- Reaction score
- 1,132
I didn't say this will be the case for RCH-01 though, just gave you a counter example
Now deal with it
Replicel Is On Fire Lately — Data In Feb.
- Thread starter That Guy
- Start date
I didn't say this will be the case for RCH-01 though, just gave you a counter example
Now deal with it
Selling to a couple hundred thousand or couple million people is better than nobody. Outside of JNJ, there isn’t a single major player in Pharma selling a hair loss drug.
Even if you have hair loss RCH-01 has value. You stop the hair loss with RCH-01, then you fill it out with a hair transplant. hair transplant surgeons often require their patients to be on finasteride after treatment, RCH-01 seems like a logical replacement for that.
It still has the potential to be a billion dollar a year drug easily.
These companies clearly don’t require repeat hair loss customers to survive. In fact, almost all of them currently have zero hair loss customers and they’re doing just fine. You’re not wrong, they’d obviously rather sell you a pill indefinitely. But at the end of the day that doesn’t matter. Some company would still develop it. There’s still money to be made even if it’s not the most possible. Hair loss clinical trials are one of the simplest and most affordable to conduct in the industry. Even if sales were not even projected to top 500 million per year, it would still be worthwhile to develop for some Pharma company.
They’re called vaccines dude holy sh*t. The pharmaceutical industry literally cured you of multiple diseases hours after you were born.
And you keep acting like the pharmaceutical industry is a single entity. Anyone can start a pharmaceutical with a couple of hundred million dollars. The cures for for cancer will be discovered in academic labs by research scientists. If big Pharma doesn’t want to work on their cure, venture capalist definitely will. They’ll start their own company, make their billions, and f*** the rest of the industry. That’s how this sh*t works dude. There’s no conspiracy. If there is money to be made, someone is going to come in and make that money.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 1,030
You make a good point regarding hair loss industry. and more when prevention is not very difficult.
- Reaction score
- 365
I’m just not sure that repeat customers are a big part of every business model. The most profitable treatment in this market is hair transplants, and I’d venture to say that a healthy majority of guys who get them done are not going back for seconds. Not splitting a surgery up into two separate procedures, rather getting one, losing more hair and going back for another. I’m sure the surgeons are happy to oblige when this happens even if it’s obviously a fruitless endeavor on the customers part since it means he hasn’t stabilized his loss. And those surgeons are doing just fine reaching new clientele and having them pay out the *** for a relatively simple procedure. I don’t think that plastic surgeons bank on repeat customers to stay in business either. They have them, obviously, but they don’t need them “to survive” like you suggest. I can think of few other companies in specific niches that fit this description as well.
All I was getting at is that the biggest factors by far for the lack of current efficacious hair loss treatments is lack of funding and lack of knowledge / scientific hurdles. I never intended to imply that a company would take a vaccine-like approach to hairloss, because I realize that it’s not a serious enough issue for people to address until they’ve experienced it. But a one time treatment that can still bring NW5s back from the follicular graveyard is still a multi billion dollar endeavor IMO - if the price point is right.
You are delusional and apparently can't read. A hairloss cure isn't going to stop people from getting prostate cancer; it's an indicator that hairloss should be taken more serious, as it is correlated with increased risk of prostate cancer and heart disease.
One company already had a product that could stop hairloss; they shelved it. So right away you're whole "Oh, they wouldn't do that..." is demonstrably incorrect.
This is so insanely simple I can't believe I have to explain: The pharmaceutical industry exists to develop treatments and cures. You getting the disease in the first place is how they stay in business.
These businesses are not interested in prevention and thereby products that negate the risk entirely. RepliCel and Shiseido do seem to intend to release this despite that, but that is beside the point we are arguing.
The next thing is you say "Why wouldn't the majority of the population be able to get", I didn't say they wouldn't be "able" to get. This is your piss-poor reading ability at work again. The majority won't get it, because they don't care about it. I know that's an incomprehensible idea to most people here, but it's the truth. Swoop had linked some years ago on here market research by PureTech that found the reason most people didn't use finasteride, minoxidil or transplants wasn't because of "side effects" and sh*t. It's because they either A) Are dissatisfied with the lack of regrowth, or B) Didn't know it existed in the first place.
Deal with it.
Almost every person I'm aware of on these forums who has had a transplant has had more than one.
- Reaction score
- 521
Blah blah blah... no news on rch-01, only bullshit arguments.
- Reaction score
- 365
Not exactly a representative sample size. These are the most hairloss obsessed people on the planet and there’s like 20 of us..
Aderans. Yet again, you fail to read anything that the person you're arguing with says.
"You only have business if you have a disease to treat" = "Completely ridiculous" to you? Really?
Further this is a strawman. Nobody said they wouldn't market a cure for a disease.
The argument is that they don't care to prevent the disease. I could explain this to a five-year-old and they'd get it. You, presumably, are older and can't seem to wrap your brain around it.
RCH-01 is not a cure. A majority of the population will find little use for a purely maintenance-based treatment. They don't now. It is only able to treat Androgenetic Alopecia, is not going to be mandatory, many may not be able or willing to spend the money on it, and many just simply won't care.
Tsuji will be more profitable. Shampoo is more profitable. Repeat customers, more expensive, greater market-demand. This is not difficult to understand.
