LONNEL: WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE YOU GOING TO ANNOUNCE AT 3/7'S TH?

[Anonymous]

Top Paying Companies\1. Salesforce.com

#1. Salesforce.com

Average total pay: $318,323
For: Senior Account Executive*
Best companies rank: 52

Salesforce.com goes to extremes to reward the top performers who have helped drive its growth. No wonder this online software provider tops this year's list of best payers.

The sales force gets hefty bonuses. The biggest earners get to enjoy goodies like "Breakfast at Tiffany's" -- a $5,000 shopping spree offered during last year's sales incentive trip to Hawaii. Since Tiffany doesn't have a store in Kauai, Salesforce.com hired local carpenters to recreate one, shipped in $1 million in merchandise from surrounding islands, and hired a violin player, chef, and even Miss Hawaii to add ambience.

#6. Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Company

Average total pay: $166,354
For: Sr Oncology Sales Specialist*
Best companies rank: 56

Employees at this Cambridge, Mass., biopharma company have a serious mission: producing therapies to tackle cancer. But they still know how to have fun, holding regular WHIP ("Why the Hell aren't we In a Pub?) events, which last year ranged from taking the whole company to the Red Sox home opener to holding a Cinco de Mayo party where the CEO discussed the company's achievements.
A wholly owned subsidiary of Japan-based Takeda Oncology Company, Millennium rewards top performing employees with phantom and restricted stock through a long-term incentive plan.

Other perks include a tuition benefit up to $10,000 a year; pet insurance subsidies; an on-site camp for employees' kids; food deliveries from a local farm; and an unlimited sick-pay policy that says, "If you are sick, stay home until you feel better." Everyone gets three weeks' vacation -- plus a week off between Christmas and New Year's.

http://finance.yahoo.com/career-wor...aying-companies?mod=career-salary_negotiation

 

[Anonymous]

Are you saying the senior management on the commerial side did not create a life cycle management plan for AR?

I don't know what management planned for exactly. But to me, a large layoff is a sign of failure in management. I just wish companies would acknowledge this.

 

[Anonymous]

Only 1 in 10 small molecule drugs get approved by the FDA, and I'm only talking about the drugs that make it through phase III (never mind the drugs that drop out in earlier clinical trials). The odds are better for protein drugs, which is why Eisai needs a larger effort in biologics. The cost of bringing a single drug to market is hundreds of millions and more than 60% of that cost is clinical trials. R&D does its best to figure out the best drug candidates with cell assays and animal models etc, but humans are not the same as mice, rats and rabbits....so if a drug doesn't make it through to commercialization, its bad luck. The FDA has seriously tightened approval standards in the last decade too.

I would not say that Eisai's R&D is "F'd" up. Actually, Eisai is a fairly young company and since it takes more than 10 years to develop a drug... its doing pretty well. Eisai is only guilty of not adequately planning for their patent cliff.

I wish on the sales side I could tell my DM, give me 10 years to hit my goals. R&D is a joke.

 

[Anonymous]

Only 1 in 10 small molecule drugs get approved by the FDA, and I'm only talking about the drugs that make it through phase III (never mind the drugs that drop out in earlier clinical trials). The odds are better for protein drugs, which is why Eisai needs a larger effort in biologics. The cost of bringing a single drug to market is hundreds of millions and more than 60% of that cost is clinical trials. R&D does its best to figure out the best drug candidates with cell assays and animal models etc, but humans are not the same as mice, rats and rabbits....so if a drug doesn't make it through to commercialization, its bad luck. The FDA has seriously tightened approval standards in the last decade too.

I would not say that Eisai's R&D is "F'd" up. Actually, Eisai is a fairly young company and since it takes more than 10 years to develop a drug... its doing pretty well. Eisai is only guilty of not adequately planning for their patent cliff.

