Talk:List of pharmaceutical companies/Archive before 2014

This is an archive created in 2024 for those discussions that were 10 or more years old at the time. If there were additions to old discussions that are after 2014, those threads have NOT been moved here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source

I have always found the reports from PharmExec magazine to be more accurate. http://pharmexec.findpharma.com/pharmexec/data/articlestandard/pharmexec/202009/597526/article.pdf This gives a completely different Top 50 to that currently being used on Wiki and one I believe is more accurate. Bayer are not regarded in the industry as a Top 10 Pharma company nevermind the high position they have on this list. Spudbynight (talk) 08:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listing these companies by healthcare revenue is inaccurate. If we were listing the top healthcare companies that would be fine but we are not - we are listing the top pharmaceutical companies and as such we should only look at pharma revenues. Spudbynight (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point Spudbynight as things such as medical devices might be included in healthcare revenue but shouldn't count towards pharmaceutical revenues. However the PharmaExec list excludes animal health and over-the-counter revenues that should be legitimately included as pharma incomes. TomorrowsDream (talk) 10:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Joe Sperrazza (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pliva was added by an anon. This is an existing company in central and eastern Europa (homepage www.pliva.com. I'm not sure what they make. JFW | T@lk 16:31, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The biggest flaw I see is (using Bayer as the example again) adding in the value of unrelated revenue streams such as agrochemicals Spudbynight (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the third table from 2008 with only Bayer's healthcare revenue listed Spudbynight (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC) If we include all turnover in this list it makes it irrelevant. We would then need to list General Electric as the worlds largest pharmaceutical company. Spudbynight (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links

I'm adding external links to each company. They mainly point to human drug product lists so I can use them for researching the list of drugs pages. The links should also be helpful for developing company pages for those companies that we don't already have articles for. Matt 00:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the need for the external links. --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu 12:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as long as a Wiki article for that company (and not just its locale) exists and is linked. --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of this page

A couple of problems I see:

developers of new entities and therapeutics are intermixed with manufacturers of generics and off-patent drugs
companies that have products launched as well as those with no launched products are included
no definition is provided for "major" ... therefore, no concrete inclusion/exclusion criteria exist

I have thoughts on all these matters but wanted to open the discussion on the future of this page before merely drastically altering it into a new form that might not suit the needs of all users. I will say that if the primary purpose is to provide a place for links to enrich other articles (i.e. a link set for product lists), I do not think that purpose should be run from the main article space but rather from the wikipedia namespace under the auspices of a WikiProject or from the user namespace under the auspices of an individual's research assistance tool. Courtland 05:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New User-space page created

I've created a page in my personal userspace to handle what would have been a dramatic increase in red-links on this page over time. I thought that my continued addition of red-links here would likely just undermine the utility of the page intended by the primary editors. The new page is located at User:Ceyockey/List of companies by publication mention. Courtland 23:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Things to do

Here are my thoughts on the things that need to be done to improve this list. I've listed them in increasing order of "difficulty"

Replace red links with Wiki links where available, else external links (done)
- As new entries are added, maintain the above state
Have a consistent format for alphabeltical entries
- At a minimum, no red links (done)
- Consistent case, use of abbreviations, punctuation (e.g., no trailing periods) (done)
- No external links unless the Wiki link is insufficient (only one case of this) (done)
- In each entry, link to Wiki artciles the first time a term is used (in progress)
- I recommend a format such as the following, in sentance format

Name_of_company-with-good-link, HQ location, optionally date of founding/merger, 
summary of their notability, summary of their product range, contact-link

An example of this format follows:

Allergan, headquartered in Irvine, California, USA, is a global specialty company, with products product that include ophthalmic pharmaceuticals, dermatology products, and neurological products, with the most notable of the latter being BOTOX (contact)

Revise article, as needed, to meet the Style, Content, Philosophy, and Template use of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lists

These are my thoughts, please let me know what you think. I'm plugging away at this list of actions, in the order shown. Cheers! --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up Inconsistencies within the lists The names on 48 largest companies are not fully on the alpha list just below. If they are in the top 48, why aren't they also considered significant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.211.10 (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big pharma

"Big pharma" redirects here. I would say there's a lot more behind the concept of "big pharma" (see also Big government) than just a list of who the pharmaceutical companies are. Can I get some second opinions on this please? -Etoile (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be inclined to agree, I think perhaps adding a section something along the lines of "criticism of "big pharma"" could be in order... --UltraMagnus (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is quite basic: "big pharma" is not defined in the first place. How about a simple definition up front, like "Big pharma means the pharmaceutical industry." (Or whatever it does mean.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChicagoLarry (talk • contribs) 15:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This all seems to be covered at Pharmaceutical lobby; I've changed the redirect to that article as it seems more informative. Kuru (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SinoPharm

SinoPharm appears at number 27 on the list, as does Alcon. No numbers were available. I've fixed a formatting error and will be checking previous versions of the page for correct information. 148.177.129.210 (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The SinoPharm entry was added in Revision as of 14:28, 27 January 2009.

