In my opinion, the inconsistant use of the term "marketing" and the broad categories under which marketing activities are reported by pharmaceutical companies makes it difficult to conclude whether or not they spend more on marketing than on R&D.
The closest I have found to a certain answer is the case of Novartis, who spends more on marketing and sales than on R&D.
Pfizer spent $7,870 million on R&D in 2012. (Pfizer's 2012 financial statement, p. 25, 29)
Pfizer spent $16,616 million on "Selling, Informational, and Administrative" expenses in 2012. (Id. p. 29)
Pfizer says, "Among other things, these expenses include the internal and external costs of marketing, advertising, shipping and handling, information technology and legal defense. Advertising expenses totaled approximately $2.9 billion in 2012..." (Id. p. 61)
If you only count "advertising" as marketing, Pfizer is not spending more on marketing than R&D. If you allow other expenses to count as marketing, it is possible that the amount exceeds the amount spent on R&D. Given how this is reported by Pfizer, you can't answer this question by looking at the financial report.
Lilly spent $5,278 million on R&D in 2012. (Lilly's 2012 financial statement, p. 40)
Lilly spent $7,513 million on "Marketing, Selling, and Administrative" in 2012. (Id)
In my opinion, the ambiguity within the "Marketing, Selling and Administrative" category leaves it unknown if Lilly spends more on marketing than on R&D.
BMS spent $3,904 million on R&D in 2012. (BMS 2012 Annual Report, p. 14)
BMS spent $794 million on "Advertising and Product Promotion" in 2012. (Id.)
BMS spent $4,220 million on "Marketing, Selling, and Administrative" in 2012. (Id.)
In my opinion, the ambiguity in the "Marketing, Selling, and Administrative" category leaves it unknown if Bristol-Myers-Squibb spends more on marketing than on R&D.
Novartis spent $9,332 million on R&D in 2012. (Novartis 2012 Annual Report, p. 184)
Novartis spent $14,353 million on "Marketing and Sales" in 2012. (Id.)
Novartis spends more on marketing and sales than on R&D.
Bayer spends €2,932 million on R&D. (Bayer's 2012 Annual Report, p. 166)
Bayer spends €8,958 million on "Selling Expenses". (Id.)
Selling expenses is Bayer's category that includes "all expenses incurred in the reporting period for the sale, storage and transportation of saleable products, advertising, the provision of advice to customers, and market research". (Id., p. 213)
They break this down: €4,600 million in internal and external sales force, €2,273 million in advertising and customer advice, €1,322 million in warehousing and distribution, €680 million in commission and licencing expenses, and €1,112 on other selling expenses. (Id., p. 213)
In 2012, Bayer employed 12,992 people (full-time equivalents) classified as R&D, and 42,590 classified as "Marketing and distribution". (Id., p. 217)
In my opinion, this still results in ambiguity in the "Selling expenses" category, leaving it unknown if Bayer spends more on marketing than on R&D.
Johnson & Johnson
Johnson & Johnson spent $7,665 million on R&D in 2012. (Johnson & Johnson 2012 Annual Report. p. 21)
Johnson & Johnson spent $20,869 million on "Selling, marketing, and administrative" in 2012. (Id.)
Johnson & Johnson's "Selling, marketing, and administrative" category includes $1,051 million in shipping and handling and $2.3 billion in advertising.
In my opinion, this still results in ambiguity in the "Selling, marketing, and administrative" category, leaving it unknown if Johnson & Johnson spends more on marketing than on R&D.
Third party claims
Sufrin, Carolyn B. MD, MA *; Ross, Joseph S. MD, MHS. Pharmaceutical Industry Marketing: Understanding Its Impact on Women’s Health. Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey. 63(9):585-596, September 2008.
Pfizer, Merck, and Bristol-Myers-Squibb all spent a greater proportion of their total sales on marketing than they did on research and development.
Brezis, M. Big Pharma and Health Care: Unsolvable Conflict of Interests between Private Enterprise and Public Health. Isr J Psychiatry Relat Sci Vol 45 No. 2 (2008) 83–94
Budget for marketing is by far greater than for research.
The proportion of the budget spent on marketing is estimated at 36%, by far higher than the 11% devoted to research.
Analysis of the third party claims
Sufrin and Ross supported their statement by reference to the financial statements of Pfizer, Merck, and Bristol-Myers-Squibb from 2006.
I don't know how they came to this conclusion because neither Pfizer, Merck, nor Bristol-Myers-Squibb report "marketing" expenses. Pfizer reports "Selling, Informational, and Administrative" (Pfizer's 2006 Financial Report p. 37, 42). Merck reports "Marketing and Administrative" (Merck's 2008 Form 10-K p. 86, 142). Bristol-Myers-Squibb reports "Marketing, Selling, and Administrative" (Bristol-Myers-Squibb's 2006 Annual Report p. 53). Bristol-Myers-Squibb also report a separate expense category called "Advertising and Product Promotion" (Id. p. 25, 26, 53).
The statements I quoted from Brezis's paper were not supported by any references.