How Ozempic's maker lost its grip on the obesity market it created
In 2023, Novo Nordisk was the most valuable company in Europe, surpassing LVMH on the back of soaring demand for Ozempic and Wegovy.
Today, the Danish company has lost its grip on the anti-obesity market it carved out.
The company has lost market share amid production missteps and a bungled rollout of Wegovy that led to shortages. Its U.S. rival Eli Lilly—initially in the rearview mirror—has been proven to have the more effective weight-loss drug and a more promising pipeline of next-generation treatments. Novo Nordisk's research-and-development machine has disappointed, and a key marketing strategy was slow to get off the ground.
Novo Nordisk's ability to stay atop a market that analysts see growing to $150 billion in annual sales is now in doubt. Its controlling shareholder this month forced a surprise ouster of the company's chief executive, Lars Fruergaard Jørgensen. And while it is still generating multibillion-dollar sales for Ozempic and Wegovy, shares have tumbled more than 50% over the past year.
If Novo Nordisk doesn't turn things around, it could join a long list of companies that blew a first-mover advantage, from Sunshine Biscuits—whose Hydrox cookies were overtaken by now-iconic Oreos—to the Myspace social network.
'Everyone wants to be the first footprints on the empty beach," said Americus Reed, marketing professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. 'But it depends on how you land on that first move. The second mover is watching them make mistakes. You're able to identify those and not make those mistakes."
Lars Fruergaard Jørgensen, who was pushed out as CEO of Novo Nordisk earlier this month.Novo Nordisk lost market share after miscalculating demand in the launch of weight-loss drug Wegovy.
A Novo Nordisk spokeswoman said the company remains the global-volume market leader in GLP-1 drugs, serving nearly two-thirds of patients taking them for diabetes and obesity.
Some investors and industry watchers say Novo Nordisk's troubles stem from a cautious, reactive approach starting when the market first burst onto the scene, in contrast with a faster, more aggressive tack in production and marketing by Lilly.
'Novo is always a step behind," said Yuri Khodjamirian, chief investment officer at Tema ETFs, which owns Novo Nordisk shares.
One of Novo Nordisk's early stumbles was underestimating the demand for Wegovy—the weight-loss version of semaglutide, the same compound as diabetes drug Ozempic—ahead of its 2021 launch. The company's planning was informed by its experience generating modest sales for an earlier weight-loss drug, Saxenda. Doctors were skeptical of it, and many health-insurance plans in the U.S. didn't cover weight-loss drugs.
Novo Nordisk thought Wegovy might run into the same market constraints as Saxenda, so the company planned modest production levels, using a combination of in-house and contract manufacturing capacity.
It wasn't enough. It took only five weeks for the prescription rate of Wegovy to exceed the level that Saxenda had taken five years to reach. Jørgensen recalled later, in an interview in 2024, that he initially thought: ''That's patients who've been lined up, there's pent-up demand, it will normalize.' It didn't. It just kept growing."
The company responded by limiting demand—the last thing a drugmaker wants to do with a new product. Sales representatives asked doctors not to start new patients. The company resorted to rationing by withholding the lower, starter doses for new patients, to conserve supplies for existing patients taking the higher doses.
The shortages opened the door for competition. They made it legal for special pharmacies in the U.S. to make compounded, copycat versions of semaglutide that sold for much less than list prices for Ozempic and Wegovy. Telehealth firms capitalized on the new, lower-cost supply by hawking the compounded versions, taking away market share from Novo Nordisk.
Eli Lilly activated a manufacturing plant in Concord, N.C., to keep up with a surge in demand for Mounjaro and Zepbound.
The shortages gave rival Eli Lilly time to catch up. Lilly introduced Mounjaro for diabetes in 2022, followed by Zepbound, a weight-loss version of the same drug, in 2023. Zepbound has been shown in studies to induce greater weight loss than Wegovy, more than 20% of body weight.
Although Lilly also encountered shortages due to high demand, it was able to resolve them more quickly than Novo Nordisk. Now, weekly U.S. prescriptions for Lilly's Zepbound have surpassed Wegovy's. Mounjaro still trails Ozempic but is closing the gap.
Novo Nordisk has spent billions of dollars trying to expand manufacturing capacity, including an unusual deal last year for its controlling foundation to acquire the contract manufacturer Catalent for $16 billion.
The R&D race for future weight-loss drugs also has tilted in Eli Lilly's direction. Lilly has reported favorable clinical-trial data for two closely watched experimental drugs, including a pill version that analysts think could be appealing to people who don't want injections.