Eisai is not young co in Japan. In Japan they have been in business for a long time. And as far as I can remember they planned for the cliff too. Recall the DLP (Dramatic Leap Plan)? Naito bragged about it in the WCL town hall. Problem was Ari 23, Eritoran, Aciphex 50 were part of the solution and none of them worked. So it isn't just oversight. Now people are pointing to the leadership and R&D failure.

 

[Anonymous]

I wish on the sales side I could tell my DM, give me 10 years to hit my goals. R&D is a joke.

Wow. I am amazed by your ignorance of the pharmaceutical industry. Seriously, you don't understand how new drugs are created and why it takes 10 years? I expect that Eisai does employ some intelligent people, and I hope that you are an anomoly.

BTW, it takes 10 years, on average, for most companies. The only way that gets shortened is if the drug is for a rare disease or if there are very few available therapies (and only for deadly illnesses). Even moving at lightning speed, it will take no less than 7 years.

I assume that you don't believe in clinical trials? You think the pharma industry should turn into snake oil sales?

 

[Anonymous]

Eisai is not young co in Japan. In Japan they have been in business for a long time. And as far as I can remember they planned for the cliff too. Recall the DLP (Dramatic Leap Plan)? Naito bragged about it in the WCL town hall. Problem was Ari 23, Eritoran, Aciphex 50 were part of the solution and none of them worked. So it isn't just oversight. Now people are pointing to the leadership and R&D failure.

I don't know how their R&D is in Japan, but the US subsidiary does have a significant presence in the US performing R&D, and they haven't been around for very long. Many of them are relatively new to Eisai, having come from a acquisitions. But the reality is that they acquired those companies for their pipeline and existing drugs to make up the short fall, but its obviously not enough. In the meanwhile, there are many good scientists out there who are doing a good job. I would not refer to their efforts as a 'joke' or 'failure'. If 10 years from now there still isn't much of a pipeline, then you can call them a failure.

 

[Anonymous]

Wow. I am amazed by your ignorance of the pharmaceutical industry. Seriously, you don't understand how new drugs are created and why it takes 10 years? I expect that Eisai does employ some intelligent people, and I hope that you are an anomoly.

BTW, it takes 10 years, on average, for most companies. The only way that gets shortened is if the drug is for a rare disease or if there are very few available therapies (and only for deadly illnesses). Even moving at lightning speed, it will take no less than 7 years.

I assume that you don't believe in clinical trials? You think the pharma industry should turn into snake oil sales?

What she says is no different than what the execs said when the R&D dept was re-orged into PCUs. They said R&D took too long and were not productive. Do they suffer from the same lack of intelligence?

 

[Anonymous]

What she says is no different than what the execs said when the R&D dept was re-orged into PCUs. They said R&D took too long and were not productive. Do they suffer from the same lack of intelligence?

Define "not productive". They can put drugs in the pipeline, but that doesn't mean they'll make it through. Even if they fail in phase III, they were 'productive'. Only 1 in 10 will make it.

What would you have Eisai do? Eliminate R&D and have no hope for their future? Or should they try to acquire intellectual property from other companies (competing against bigger companies with deeper products, such that all they can choose from are the less desirable IP the bigger companies didn't want)?

What would you choose? Or do you think having no pipeline at all is a viable option?

 

[Anonymous]

Wow. I am amazed by your ignorance of the pharmaceutical industry. Seriously, you don't understand how new drugs are created and why it takes 10 years? I expect that Eisai does employ some intelligent people, and I hope that you are an anomoly.

BTW, it takes 10 years, on average, for most companies. The only way that gets shortened is if the drug is for a rare disease or if there are very few available therapies (and only for deadly illnesses). Even moving at lightning speed, it will take no less than 7 years.

I assume that you don't believe in clinical trials? You think the pharma industry should turn into snake oil sales?

Your argument is wrong in two foldes:
1. Although it is true to take about 10 years to bring a drug to the market; most pharmas have multiple candidates in the pipeline at various developing statges. The pipeline ensures a new drug will be broung to the market every two to three years, not 10 years.
2. Eisai has experiencing drought in its pipeline for last 10 years. The drugs developed by Japan's R&D is still eligible for submitting NDA to FDA.

