That’s my conclusion after reading the BusinessWeek article “Sleep Drugs Rouse Big Pharma,” which talks about current and future insomnia medications. The article summarized an “Insight” report written by Steven Silver and Herman Saftlas, both equity analysts for Standard & Poor’s.
The analysts mentioned Ambien, Ambrien CR, and Lunesta in their analysis plus several generics (temazepam and zolpidem). But nowhere in the story was there mention of Rozerem!
My interpretation: Rozerem’s market share is too insignificant for it to be included in a serious analysis of the insomnia market!
This is even more surprising because the analysts claim only 10% – 15% of insomnia sufferers seek treatment primarily because of side effect (ie, dependence) fears:
“Approximately 70 million people in the U.S. suffer regular or occasional insomnia, according to Steven Silver, a biotechnology equity analyst for Standard & Poor’s. But only 10% to 15% seek treatment, in part because of the side effects associated with the current crop of insomnia drugs.”
But Rozerem ads claim that it is different (“Your doctor can explain how”) and Abe says “not to worry” about dependence!
“Since many insomnia drugs are sold directly to consumers, sales are greatly influenced by consumer print and broadcast advertising,” says the BusinessWeek article.
I guess the Rozerem marketing message is falling on deaf ears, or maybe people don’t believe Abe is as honest as he claims to be!
This is yet another confirmation of my contention that “Rozerem Ads are Innovatively Ineffectual.”
Sorry, Rozerem. But don’t worry, your ads still may win awards (see here).