Novo Nordisk, meanwhile, has had some R&D disappointments, including studies of an experimental combination weight-loss drug dubbed CagriSema. The less-than-expected results of one study sent Novo Nordisk shares plunging more than 20% in one day in December, wiping out nearly $100 billion in stock-market capitalization for the company. Some analysts have cut their sales forecasts for the drug.
Novo Nordisk's Wegovy has been surpassed in weekly U.S. prescriptions by Lilly's Zepbound.
Lilly has gained an edge on the marketing front as well. The company beat Novo Nordisk to the punch in launching a direct-to-consumer, online service selling weight-loss drugs at discounted cash prices, aimed at people who don't have insurance coverage. And it was first to strike a deal with a big telehealth firm, Ro, to sell a discounted weight-loss drug. Novo Nordisk eventually made similar moves, but months after Lilly.
'They seem to be missing a lot of these kinds of strategic endeavors to help sell into a market that is different from a lot of pharma markets," said BMO Capital Markets analyst Evan David Seigerman.
The Novo Nordisk spokeswoman said the company resolved its shortages before announcing its direct-to-patient service and striking telehealth deals.
Novo Nordisk isn't out of the race. The company can still turn things around by leaning into CagriSema, which generated solid weight-loss data even if it missed expectations, and by developing other new drugs that target various segments of the growing market, Seigerman said.
More recently, Novo Nordisk has shown signs of being more aggressive. It signed a deal with CVS to make Wegovy the preferred weight-loss drug for members of its drug-benefit plans.
Author Hanne Sindbæk, who has written two books about Novo Nordisk, says there has been an eternal tug of war inside the company between those who are guided by values—the idea that the company works for the common good rather than simply to make a profit—and those who run the business. If Novo Nordisk wants to stay in the game, it may have to lean toward the latter in choosing its next CEO.
Jørgensen, the outgoing CEO, is still in his role while the company searches for a new chief. His predecessor as CEO, Lars Rebien Sørensen, who is chairman of the foundation that has voting control of the drugmaker's shares, will join the Novo Nordisk board of directors.
'Now they need somebody more business-driven," Sindbæk said.
Write to Peter Loftus at Peter.Loftus@wsj.com and Noemie Bisserbe at noemie.bisserbe@wsj.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Retirement in Europe: How long will we have to work?
Representative image (AI) On May 22, the Danish parliament passed legislation raising the retirement age. The law, approved by 81 lawmakers with 21 voting against, sets the retirement age at 70 for all citizens born after December 31, 1970. Currently, the retirement age in Denmark is 67. By 2030, it will rise to 68, and by 2035 to 69. Last year, 47-year-old Social Democratic Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen stated that she would be open to reviewing the system once the official retirement age reached 70. International comparisons show just how differently retirement ages are regulated. In some countries, people continue to work even longer than they are legally required to. Will Germany follow Denmark's lead? Germany's new government is still trying to figure out how to deal with the country's struggling statutory pensions system. At a party convention of the ruling Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in Stuttgart recently, Germany's new chancellor, Friedrich Merz, praised himself and his Social Democratic coalition partner for having "written many good things into the coalition agreement" — the key issue of how to shore up the finances of the chronically underfunded pension system, however, isn't among them. Merz warned that "the way things are today can only last for a few more years at most." For Bernd Raffelhüschen, a former government economic advisor, the Danish reform effort is worth emulating. "We should raise the retirement age to 70 quickly so we can still catch at least part of the baby boomer generation," the economist told the Augsburger Allgemeine newspaper recently, referring to the large cohort of people born at the end of the 1950s and early 60s, who are currently retiring in huge numbers. Raffelhüschen said that because 1 million Germans will be leaving the workforce every year until 2035, this would push pension contributions higher for younger generations. Beveridge vs. Bismarck Pension financing in Europe follows two main models named after their founders: the Bismarck model, based on social legislation introduced by German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck in the 19th century, and the Beveridge model, developed in the 1940s. The Beveridge system is a welfare model that provides universal coverage and is tax-funded. It was devised by British economist William Henry Beveridge, a member of the UK Liberals' parliamentary faction. The Bismarck model, on the other hand, is an insurance-based system in which both workers and employers pay into a fund. In simplified terms, it's a so-called pay-as-you-go system where the working population finances the pensions of retirees through their contributions. This is why comparing pension systems across Europe is difficult — even more so as many countries use hybrid models combining aspects of both. The specifics, often complex, also vary widely between nations. Demographics, and the benefits of working longer — or shorter Germany's Bismarck-based system is increasingly under strain due to demographic changes. As the population ages and the workforce shrinks, there are more retirees and fewer people to fund the social insurance schemes. At the same time, people are living longer due to