Burroughs Wellcome

Q1 . In 1990, Burroughs Wellcome was spending substantial resources on finding a better interference for AIDS than what they currently had (which is zidovudine). Some officials in Burroughs Wellcome feared that if Burroughs Wellcome did not decrease the price of AZT by 20% in 1990, then a hap from the public pass along behind negatively pertain the gross sales of Burroughs Wellcomes separate 2 products (Zovirax and Sudafed) and whatever potential AIDS drug that they business leader be/ severalize in the next (in former(a) words, customers may stop acquire the aforementi hotshotd BWs current/potential drugs owing to the negative furtherance of BW). Do you think their fears are well up founded? Give reasons for your answer. In my opinion, Burroughs fears that the backlash from public will negatively impact the sales of its other two products (Zovirax and Sudafed) and that of any(prenominal) potential AIDS drugs they might invent/discover in future are well founded. In the read scenario AZT is the only drug getable for treatment of AIDS. The benefits of AZT stimulate a direct impact on the patients choice of sustenance; as a take patients desire for the treatment is high. Since AZT is the only drug which win out extend patients life expectancy and boost their resistant system, its importance to the patients is paramount.

Hence, in the unequal run the negative forwarding will not have any impact on the sales of AZT and BWC can go ahead without any further cut in the price of AZT, and recover incite of its past-costs and collect some monetary resource for investment in R &D for future drugs. But since one or mo! re drugs is expected to become approval by the end of 1991 AZTs timeframe as a monopolist is likely to be a short one. However, when it comes to other BWCs other two products (Zovirax and Sudafed)... If you lack to get a full essay, run it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper