Pfizer : The World 's Largest Research Based Pharmaceutical

One primary goal of Pfizer is to deliver sustained, excellent product by outperforming Pfizer’s competitors and must differentiate itself adequately from its competitors. Competitive advantage is central to strategic management in that it will produce and sustain superior performance. To be competitive in a business environment, often it requires the company to have a product or service different and better than other organizations competing in the same marketplace. According to Wadman (2007) “Pfizer and the rest of the pharmaceutical industry need to develop more sophisticated drugs, targeted at a smaller number of people more quickly, efficiently and at a lower cost” (p. 1). Once Pfizer’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats are assessed and analyzed, managers must decide a set of strategies to reduce or eliminate its weaknesses and capitalize on its strengths and maximize opportunities. An example is Porter’s three generic strategy approaches of differentiation, cost leadership, and focus strategy by using differentiation strategies to differentiate Pfizer from its competitors. Strategies are essential; however, it is useless unless they are effectively implemented levels of the company. Business-level strategies are typically developed and implemented by heads of business units and are first approved by top management. The functional level strategy is the last level that focuses on developing strategies for managing the various departments to

Threats to Pfizer's competitive edge come primarily from the products that it offers. Celebrex faces challenges not from other competitors, but from challenges to its safety. Celebrex generates more than $3.3 billion for the company, and having the drug pulled from the market or restricted would have a significant effect on Pfizer's ability to compete. The

Opportunities for Pfizer exist in two areas, first being the restructuring into a more lean and competitive organization and second is the penetration into emerging markets such as China and India who are now more able to purchase their products. With sales of approximately $50 billion per year, Pfizer has the opportunity to streamline its operations, cut costs, and add flexibility to the organization. If successful in this, they can better realize their profits and invest that money into future competitive products for the market.

F remains the pharmaceutical firm because it has higher Margins due to the capacity to keep high drug prices. It also spends a significant amount on R&D while the competition is always coming up with a new product.

The Pharmaceutical industry has been in the spotlight for decades due to the fact that they have a reputation for being unethical in its marketing strategies. In The Washington Post Shannon Brownlee (2008) states, “We try never to forget that medicine is for the people. It is not for the profits. The profits follow.” This honorable statement is completely lost in today’s world of pharmaceutical marketing tactics. These tactics are often deceptive and biased. Big Pharma consistently forgets their moral purpose and focuses primarily on the almighty dollar. Big Pharma is working on restoring their reputation by reforming their ethical code of conduct.

Since the beginning of the agreement Warner Labs was aware that the partnership with Pfizer represented the risk of an hostile takeover, because of this Warner carefully designed a defensive agreement that allow the partnership, at the same time that avoiding somewhat the anticipated movement and merge proposal.

The pharmaceutical industry includes companies that research, develop, market or distribute generic and branded drugs. The industry expanded during the 1980’s and drugs to treat heart disease and AIDS were prominent. Consumer demand for nutritional supplements and alternative medicine increased during the 1990’s with the Internet facilitating direct purchases of drugs. Advertising for direct consumption of pharmaceutical drugs became more prominent; pharmaceutical companies were criticized for over medicating personality or social problems.

In 2000, Merck began to cooperate with Schering-Plough on several research products and in 2009 acquired their longtime partner in an effort to diversify its products and reach a broader consumer base. With challenges that include rising prices of research and prescription drugs, Merck has managed to forge forward and overcome obstacles. Merck’s survival has been a subject of speculation many times throughout the years; from the 2004 recall of their top selling drug (Vioxx) due to undesirable side effects to the recently curtailed trials of their very promising new anti-clotting drug (Vorapaxar) due to negative trial results. Kenneth Frazier, Merck’ CEO, has also come under heavy criticism due to his unconventional decision not to cut research budgets in order to increase profits. This strategy differs greatly from the usual path and it has cost Merck investor confidence which resulted in lowered stock prices . Although Merck has been subjected to challenges throughout their history they have always managed to stay afloat and maintain their reputation as a leader in healthcare.

In my point of view, Pfizer and its two competitors - Merck and Johnson & Johnson all have low cost of capital. Although they all involved in a lot borrowings , they all have very good capital structures as pharmaceutical companies. The reason is that the costs in R&D and innovation are extremely high in the pharmaceutical industry.

In the last several years, Merck’s individual R &D department has not been able to keep pace with declining revenues from existing products. It is only through Mergers and Acquisitions that Merck has supplemented this income.

This project is the final of three reports I will complete as part of the strategic analysis of Pfizer. This report focuses on strategic implementation and includes the following sections. First, the major concepts related to strategy implementation will be defined. Second, those concepts will be applied to the case of Pfizer in order to analyze its corporate governance, organizational structure and strategic leadership. The analysis of Pfizer will be followed by its evaluation to identify the major problem the company is facing and propose a solution. A short conclusion will close the report.

Pfizer is known as one of the first and one of the world’s largest Pharmaceutical company that was establish in 1849. It was founded by two cousins called Charles Pfizer and Charles F. Erhart in New York City. Pfizer was as a manufacturer for fine chemicals but because of the discovery that was made in 1950 which made the company the path towards becoming the research-based pharmaceutical that it is update. The product that was first produced was the palatable form of sautonin which was used to treat intestinal worm. The Headquarters of Pfizer is located in New York City, with its research headquarters in Groton, Connecticut, which is nowadays the top multinational corporation that is sold all over the world. It is ranked as the second in the US and Japan market, and Novartis in first place and Roche in third place. The Pfizer Inc. is consisted with a trademark that is called PFIZER. Because of Pfizer’s strategies, Pfizer

This report provides an analytical strategic review of the global pharmaceutical industry; its origin, evolution,

Moreover, one may be able to find more potential business partners in exporting to other countries. One may find a business partner that is willing to cater to and audience of Pfizer’s pharmaceutical products from another country.

Although R&D has been retained by the large pharmaceutical firms, there has been a continuous decline in the R&D productivity. Controlling R&D is imperative to the success of a Pharmaceutical firm. However, as the pharmaceutical industry is maturing, there are diminishing returns to the R&D investment. Fewer and fewer blockbuster drugs are being discovered and therefore R&D is not the most value adding component in the value