There is nothing to submit.

STop your argugment and go back to do some work.

 

[Anonymous]

Your argument is wrong in two foldes:
1. Although it is true to take about 10 years to bring a drug to the market; most pharmas have multiple candidates in the pipeline at various developing statges. The pipeline ensures a new drug will be broung to the market every two to three years, not 10 years.
2. Eisai has experiencing drought in its pipeline for last 10 years. The drugs developed by Japan's R&D is still eligible for submitting NDA to FDA.

There is nothing to submit.

STop your argugment and go back to do some work.

I said it takes 10 years to bring one drug to market. Of course Eisai works on multiple drugs. I never said otherwise. It seems to me that you guys think that drug development is just so easy, when its not. And in the US, Eisai is still relatively new, and there hasn't been enough time to fill the gap from Aricept coming off patent.

 

[Anonymous]

Your argument is wrong in two foldes:
1. Although it is true to take about 10 years to bring a drug to the market; most pharmas have multiple candidates in the pipeline at various developing statges. The pipeline ensures a new drug will be broung to the market every two to three years, not 10 years.
2. Eisai has experiencing drought in its pipeline for last 10 years. The drugs developed by Japan's R&D is still eligible for submitting NDA to FDA.

There is nothing to submit.

STop your argugment and go back to do some work.

You could say that Eisai hasn't spent enough on R&D. Spending $8 billion is not much (compared to other companies). Pfizer spends that in one year alone.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't know how their R&D is in Japan, but the US subsidiary does have a significant presence in the US performing R&D, and they haven't been around for very long. Many of them are relatively new to Eisai, having come from a acquisitions. But the reality is that they acquired those companies for their pipeline and existing drugs to make up the short fall, but its obviously not enough. In the meanwhile, there are many good scientists out there who are doing a good job. I would not refer to their efforts as a 'joke' or 'failure'. If 10 years from now there still isn't much of a pipeline, then you can call them a failure.

Not enough drugs on the market right now to keep the company afloat for 10 years to find out the value of its R&D staff through trial and error. That is why they are cutting now to stem the losses. The shareholders want real returns.

 

[Anonymous]

Wow. I am amazed by your ignorance of the pharmaceutical industry. Seriously, you don't understand how new drugs are created and why it takes 10 years? I expect that Eisai does employ some intelligent people, and I hope that you are an anomoly.

BTW, it takes 10 years, on average, for most companies. The only way that gets shortened is if the drug is for a rare disease or if there are very few available therapies (and only for deadly illnesses). Even moving at lightning speed, it will take no less than 7 years.

I assume that you don't believe in clinical trials? You think the pharma industry should turn into snake oil sales?

Excuses excuses. All those excuses now have Eisai on the verge of bankrupcy.

 

[Anonymous]

I said it takes 10 years to bring one drug to market. Of course Eisai works on multiple drugs. I never said otherwise. It seems to me that you guys think that drug development is just so easy, when its not. And in the US, Eisai is still relatively new, and there hasn't been enough time to fill the gap from Aricept coming off patent.

I want to tell my DM, Eisai is a young company, I need another 10+ years before I should be held accountable for anything.

 

[Anonymous]

You could say that Eisai hasn't spent enough on R&D. Spending $8 billion is not much (compared to other companies). Pfizer spends that in one year alone.

Yes siree they did invest a lot in R&D. And what were the latest announcements from PFE? - major cuts and layoffs in R&D and cancellation of research projects. Reason?- lack of productivity, low ROI given the risk level (only 10% chance of success at best). Actually their new CEO said that corporate R&D in big pharma may not even be a viable business model for R&D and they are looking at new models. This is what the big pharma bosses are saying-don't kill the messenger. You can google the press releases.