The revenue figure comes from an unknown source while the other figures seem to have been copied from the Alcon figures. I'm removing the SinoPharm entry for now. If anyone has correct details or figures, please edit it appropriately. 148.177.129.210 (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source came from a chinese news site,but the exact currency exchange for RMB varies greatly,so I choose a more vague number.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 16:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bayer Healthcare

Sales (2008): 15.407 billion euro [1] [2] iLAVA (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry where is Bayer in the list?Giosue' Campi (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bayer Schering? the list doesn't seem to accurate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.60.129 (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is entry No. 31 ?

Entrie No. 31 is missing. Please update —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.159.79.11 (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Total Revenues less than Net Income?

The row for Procter & Gamble lists Total Revenues at 8,964 and Net Income at 10,340. Johnfravolda (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting data

IMS offers a different list of the top 15 at www.imshealth.com/deployedfiles/imshealth/Global/Content/StaticFile/Top_Line_Data/Global-Top_15_Companies.pdf 24.60.190.107 (talk) 04:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IMS tracks human pharmaceutical prescriptions but prescription sales are only part of a pharmaceutical company's revenue. For example they may earn from sales of animal health or over-the-counter products that are pharmaceutical agents but not included in the IMS's data. Pharma companies also receive money for out-licensing their products, selling regional marketing rights and development milestone payments - why should these be excluded? Using prescriptions sales only creates a bias towards companies that have large sales forces. There needs to be some discussion and agreement on the financial basis for this list. TomorrowsDream (talk) 11:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pfizer / Wyeth

The table is "a list of the 50 largest pharmaceutical and biotech companies ranked by healthcare revenue as of 2008"

Why is Pfizer listed together with Wyeth? The merger took place in 2009.

24.60.190.107 (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the current list of 50 largest companies but ranked according to financial data from 2008. I don't think it's meant to be the top 50 largest companies in 2008. TomorrowsDream (talk) 11:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the list is based on financial data from 2008, the list should not be changed or altered until the list is updated to be based on financial data from 2009. 24.60.190.107 (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page title

Kuru wrote in the history - if it's notable, feel free to create an article first; the consensus here is to only include additions with some notability

This is an encyclopedia. If it contains a list of pharmaceutical companies then it should be a list of pharmaceutical companies. Not a list that meets some arbitrary unspecified standard.

To make the title of the page be accurate, it should be renamed to "List of notable pharmaceutical companies" and notable should be defined on the page.

24.60.190.107 (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an arbitrary standard. Wikipedia policy is that all information must be verifiable. If someone lists a company that has neither its own article or a reliable citation, then it is not verifiable and should be removed. TomorrowsDream (talk) 12:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to renaming, if you feel that's not implied. If the intent is to simply create a directory of every minor pharma or bio company in the world, I'm afraid that's not manageable. Kuru ^talk 18:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing companies?

Why the hell isn't McKesson Corp. listed? It has revenue the size of Pfizer and Sanofi together.

163.1.125.69 (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant lists?

Is it really necessary to have three different lists of pharmaceutical companies by revenue, especially ones that disagree with each other? SDY (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you pointed out, the lists don't agree with each other so how would you decide which is the right one to retain? All have merit and are from reliable sources. To me it shows that ranking these companies is not easy due to their highly divested portfolios. TomorrowsDream (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Pharmaceutical Industry?

There is a considerable amount of effort going into policing this list. It seems to me that it would be possible to obtain this same notable list via the use of categories. I would like to suggest we merge this article with Pharmaceutical industry, retaining the Top Company lists (if they're not already on the other article) and using a link to an appropriate category in the See Also section. It may needs some initial work to ensure all the company articles have the necessary category but I'm willing to contribute to that. Any comments or suggestions? TomorrowsDream (talk) 11:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the list is duplicative of the information in the relevant category and is essentially just of pharmacutical companies with a Wikipedia article, and have no strong feelings about it being retained.

All of the rankings information is very important however and since it takes up a lot of space wouldn't it be better to keep it in a separate article from the main Pharmaceutical Industry one, to avoid that article becoming over long and dominated by the rankings tables?Rangoon11 (talk) 12:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly not convinced that an encyclopedia really needs to be in the business of ranking companies anyway. I'm sure there are people who work for or who invest in these companies who have a personal and financial interest in which is "the top" but an encyclopedia article should probably just have them alphabetically or some other non-judgmental sorting and doesn't need four separate lists. Honestly, a list is meaningful, and I do think we should have some sort of criteria for inclusion, but four lists is just ridiculous. SDY (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect I completely diagree, a list of the largest companies in this industry is highly encylopedic and factual, and of use and interest to readers of Wikipedia. It is important information for understanding the industry properly, in fact a proper understanding of the industry is impossible without this informaion. I can't personally see companies of the size of Pfizer or GSK caring one bit whether this article exists or not, it is uterrly inconsequential to them and even they did I can't see how that is relevant to whether the information should or should not be here.

A list with revenues data is non-judgemental, it does not make any subjective comment on the relative quality or efficacy of the companies' products, their success in innovating, their environmental record, how well they treat their staff etc. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That we've added a "rank" to the first table is a little troubling. Frankly, if we're going to have a ranked table, we should stick to the Fortune 500 data since that's a reliable rank. I don't really care that much, but if a reader wants a "proper understanding of the industry" they'd probably be looking at pharmaceutical industry and not at this list, so providing dubious information like subjective rankings is simply a disservice to readers. If you don't think that people try to manipulate wikipedia to affect the real world you haven't been reading the news. Small time investors might use this data to make decisions, and I'm sure even big companies have a bored intern or two they can order to present their preferred "proper understanding of the industry." SDY (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree SDY that these tables are subjective. The first table is just ordered by company revenue and the rank only reflects the sorting - I don't see how that can be viewed as original research or subjective. And how is that being manipulated if properly controlled with reliable sources? Your manipulation argument could be applied to all of Wikipedia so should we just get rid of all of it??? How people use the information on Wikipedia is entirely their own responsibilty and contributers should only be concerned that it is factual. My initial suggestion is that we don't need to have a separate article listing all notable pharmaceutical companies as it can be achieved through the use of categories. The tables should be moved to Pharmaceutical industry if not there already. TomorrowsDream (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) There's a "rank" in the table. That's entirely subjective. The purpose here is not to collect random data, it's to present information in a useful format, so yes, if it's redundant, get rid of it. SDY (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SDY, I don't get your point. You keep saying having a rank is subjective but don't explain why. I've stated that the rank indicates the order of the highest revenues ("companies ranked here by revenue as of March 2010 according to their released 2009 annual reports"). How is reported revenue subjective? Nor do I see this as being random - knowing the largest players in this market is relevant to the article. Would you provide some further insights on your view? Thanks TomorrowsDream (talk) 09:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

current news regarding China

Bashing Big Pharma in China "Officials across the country are seeking to rein in drugmakers’ profits" November 10, 2011 BusinessWeek by Bruce Einhorn, Daryl Loo and Natasha Khan. The bottom line: Efforts to cut drug prices in China are hurting their manufacturers, but with the market growing 17 percent a year there’s still opportunity.

141.218.36.56 (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Pharmaceutical industry in the People's Republic of China, Category:Pharmaceutical industry of China, Category:Pharmaceutical companies of China, Sinopharm Group, and the Economy of the People's Republic of China. 99.181.147.59 (talk) 07:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpt ...

Western pharmaceutical companies have been building their businesses in China as sales of prescription medications have more than doubled since 2006, to $41 billion, making the mainland the world’s No. 3 drug market behind the U.S. and Japan, according to researcher IMS Health. In March, Switzerland’s Novartis (NVS) completed a $125 million deal for 85 percent of vaccine maker Zhejiang Tianyuan Bio-Pharmaceutical. In February, France’s Sanofi (SNY) finalized a $521 million purchase of Chinese pharma manufacturer BMP Sunstone. Last November, U.S. medical supply manufacturer Cardinal Health (CAH) paid $470 million for Yong Yu, a drug importer and distributor. Japanese drugmaker Takeda Pharmaceutical (TKPYY) says it will invest $300 million in China over three years. For now, the shift has hit Chinese companies hardest. The MSCI China/Health Care Index, which includes most of the country’s biggest drugmakers, has dropped 34 percent this year, compared with a 15 percent fall for the broader MSCI China Index. Many local companies are caught in a no-win situation, says Richard Yeh, an analyst in Hong Kong with Citigroup (C). Skipping a government auction means giving up on sales in an entire province. But winning means companies are unlikely to make profits. “The more they sell, the more they lose,” he says. The price-cutting frenzy will soon hurt foreigners, too, says William Dai, chief financial officer for researcher ShangPharma (SHP). “The best times for multinational pharma companies are over,” he says. “They can still make money, but they’re not expected to make a lot of money.”

See National champions. 99.181.142.144 (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]