Talk:Pharmaceutical sales representative

{{npov}}

The term Detail Man/Detail Rep originated around 1945. The pharmaceutical industry came up with a new name for their sales reps and called them "detail men" and later "detail rep" when women entered the sales force in the early 1970's. The reason why they came up with the new name "detail man" was so that they could get additional gas rationing during World War II. During the war there was a gas shortage and each job category received a certain amount of gas ration coupons. The pharmaceutical industry wanted their reps to get additional gas rationing so they came up with the new name and told the government how important it was for the detail men to inform the doctors about new drugs and new indication. So that is the origin of the term detail man/detail rep. It has nothing to do with knowing details about the doctors birthday or kids names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EspressoForYou (talk • contribs) 03:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC) I don't really see how this is POV....Will remove in a couple days if no rationale... Copysan 02:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment moved from [Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Health science]]:

• Detailman needs some work, the article present the profession as Illegal drug trade and pimping

Fail to see how the drug pusher comparison is fair...203.5.70.1 14:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV fixed a while back, so I move the article and did some overdue summarizing. - RoyBoy 04:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

Some of this article is seriously POV. The comment about pushing "me too" drugs is based on what? And the statements about dinners and "swag" (that's probably a word that needs to be fixed) is antiquated, since rules about it have been changed. This appears to be written as if pharmaceutical sales is stuck in the 80's. Things have changed. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Can't find a mention of "me too" drugs, which is troubling as its an important topic. Me too drugs are a complex topic, however the primary driver behind them is patent expiration and revenues, which is the goal of sales reps. Pharmaceutical companies say they have better efficacy / safety, however both of which are questionable until it hits the real world where the results can be mixed or worse.

As to rules have changed and the 80's... huh? Rules don't count, enforcement does. High pressure sales goals remain the same, sure they will evolve for specific jurisdictions that decide the crack down, but I've seen little indication much has changed despite Federal lawsuits. Can you clarify with specifics what rules and enforcement action(s) has changed this profession? I'm planning to remove the template next week, and add a "me too" section. - RoyBoy 23:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

My bad for missing it, didn't think remember I put a hyphen. I'll update the Criticism section for balance, and better reflect potential benefits as I agree it's one sided. - RoyBoy 23:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. - RoyBoy 01:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at a real encylopedia sometime, get a picture of what a neutral point of view looks like. Hint: you won't find books by activists as the only cited references at the end of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.21.76 (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pharmaceutical sales representative. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111130082848/http://pharmrep.findpharma.com/ to http://pharmrep.findpharma.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204040615/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0005.pomper.html to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0005.pomper.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204040615/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0005.pomper.html to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0005.pomper.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)