學門類別
哈佛
- General Management
- Marketing
- Entrepreneurship
- International Business
- Accounting
- Finance
- Operations Management
- Strategy
- Human Resource Management
- Social Enterprise
- Business Ethics
- Organizational Behavior
- Information Technology
- Negotiation
- Business & Government Relations
- Service Management
- Sales
- Economics
- Teaching & the Case Method
最新個案
- A practical guide to SEC ï¬nancial reporting and disclosures for successful regulatory crowdfunding
- Quality shareholders versus transient investors: The alarming case of product recalls
- The Health Equity Accelerator at Boston Medical Center
- Monosha Biotech: Growth Challenges of a Social Enterprise Brand
- Assessing the Value of Unifying and De-duplicating Customer Data, Spreadsheet Supplement
- Building an AI First Snack Company: A Hands-on Generative AI Exercise, Data Supplement
- Building an AI First Snack Company: A Hands-on Generative AI Exercise
- Board Director Dilemmas: The Tradeoffs of Board Selection
- Barbie: Reviving a Cultural Icon at Mattel (Abridged)
- Happiness Capital: A Hundred-Year-Old Family Business's Quest to Create Happiness
Consumer Awareness or Disease Mongering? GlaxoSmithKline and the Restless Legs Syndrome
內容大綱
In 2005, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) received approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to market Requip (Ropinirole) for Restless Leg Syndrome. Requip had already been approved for the treatment of Parkinson's disease. Prior the FDA's approval, GSK had already undertaken an intensive promotional campaign for Requip, issuing press releases, advertising to doctors in medical journals, and advertising direct-to-consumer. In 2003 it began developing consumer awareness of RLS with an advertising campaign stating that a "new survey reveals a common yet underrecognized disorder-restless legs syndrome-is keeping Americans awake at night." While GSK explained that its campaign was simply raising awareness about RLS, others disagreed. GSK was accused of 'disease mongering,' or trying to turn normal people with ordinary experiences into patients. This case explores GSK's tactics and the distinction between raising awareness and inappropriately promoting a drug.