rising life expectancy, which means they draw pensions for more years. This puts mounting pressure on pay-as-you-go pension funds, with the result that either contributions must keep rising, or pension benefits may stagnate, failing to keep up with inflation. Alternatively, the overall pension level may have to drop Of course, a shorter working life and earlier retirement are appealing for most people as they can leave work before their physical capabilities decline and use the final third of their lives for meaningful activities or more time with family. There are also economic benefits, as more leisure time creates more opportunities to spend money, thus stimulating consumer demand and the broader economy. But working longer can also have advantages. Many people feel fit and engaged well into their 60s so that they may enjoy continuing to work, pass on their knowledge, and value interaction with younger colleagues. Employers benefit from retaining experienced staff and established routines, which may also help to mitigate the skilled labor shortage in Germany. Retiring a personal decision Looking at international statistics reveals that legal retirement age rarely aligns with when people actually stop working. In most cases, people retire earlier because their bodies can't keep up, or in creative professions, because of burnout. In a few countries like New Zealand, Japan, Sweden, or Greece, people often work beyond the official retirement age. Whether they do so voluntarily is unclear. The reasons are often too personal to be captured by statistics.\ The so-called gross replacement rate — the ratio of pension benefits to the final salary — plays a major role in people's decisions. If that gap is too wide, some workers can't afford to retire. The threat of old-age poverty could be reduced if pensions were high enough to provide financial security after a long career. But that would require money that the pension system currently lacks. On the other hand, raising contribution levels too much would limit workers' ability to save privately for retirement.
Hindustan Times
11 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
A bad wrap: An angry Trump blasts the 'TACO Theory'
President Donald Trump made no pretense at hiding his irritation this week when he was asked by a reporter about "TACO" an acronym that has been gaining traction among Wall Street traders who believe that "Trump Always Chickens Out." The so-called "TACO Theory" was coined by Robert Armstrong, a Financial Times writer seeking to underline the US president's tendency to backtrack on policies when they start to roil the markets. Investors have come to realize that the US administration "does not have a very high tolerance for market and economic pressure and will be quick to back off when tariffs cause pain," the journalist concluded. "This is the TACO Theory: Trump Always Chickens Out." Armstrong was writing earlier this month, after stocks had just rebounded sharply on Trump's announcement of a pause in massive tariffs imposed on the rest of the world by the Republican leader. Worsening the whiplash, Trump announced last week that tariffs of 50 percent on imports from the European Union would come into force on June 1 but two days later declared a pause until July 9. At the heart of Trump's flip-flops is an acute sensitivity for the ups and downs of market trading that he honed as a brash New York property developer and business magnate in the 1980s. During his first term in office, a sharp reaction on Wall Street could sometimes be the only way to change the billionaire's mind. Beyond the columns of the Financial Times, the "TACO Theory" is having a viral moment, and has entered the lexicon of investors who see it as more than just a snarky in-joke, according to analysts. "TACO trading strategy gets attention again," blared the headline on a podcast released Monday by John Hardy, head of macroeconomic strategy at Danish investment bank Saxo. The phrase eventually found its way back to the 78-year-old president, who furiously denied on Wednesday that he was backing down in the face of stock market turmoil. "I chicken out? I've never heard that... don't ever say what you said, that's a nasty question," the mercurial tycoon thundered, rounding in the journalist who had asked for his take on the expression. Far from caving, Trump said he was merely engaging in the high-stakes cut and thrust of international dealmaking, he snarled adding, with a sardonic edge: "It's called negotiation." For Steve Sosnick of Interactive Brokers, the TACO Theory is a "nonpolitical way of the markets calling the administration's bluff." Sam Burns, an analyst at Mill Street Research, told AFP he has noticed a new equanimity in Wall Street's reaction to each new tariff announcement, with traders' responses initially "much larger and more direct." Where they once convulsed markets, Trump's tariff talk now tends to be viewed as "easily reversible or not reliable," said Burns, and investors are accordingly more willing to ignore the instinct to act rashly. This new calm was evident among traders at the New York Stock Exchange who held steady in the face of Trump's EU tariff threats, and again when they did not overreact to successive court rulings blocking and then temporarily reinstating most of the tariffs. But Hardy, the Saxo analyst, warns that the vagaries of Trump's day-to-day announcements should not distract from the protectionist bent of his broader political outlook. "Trump might 'chicken out' at times," Hardy wrote in a recent commentary on Saxo's website. "But the underlying policy moves are for real, and a deadly serious shift in US economic statecraft and industrial policy that is a response to massive instabilities that have been growing for years." rle-tmc/ft/sla
Mint
12 hours ago
- Mint
Will European business turn away from America?
