| Mark Probert 2005-09-28, 9:42 am |
| PeterB wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
>
>
> Mark, that is not in your script.
What an utterly moroinc thing to say.
It is correct, however. See if Rich
> agrees with you. Rich?
>
> Glad to have you back, Mark.
>
>
> Yes, there are profits for Merck or they wouldn't continue to
> manufacture vaccine.
Profits are one thing...but is it a viable return on their investment?
Putting in X dollars to make .001X is not the same as putting in the
smae money to make .01X.
And you don't jetison a profitable business unless
> it becomes unprofitable.
Yes, you do so in some cases. Vaccines are, at best, marginably
profitable. I dumped a client a few years back as they were very
demanding, and, when I calculated the time I was spending justifying my
actions and bills, the "profit" was nearly gone. Dumping them also had
the side effect of a dramatic drop in stress. I was able to spend more
time on other clients who did not play absurd games and made up the
difference.
Interestingly, I was not the only one who dropped them, and they asked
to come back around a year ago. No one was interested and they now do
the service I was providing in house, at an astronomically higher price.
>
> Margins vary, so what?
Margins are the name of the game. If two itens cost X dollars to
manufacture and one makes 50% more for them, guess which product stays
and the other goes?
No company would be selling more than one
> product if they only kept their best performer. There is no logical
> basis for your question.
When there are numerous products, and pharmaceutical manufacturers often
have many, marginally profitable one go when they need the cash flow for
other projects.
|