability to invest in new development that is necessary to succeed in the long-term. Pfizer's primary weakness is its lack of drugs in its pipeline and its inability to have new drugs approved for use. The company does not have significant drugs coming through the development process, at least not that will be ready for the market in the next few years. This puts the company in a weak position as it struggles with drugs that are already facing competition from generic alternatives. The highly successful epilepsy drug Neurontin lost patent ... ... middle of paper ... ...ong-run by developing strong new productsand a large variety of new productsrather than hoping that it will develop another blockbuster such as Viagra. REFERENCES Anderson, S. (2005, November 12). Pfizer says it eliminated 922 jobs in last quarter. The Ann Arbor News. Retrieved 12 Nov 2005 from: . Barrett, A. (2005, February 21). Henry McKinnell: Heroic measures. Business Week, p. 44. Berenson, A. (2005, October 21). Pfizer profit falls 5%. The New York Times, p. C7. Good business practices. (2005). Pfizer, Inc. Retrieved 12 Nov 2005 from: . Jarvis, L. (2005, October 21). Pfizer faces challenges to growth. Chemical Market Reporter, 266, p. 10. McTigue Pierce, L. (2005, July). Pfizer: Growth amid adversity. Food & Drug Packaging, 69, p. 60. Wood, A. (2005, August 10). Chemtura: Making a merger work. Chemical Week, 167, pp. 17-19.
In general the drug manufacturing industry is very risky. In order companies to stay in business they need to research and develop new products. Firstly companies need to develop new compounds, however only one on every ten thousand compounds becomes approved and it takes years to do this. Then only 3 out of 20 drugs make enough revenue to cover their development cost and only 1 out of every 3 drugs generates enough money to cover the costs of previously failed drugs.
...s: each was licensed to a much larger firm because the originator firm lacked the capability to market the drug. the larger analysis of blockbuster drugs showed that this thread is common across blockbusters that originated with smaller firms. The largest firms appear to hold a significant advantage in commercialization—they are highly effective at extracting the value of innovative drugs . The study suggests some qualified reasons for skepticism that the end of the blockbuster era will bring a major upheaval in the industry. Large firms’ advantage in commercialization suggests that they may maintain their dominant position. Marketing of pharmaceuticals may move from broad-based to targeted approaches, but a company with a broad reach may still have an advantage in identifying markets for niche drugs and commercializing the drugs within those more narrow market
The Procter and Gamble Company. (2013, November 17). Company Strategy. Retrieved March 22, 2014, from http://www.pginvestor.com: http://www.pginvestor.com/GenPage.aspx?IID=4004124&GKP=208821
The Clorox Company purchased Kingsford in 1973. Kingsford became one of the largest product groups within Clorox’s portfolio by 2000. Charcoal also represented a large percentage of Clorox’s revenues and net income. Therefore, a change in growth of the charcoal market would have a significant direct impact on Clorox’s annual sales and net earnings. Since the 1980’s Kingsford enjoyed growth in revenues ranging from a 1-3% increase each year. The charcoal industry had also experienced a steady growth as a whole. However, during the summer of 2000 charcoal sales declined and Kingsford’s summer results were projected to be below target. Clorox must now rely on Kingsford’s improvements in sales and profits to re-establish the company’s growth objectives. The two brand managers Marcilie Smith Boyle and Allison Warren will be challenged with determining the causes of decline, the impact of altering Kingsford’s current pricing, advertising, promotion, and production methods, and developing recommendations to increase profits.
Although Lafley has had success, the underlying problem remains. How will Lafley return P&G to its rightful place in Corporate America? P&G's solution to its problems is through product line extensions, expansion into non-premium brands, as well as acquisitions, licensing, reinforcing market orientation through consumer focus, and outsourcing. This recommendation was based on following items;
Johnson & Johnson is one of the most successful companies and it can still be if it maintains doing the right thing continuously. They should keep being smart and fast decision makers to always be on top and ahead of their competitors.
Threat of new entrants is relatively high. Companies forming alliances are potential rivals. Even if earlier such company was not considered to be a threat, after merging with some research and development company or forming alliance with another pharmaceutical company it would become a rival to Eli Lilly. The threat is however weakened by significant research and development costs necessary to successfully enter the business. Eli Lilly’s focus on a relatively narrow market of sedatives and antidepressants weakens the threat of new entrants, but other products that form lesser part of company’s sales such as insulin and others are exposed to high threat of new entrants. The need of obtaining certificates and licenses also weakens the threat of new entrants. Discussed above leads to the conclusion that threat of new entrants is medium.
This paper analyzes the main economic indicators related specifically to one of the largest pharmaceutical companies, Pfizer, Inc., such as overall performance, revenue, net income, research and development, cost and expenses. There are certain economic indicators that do not apply to individual companies, but influence their economic forecasts. Such factors as inflation and unemployment rate pertain to an industry or region and such factors as political instability or any major economic conditions will affect the market analyses even if they are not economic indicators. There are many more factors that affect economic predictions and their detailed analyses are presented at http://www.economic-indicators.com, a web site for tracking the US economy. Overall performance is always one of the most important indicators of economic activity and every financial report starts with results of annual performance.
Pfizer also provides their Medical and Academic partnership grant, which rewards industrious employees with grants to pursue their own ideas or partner with medical professionals. Pfizer did have to implement cutbacks, 10 percent of their employees, but still receives a high job satisfaction rating of 73% from its employees. The opportunities provided are a big part of that
PROBLEM STATEMENT Teva Pharmaceuticals, the first multinational pharmaceutical company in Israel, has become a successful global giant in the industry of generic drugs. After experiencing a long period of success and growth in the generic drug industry against some big western pharmaceuticals, the company had acquired many well known pharmaceutical companies and had achieved its goal of $1 billion. theory seemed to be in trouble in building a new strategy and vision to compete with the rapidly growing generic industry. They confronted two big issues as key hurdles in their way.
“Our products are available in over 100 countries; sales in 2005 totalled $24 billion, with an operating profit of $6.5 billion; we spend over $14 million every working day on the research and development of new medicines that meet patient needs (total R&D spend in 2005: $3.4 billion); we employ around 12,000 people in research and development at 11 R&D centres in seven countries: Sweden, the UK, the US, Canada, France, India and Japan; we have some 14,000 people at 27 manufacturing sites in 19 countries, in total, we employ over 65,000 people worldwide: 58% in Europe, 28% in the Americas and 14% in the rest of the world” (AstraZeneca, 2006).
Alan G Lafley, the former CEO of Procter & Gamble, once said “Let’s execute along this strategy, but know that we’ll probably get some of this wrong, so be open to changing it (AZQuotes.com). Procter and Gamble has undergone many strategic changes in the last 15 years which have had a profound impact on the company’s profits and market share. The strategic changes that Procter & Gamble has undergone have been both positive and negative. While it is important to document the financial impact of the changes under Alan Lafley, it is also important to track the changes and growth under the current CEO David S. Taylor, while also showing Procter & Gamble’s competitive advantage.
The case under analysis, Eli Lilly & Company, will be covering the positives and negatives with regards to the business situation and strategy of Eli Lilly. One of the major pharmaceutical and health care companies in its industry, Lilly focused its efforts on the areas of "drug research, development, and marketed to the following areas: neuroscience, endocrinology, oncology, cardiovascular disease, and women's health." Having made a strong comeback in the 1990's due to its remarkably successful antidepressant Prozac, was now facing a potential loss in profits with its patent soon to expire. The problem was not only the soon to expire patent on Prozac, but the fact that Prozac accounted for as much as 30% of total revenue was the reality Eli Lilly now faced. (Pearce & Robinson, 34-1)
Once America’s most innovative consumer products company, Procter and Gamble (P&G) started by selling soaps and candles in a small Cincinnati storefront in 1837 (Procter and Gamble, 2008). After a hundred and seventy-one years P&G has grown to over one hundred household brands in over eighty countries (Markels 2006). Their products range from air fresheners to prescription drugs. However, as P&G headed into the twenty-first century they announced that they would not be meeting their 1st quarter earnings forecast [Lafley, 2003]. Revenue margins were dropping and P&G was quickly losing market share to Kimberly Clark and Johnson & Johnson. After missed earnings P&G’s stock price fell from $59.18 to $26.50 between January 2000 and March 2000 (PG). Upset, the board of directors pressured then CEO Durk Jager to resign after a lack luster attempt at turning P&G around and replaced him A.G Lafley, an unproven CEO, whom analysts felt lacked the experience to give P&G a much needed clean up (Lafley, 2003).
The above example shows that Pfizer is building on the foundation of analytics to predict the needs of the customer (which is the physicians in the case above). It