 |
Study Independence 1. Who are the major industry groups/supporters of the study? The study was supported under a grant from the Association of Medical Publications (AMP). The data were provided by Scott-Levin and PERQ/HCI. 2. How did the AMP get involved in this study? This study originated a few years ago as medical journals — like all promotional/educational vehicles — were asked to provide ROI data on their effectiveness. While there had previously been extensive research conducted in this area, this request additionally extended to the provision of medical journal advertising ROI in relation to other major industry promotional tools. Such a broad-based study however, had never been done before. The AMP was in a unique position to execute such a study: There was no similar trade association for the other promotional vehicles, nor would any individual pharmaceutical company undertake a full industry overview. Thus, a decision was made by the AMP in 1999 to move forward with this endeavor. To fund the study, the AMP asked its membership for a "special donation." It also enlisted the support of Scott-Levin and PERQ/HCI to provide the necessary, and extensive, data. Both organizations did this free of charge, as they also recognized the uniqueness of the study and its wide-ranging benefit to the industry. 3. How do I know that this was an independent study? The grant from the AMP was provided without restrictions to the study's author (Dr. Scott Neslin, Albert Wesley Frey Professor of Marketing, Amos Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth College). Dr. Neslin was chosen to conduct the study after an extensive search of the nation’s leading academic researchers in the area of promotional effectiveness. Additionally, all data were supplied from Scott-Levin and PERQ/HCI directly to Dr. Neslin. 4. As medical journal advertising had the highest ROI of all tactics studied, one natural reaction is to question the AMP's sponsorship and potential influence. Could Dr. Neslin provide a paragraph describing his involvement in the study? "I came into this study with an open mind, and these are my objective findings. As an academic without a vested long-term interest in any one form of advertising, I did not feel pressured to find in favor of one mode of advertising versus another. The data, not the sponsorship, are the driving forces of the results. Additionally, we included all brands with sales greater than $25 million in 1999; we did not preselect brands that we thought were good or bad candidates for high ROIs." — Dr. Scott Neslin |
ARPP Analysis | RAPP Study | AMP/ABM Study | Medical Journal Advertising
Additionanl Reading | Other Sites | Contact | Site Map | Home
