Pfizer ranks only 48th in pharma industry 2020 with avg salary $91k.

[anonymous]

Decent but not even close to same league as Biotechs

 

[anonymous]

Average Pfizer, Inc. Salary | PayScale

These are the highest paying companies, according to Glassdoor[/QUOTE

Facts dont lie. Go Biotech or get off the porch & go home!

 

[anonymous]

Very true brother. 91k which is decent but no comparison to Gilead & Genentech at 160-170k avg salaries. Per the Corp US reports of all industries those were only 2 in Top 25
#4 Gilead
#20 Genentech

 

[anonymous]

Go Big Pharma and have nice living
Go Biotech and get wealthy

 

[anonymous]

Go lgbt i m with you.

 

[anonymous]

Who are the benchmarks?

48 is better than 49 and lower. Put them in a list against Pfizer and Pfizer comes out at #1.

Bottomline, this company needs to get lean, scrappy and start making money.

Right now, Pfizer is a huge bureaucratic institution dying for revival.

 

[anonymous]

Who are the benchmarks?

48 is better than 49 and lower. Put them in a list against Pfizer and Pfizer comes out at #1.

Bottomline, this company needs to get lean, scrappy and start making money.

Right now, Pfizer is a huge bureaucratic institution dying for revival.

Agree. They hired CEOs and Presidents the last 20yrs that havent done anything because the last 3 had contractual packages of McKinnell 91million, Kindler 50mil, Reed 60mil, Albert 15mil a yr..... zero incentive to drive growth knowing you are going get paid 10mil plus a yr and if let go then you have 40-90mil package... need to hire and Pay for Performance.
Reps dont get paid max bonus and Merit if 50% of goal.
Agree need to cut 60-65% , stop stupid marketing driven hiring SOV 2-3 reps per terr. Calling yourself Bio Pharma wanting be elite then act like it & have 1 rep per territory.
And become a science company for a change instead of marketing co.

 

[anonymous]

Agree. They hired CEOs and Presidents the last 20yrs that havent done anything because the last 3 had contractual packages of McKinnell 91million, Kindler 50mil, Reed 60mil, Albert 15mil a yr..... zero incentive to drive growth knowing you are going get paid 10mil plus a yr and if let go then you have 40-90mil package... need to hire and Pay for Performance.
Reps dont get paid max bonus and Merit if 50% of goal.
Agree need to cut 60-65% , stop stupid marketing driven hiring SOV 2-3 reps per terr. Calling yourself Bio Pharma wanting be elite then act like it & have 1 rep per territory.
And become a science company for a change instead of marketing co.

Being in the industry for 30yrs since college, including HQ positions & Brand Teams (including 2yrs on Incentive & Comp dept) as well as sales over the years;
$91k for Pfizer is actually pretty good for Big Pharma. Correct it doesnt come close to established successful Biotechs but you also are talking about a different level of business. Biotechs are science & research based companies focusing in highly complex diseases with high drug costs (6 figures a yr), totally different than Big Pharma outside their Oncology divisions who are more marketing divisions in common disease areas.

This is why Biotechs pay extremely more on base salaries, Bonuses, & can give reps lucrative Stock annually.
Big Pharma doesnt play in this league.
However for the league they do play in, Pfizer is very solid with comp if it is as this ranking states 91k salary a yr. That is good for Big Pharma. (Of course Pfe has 20-30yr reps making 150k salaries though)

Also established successful Biotechs are extremely hard to get hired because of their requirement 10 award winning yrs exp, not alot of openings cuz they have small salesforces w large single rep territories, & they pay so off the charts that they do not have turn over.

 

[anonymous]

Agree w last 2 posts.
Pfe 91k is good for Big Pharma but different ball game w established Biotechs---
Business Model difference
Priorities different
Culture different
R&D Science is different
Compensation is definitely different

 

[anonymous]

Being in the industry for 30yrs since college, including HQ positions & Brand Teams (including 2yrs on Incentive & Comp dept) as well as sales over the years;
$91k for Pfizer is actually pretty good for Big Pharma. Correct it doesnt come close to established successful Biotechs but you also are talking about a different level of business. Biotechs are science & research based companies focusing in highly complex diseases with high drug costs (6 figures a yr), totally different than Big Pharma outside their Oncology divisions who are more marketing divisions in common disease areas.

This is why Biotechs pay extremely more on base salaries, Bonuses, & can give reps lucrative Stock annually.
Big Pharma doesnt play in this league.
However for the league they do play in, Pfizer is very solid with comp if it is as this ranking states 91k salary a yr. That is good for Big Pharma. (Of course Pfe has 20-30yr reps making 150k salaries though)

Also established successful Biotechs are extremely hard to get hired because of their requirement 10 award winning yrs exp, not alot of openings cuz they have small salesforces w large single rep territories, & they pay so off the charts that they do not have turn over.

Excellent and rational post...

 

[anonymous]

Minor leagues w 2-3 reps in a territory.
Not even close to the 200k with biotech.

 

[anonymous]

91k is decent for big pharma but is below the min of Biotech which starts 140k .
Pfizer will never be top 1/3rd in pay because they dont need to!
They drove Lipitor & Celebrex & Viagra to record sales w 50k-60k yr reps . So why pay more and decrease profit when products sell themselves?

 

[anonymous]

Well Pfizer matched their reputation as top 50% in pharma at 48th

 

[anonymous]

48th in pharma. Just average.
But 91k is not that bad especially in most of US.
They just can not compete w Biotech, Pfizer is too big with too much debt to compete as top level compensation (unless you are CEOs of the past w historical salaries & buyouts)

Biotech is where the non CEO/CFO BIG money is at.