 

[Anonymous]

Define "not productive". They can put drugs in the pipeline, but that doesn't mean they'll make it through. Even if they fail in phase III, they were 'productive'. Only 1 in 10 will make it.

What would you have Eisai do? Eliminate R&D and have no hope for their future? Or should they try to acquire intellectual property from other companies (competing against bigger companies with deeper products, such that all they can choose from are the less desirable IP the bigger companies didn't want)?

What would you choose? Or do you think having no pipeline at all is a viable option?

You mean something like the lorcaserin deal? It's been tried already.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes siree they did invest a lot in R&D. And what were the latest announcements from PFE? - major cuts and layoffs in R&D and cancellation of research projects. Reason?- lack of productivity, low ROI given the risk level (only 10% chance of success at best). Actually their new CEO said that corporate R&D in big pharma may not even be a viable business model for R&D and they are looking at new models. This is what the big pharma bosses are saying-don't kill the messenger. You can google the press releases.

I worked in big pharma R&D and also small and large successful biotechs, and I can tell you exactly why big pharma R&D fails. In cases like Pfizer, the real issue is that they manage only for the short term. The middle management does reorg after reorg in order to justify their own existence. There's too much beaurocracy, and too many meetings. You can't even do an experiment without going through a committee. The senior execs don't believe in basic research, because they don't understand how science works. They can't stand the notion that something may or may not pay off in the long run. So they tell their underlings to work on targets for which there are already drugs on the market (the so called 'me too' drugs). That's why there isn't any innovation in big pharma.

These business guys don't understand how science works. They try to apply metrics (just ask anyone who worked at Wyeth about metrics and how useless they were), but in the end, drugs that are forced through by metrics just drop out at a later stage of development.

You are right that the current corporate model doesn't work for R&D, and the simple reason is that the current business climate wants short term results, but drug research and development is a long term process. Mismanagement of scientific staff is the chief reason big pharma is failing.

 

[Anonymous]

You are right that the current corporate model doesn't work for R&D, and the simple reason is that the current business climate wants short term results, but drug research and development is a long term process. Mismanagement of scientific staff is the chief reason big pharma is failing.

I work in marketing and completely agree with your assessment above. They also mismanage marketing and sales and many other functions at Eisai. I am amazed every day at the poor decisions made simply to cover one's ass. This comment applies to home office personnel and sales management alike. The FDA is putting an end to Me-too drugs. When pharma decides to pursue real blockbusters, it will turn itself around. Of course, by then we won't be able to market or sell them because of the unreasonable restrictions that have been placed on us. We have some good products at Eisai that we are not even allowed to market or sell effectively compounding this predicament we have found ourselves in and, unfortunately, I don't see that management philosophy changing.

 

[Anonymous]

What do all these posts have to do with the subject on the thread? There is no point in analyzing who, why, when, where? The company is in deep shit financially and they're not telling anyone WTF they're doing.

 

[Anonymous]

I work in marketing and completely agree with your assessment above. They also mismanage marketing and sales and many other functions at Eisai. I am amazed every day at the poor decisions made simply to cover one's ass. This comment applies to home office personnel and sales management alike. The FDA is putting an end to Me-too drugs. When pharma decides to pursue real blockbusters, it will turn itself around. Of course, by then we won't be able to market or sell them because of the unreasonable restrictions that have been placed on us. We have some good products at Eisai that we are not even allowed to market or sell effectively compounding this predicament we have found ourselves in and, unfortunately, I don't see that management philosophy changing.

Eisai is and has always been about politics. Performance is completely irrelevant to the reward system, and the "in crowd" can avoid accountability. They bring in "outsiders" from time to time to deal with the risky projects and to teach the insiders stuff they don't know but also to assure that anything that goes wrong can be pinned on the outsiders while the credit can go to the "in" folk- then the outsiders can be sent away. The more things change the more they stay the same. Decisions come out of the blue without rime or reason of how they were made. No one trusts any one because people will rat on each other. Does this sound like your department?