Uh huh. Most people who've lost a good amount of hair, have good donor, and want to recover a large amount will rarely be able to pay all at once.
sorry but you're wrong here. what does hair loss prevention even mean? first you say a maintenance treatment is no good, then you say they don't care to prevent the disease. well if someone who has a full head of hair keeps taking a maintenance treatment, how would that not equate to hair loss prevention?
stop with the half baked pseudoscience conspiracy theories please
This forum has hit new levels of stupid since I've been active here.
The initial quote that kicked off this conversation was this:
No. It isn't.
There is nothing in business, anywhere, in any industry, where this is true.
If this were the case, finasteride would be a smash hit. Instead, it's largely a commercial failure and most people don't even know it exists. I've told on here many times about how it took me 3 doctors before one said "you could try these pills". The other two didn't even know it was a thing. "But sides tho..." no, that's not why most men don't take it — sorry.
If this were the case, Aderans wouldn't have shelved whatever their product was called.
Capitalism requires consistent growth in order to sustain itself. One-and-done sales are fundamentally opposed to this, and no business (medical included) values this over repeat profits. Anyone who thinks this isn't the case, is an idiot. There's no polite way to put it.
A cancer cure will be profitable because you cannot vaccinate against it and lifestyles foster its development. It will always be profitable. People will always have hair that needs washing and shampoo runs out.
and a hairloss "vaccine" where the only markets who'd be interested in and could afford such a thing, are not having babies and have an advanced-age population where most of the clientele would need NEW hair and not just prevention will NOT be as profitable as something like Tsuji. It wouldn't even be as profitable as selling Shampoo to all the people who have hair that needs washing. Why? Because the bottle runs out.
So "maintenance is where the money is at" long or short term, is just not true if the process is only needed once per person.
The initial quote that kicked off this conversation was this:
No. It isn't.
There is nothing in business, anywhere, in any industry, where this is true.
If this were the case, finasteride would be a smash hit. Instead, it's largely a commercial failure and most people don't even know it exists. I've told on here many times about how it took me 3 doctors before one said "you could try these pills". The other two didn't even know it was a thing. "But sides tho..." no, that's not why most men don't take it — sorry.
If this were the case, Aderans wouldn't have shelved whatever their product was called.
Capitalism requires consistent growth in order to sustain itself. One-and-done sales are fundamentally opposed to this, and no business (medical included) values this over repeat profits. Anyone who thinks this isn't the case, is an idiot. There's no polite way to put it.
A cancer cure will be profitable because you cannot vaccinate against it and lifestyles foster its development. It will always be profitable. People will always have hair that needs washing and shampoo runs out.
and a hairloss "vaccine" where the only markets who'd be interested in and could afford such a thing, are not having babies and have an advanced-age population where most of the clientele would need NEW hair and not just prevention will NOT be as profitable as something like Tsuji. It wouldn't even be as profitable as selling Shampoo to all the people who have hair that needs washing. Why? Because the bottle runs out.
So "maintenance is where the money is at" long or short term, is just not true if the process is only needed once per person.
You’re assuming people are arguing that a maintenance treatment is one off - we all know it isn’t. A cure is a one off. A maintenance treatment we all assume would have to be done periodically which is why it is more profitable than a cure.
For fucks sake, PetersonKi. You now have 806 messages on this forum in a mere 10 weeks. You are over the top obsessive and need to take a break. There's nothing for you to learn on this board until some new product comes to market. You should see a therapist.
"We all assume"
The assumption is not supported by anything.
Except a company that had already developed this type of therapy and, as I've explained numerous times to you, did not market the product.
I'm not going to bother with you any further, as I'm just going to wind up repeating myself over and over. "Customer retention" is business 101.
The money is in regrowth, and that's why most of these companies are pursuing it.
Not all businesses operate like that. You have acknowledge that.
Hospital aren't going to break your legs again if you went to the hospital because of the broken leg. Just like construction. Its not good for a construction business if they have to rebuild your whole house after 1-2 years. Its simply put not good for branding. And a lot of consumer products are like that. They don't want returning customers because of a faulty product, so they want to deliver the best they can.
Didn't it end up with that crispier wouldn't work because of the immune system would reject it? I think that is the big challenge for most when talking about alternating genes, DNA or what ever. That the immune system will battle it from the start.
Or else like with some HIV patients, you have to "flush out" the blood and replace it with some blood with the right properties. Can't remember the procedure as it is right now, but its needs a decent amount of resources, but it its durable and have been done before to cure HIV patients with HIV immune properties from other people
Stem cell research, genetic research, organ engineering will not be golden standards in next 100 years. Do you know how far away we are for creating human organ or tissue? Very, very, very far away. Even if we are capable for creating human organs in next 50 years still there will be another 15-20 years more for training doctors to do the procedure.
Hospitals have a never-ending supply of patients for all manner of problems and most people will probably pay several visits to one over the course of their life.
Buildings get damaged and need repair, extensions built on, cities expand (upward and outward) and construction companies always have regular clients for new ventures. So yes, both of these still require customer retention.
It is true that science has advanced immensely in recent times. Faster than ever before, in fact.
It is equally true that almost every single grand prediction of the high-tech future has been way, way ahead of schedule.
Yes, science is advancing, but how many hospitals and doctors worldwide are using all those new medicine approaches? All new fields in medicine are only used by tiny numbers of best scientists and doctors.