If the European Union was, as Donald Trump claims, formed 'to screw the United States", nobody told its companies. The stock of foreign direct investment in America held by EU businesses reached more than $2trn in 2023, accounting for nearly two-fifths of the country's total, up from a third a decade before. That is far more than from any other source. European companies employ around 3.5m people in America, more than American ones do in the bloc. Germany's car-industry association says its members have 140,000 workers across 2,000 factories in America, producing 900,000 vehicles a year. Nevertheless, European companies have found themselves in the sights of America's president, who is irked by the fact that his country imports more goods from the EU than it exports (and ignores the fact that the opposite is true for services). On May 23rd Mr Trump threatened to impose a 50% tariff on European wares from June 1st. Since then, a flurry of diplomacy has led to a reprieve, and a court in America has thrown Mr Trump's tariff-setting powers into doubt. But the uncertainty is enough to make European bosses take a hard look at their exposure to the country. Based on figures from Morgan Stanley, a bank, companies listed in the EU rely on America for almost a fifth of their sales on average (see chart). For companies such as EssilorLuxottica, a Franco-German maker of spectacles, and Novo Nordisk, a Danish manufacturer of weight-loss drugs, the share is much greater. Even European firms that produce in America often rely on inputs from abroad. As America threatens to become a more costly and volatile place to do business, some may be tempted to shift their attention to another market that has lately fallen out of favour: China. Should they? European companies have poured money into America in recent years, attracted by the spritely growth of its economy and, for some industries, the generous subsidies introduced by the Biden administration. At the same time, many European firms have dialled down their investments in China in response to slowing growth, fierce competition from domestic rivals and concerns over the country's increasingly fractious relations with the EU. Over the past few years, the share of listed EU companies' sales generated in China has stalled at below a tenth, while the portion from America has gradually ticked upwards. Redirected Now some European businesses are rethinking their westward turn. Although a few, such as Sanofi, a French pharma giant, and Siemens, a German machinery-maker, have announced big investments to boost production in America, many others are being put off by Mr Trump's chaotic policymaking. In a recent survey by Germany's Chamber of Commerce and Industry, 24% of companies said they were planning to increase their investments in America, whereas 29% said they were planning to reduce them. 'The uncertainty is making big strategic decisions very tricky," says Alexander Lacik, boss of Pandora, the world's largest jewellery-maker by volume. Around 30% of the Danish company's sales come from America. Most of its production is not in Europe but Thailand. Pandora also ships wares destined for Canada and Latin America to its distribution centre in Baltimore, which it may stop doing as a result of American tariffs. The boss of a Dutch multinational company likewise laments the volatility of America's trade policies. Every new tariff announcement has potentially big ramifications for its supply chain and pricing. Meanwhile, some European companies are turning their gaze back eastward. 'There is an appetite among European business leaders for re-engagement in China," says Max Zenglein of MERICS, a think-tank based in Berlin. Volkswagen, Europe's biggest carmaker, is one company that is eager to reverse its deteriorating position in the market. At the Shanghai auto show in April it announced that it would launch 11 models exclusively for China, including six electric vehicles and two plug-in hybrids. It has set itself a target of selling 4m cars in China annually by 2030, up from 2.9m in 2024—a difficult task, given that its sales there shrank by nearly 10% last year. Despite recent efforts by China's leaders to court European bosses, the country remains a tricky place for eu companies to operate in. European firms still face significant barriers to investment, procurement and data handling, says Mr Zenglein. In a survey conducted earlier this year by the EU Chamber of Commerce in China, 73% of companies said that doing business there had become more difficult over the past year. 'China's charm offensive—no matter how timely given Trump's aggression against the EU—should be ignored," argues Alicia García Herrero of Natixis, an investment bank. Profit margins are razor thin, foreign companies are at a disadvantage and anyone hoping to transfer technology from China to Europe will do so in vain, cautions Ms García Herrero. Not all European firms will place the same bets. China is the world's largest market for cars and machine tools; America is the biggest for apparel and drugs. Exposure to the two superpowers already varies significantly across European countries. America accounts for 42% of the sales of listed Dutch firms, according to Morgan Stanley, compared with just 8% for Italian ones. German companies generate 13% of their revenue in China, whereas Spanish ones make just 2% of theirs in the country. What is more, America and China are not the only options available to European businesses. Jacob Aarup-Andersen, chief executive of Carlsberg, a Danish brewer, says that although his company plans to continue investing in China, which makes up a fifth of its sales, it is also increasing its efforts to grow in other markets such as India and Vietnam. There is, after all, a world beyond the rival superpowers.
