Merck's Jumping the Shark Moment

Quote

Anonymous

Guest
What do you think are the key events behind the decline of Merck? I would vote for acquisition of Medco. That brought us Ray Gilmartin as chief cook and bottle-washer. And so on and so on.
 












The same as every other big pharma: a two-fold error that resulted in a 2 order of magnitude decline.

1. Replacing a scientifically oriented CEO with a business oriented CEO with a manufacturing oriented CEO with a lawyer. (speaking of sharks and bottom feeders).

2. Replacing the head of research with an academic scientist who had never run a group larger than 30 people, and never been intimately involved in the complexities of drug discovery.
 






Chasing after tax breaks in the 80's and 90's and in so doing expanding Merck's R&D empire without having the troops to support or manage the expansion. Another Vagelos initiative that he himself knew was fraught with risk when he cautioned about losing critial mass of intellect.
 






For me, it's hiring Peter Kim. He may be a potentially brilliant scientist, but he has been grossly ineffective at bringing products to market. He also is the one who proudly declared that he made the recommendation to voluntarily withdraw Vioxx from the market, a catastrophic mistake. Had we instead taken all our data to the FDA, allowed them to analyze and recommend, we would have Vioxx today with a black box warning for patients with CV risk, and patients for whom Vioxx was the only or best answer to debilitating pain and inflammation would have relief. Further, we would have preserved the good will of the FDA who would have gone on to approve Arcoxia and many other compounds. The Vioxx decision, more than any other single event, sent Merck (leather jacket and all) sailing over the shark towards the oblivion we find ourselves in today.
 






Anonymous said:
The same as every other big pharma: a two-fold error that resulted in a 2 order of magnitude decline.

1. Replacing a scientifically oriented CEO with a business oriented CEO with a manufacturing oriented CEO with a lawyer. (speaking of sharks and bottom feeders).

2. Replacing the head of research with an academic scientist who had never run a group larger than 30 people, and never been intimately involved in the complexities of drug discovery.
Click to expand...

Interesting perspective although calling Gilmartin a "business oriented CEO" is a joke: the man was an arrogance junkie with no business sense whatsoever: we divested MEDCO - remember? - as someone woke up and "discovered" the P&L on that useless enterprise.
I liked Dick best (am too young to know Vagelos and the company propaganda is a case of self-inflicted Alzheimer's) although he made too many grave mistakes, from letting consultants run the show to giving-in to the likes of Ken and Adam to not having the balls to sack Kim.
 






Anonymous said:
What do you think are the key events behind the decline of Merck? I would vote for acquisition of Medco. That brought us Ray Gilmartin as chief cook and bottle-washer. And so on and so on.
Click to expand...

the laptop computer effectively ended the pharma rep job as being a good one...once the ridiculous metrics came in, the computer became the focus of the sales force, and real selling went out the door...

As far as Merck goes, I think the VIOXX debaucle pretty much killed the trust of the company by its customers, and it was pretty much straight downhill after that...
 






Gotta be when PRV was replaced by RVG. How can it be anything else? Ever since that fateful moment it's been a downhill slide for Merck with some points in time steeper than others.
 






When management lied to the FDA, lied to the customers and lied to its own sales reps about Vioxx. We all knew the future was bleak from that point forward; ithas been bleak and is only getting worse.

There was a time when Merck was honest and decent. That time has long since passed.
 






Anonymous said:
The same as every other big pharma: a two-fold error that resulted in a 2 order of magnitude decline.

1. Replacing a scientifically oriented CEO with a business oriented CEO with a manufacturing oriented CEO with a lawyer. (speaking of sharks and bottom feeders).

2. Replacing the head of research with an academic scientist who had never run a group larger than 30 people, and never been intimately involved in the complexities of drug discovery.
Click to expand...

You are SPOT ON...also, let's not forget the Vioxx tragedy, thanx to Peter Kim (close 3rd)
 






Anonymous said:
For me, it's hiring Peter Kim. He may be a potentially brilliant scientist, but he has been grossly ineffective at bringing products to market. He also is the one who proudly declared that he made the recommendation to voluntarily withdraw Vioxx from the market, a catastrophic mistake. Had we instead taken all our data to the FDA, allowed them to analyze and recommend, we would have Vioxx today with a black box warning for patients with CV risk, and patients for whom Vioxx was the only or best answer to debilitating pain and inflammation would have relief. Further, we would have preserved the good will of the FDA who would have gone on to approve Arcoxia and many other compounds. The Vioxx decision, more than any other single event, sent Merck (leather jacket and all) sailing over the shark towards the oblivion we find ourselves in today.
Click to expand...

Very intelligent post, love the "fonzi" leather jacket reference! It definately sailed over the heads of most people reading this, like a motorcycle over the heads of teary eyed, poodle skirted teenage gals in the parking lot of big Al's (or was it the chinese dude Mr. Myagi???). My question is are you a pharma rep? If so why? Discuss.
 












What do you do and why? obviously you are not in sales. If you were you wouldn't ask why. Pharma specific? or sale in general? Most people who excel in sales go where the money is and pharma offers that. Once your in, you cant get off the juice. The autonomy, the money, and the challenges (which are some of the reasons I hate what I do). Cant speak for primary care, I was specialty early on and then hospital for over a decade, selling life saving drugs. What is it that you do again?
 






Anonymous said:
What do you do and why? obviously you are not in sales. If you were you wouldn't ask why. Pharma specific? or sale in general? Most people who excel in sales go where the money is and pharma offers that. Once your in, you cant get off the juice. The autonomy, the money, and the challenges (which are some of the reasons I hate what I do). Cant speak for primary care, I was specialty early on and then hospital for over a decade, selling life saving drugs. What is it that you do again?
Click to expand...

Hahahaha. Good one. Or two. Of course pharma is where those who can't sell go for pseudo-sales positions. Pharma money is ok but nothing close to what real sales professionals earn in real sales jobs.
 






Gilmartin was like a low-key non-CEO. I never got fired up by his speeches at national meetings. There was no charisma. As a sales rep I never felt his speech got my blood boiling.
 












Anonymous said:
What do you do and why? obviously you are not in sales. If you were you wouldn't ask why. Pharma specific? or sale in general? Most people who excel in sales go where the money is and pharma offers that. Once your in, you cant get off the juice. The autonomy, the money, and the challenges (which are some of the reasons I hate what I do). Cant speak for primary care, I was specialty early on and then hospital for over a decade, selling life saving drugs. What is it that you do again?
Click to expand...

specialty...hospital.....selling life saving drugs? How is sitting in a coffee shop selling anything?

Potsy Webber
 






Anonymous said:
Hiring Alina Ehrlich and her hires, including Thomas Lyons in the vaccine division.
Click to expand...

That is definitely a jumping the shark moment for MVD. Actually they were not hired in the vaccine division- they were transferred over. That is def the day that this division died. The 3 stooges were better when they were on TV, not running an EX division into the ground.
 






It was whenever and whoever made the decision to trash Merck's culture that allowed the corporation to be consistently recognized and admired, sometimes even "most admired." That culture fostered incredible successes at Merck. Our current culture has fostered incredible failures. Gosh, you would think the solution to Merck's major problem would be easy to solve. New management with the vision and ethics of the old management is the only way that former Merck culture and success will ever get restored. Yeah, that simple.
 












Top Bottom
Back
Quote