Healthcare reform driven marketing challenges to “stimulating product interest”
Last post we discussed raising awareness and the next step in the adoption process is stimulating interest in your product. People may become aware of your product but if they are not interested they will ignore the rest of your message and may not even remember your product. You don’t even get a chance to convince them they should be interested. This is one of the steps that are most likely to be impacted by evolving market because of the change in customer focus from prescriber to payer and because of the increasing constraints on traditional marketing and sales tactics.
Stimulating interest is about understanding the needs of your customers and finding an effective way to cut though all the market noise to grab their attention so you can let them know you can fill that need, solve their problem by treating a disease or condition safely and effectively. Sounds easy enough, especially if you really have a product that can do this better than anything else out there and you can advertise and promote that you are better. The “better than anything else” is often the challenge for pharmaceutical marketers primarily because few products have the data to support such a claim and even if they have the data, they may not have the regulatory label to allow the promotion of that difference.
Previous tactics targeted primarily at physicians:
- Their need is to provide the best, affordable care (including prescription drugs) for their patients
- Graphics and copy implications in journal advertising could stimulate interest in a variety of ways including simply putting the word “New” in the ad.
- Persuasive sales people could imply or make outright claims in their discussions that could stimulate interest
- The sheer volume of advertising and promotion could stimulate interest by implying to the physician “there must be something I don’t know”
- Public relations was great for raising awareness but they were masters at creating interest by making sure corporate communications clearly communicated the reason people should be interested in this new product, new study, most prescribed product, etc.
- The size of an exhibit booth and the value of the tchotchkes could stimulate interest at medical conferences
- You could build an impression of better by careful crafting a story around the product features and benefits that were important to the prescriber
Payer targeted “stimulating interest”:
- Their need, while similar to the prescriber will be more bluntly driven by the cost of therapeutic alternatives. This can be summed up as “why should we use your product rather than other therapeutic options we have available and why should we pay more when a generic drug (or less expensive competitive product) option is available?”
- Payers will be less influenced by traditional advertising and promotion tactics
- Payers will demand and be more rigorous in their review of data to support any claims being made that might stimulate their interest
- Limited and gatekeeper encumbered access to payers may require new tactics for stimulating interest with this group
Solutions:
- Traditional tactics will still work where prescribers can still be influenced but the effectiveness of these tactics will diminish as the market evolves.
- Clinical utility described in a credible peer-reviewed scientific publications can get payer attention as can credible podium presentations at scientific conferences
- Innovative products with data to support clinically meaningful differentiation will make stimulating interest easier
- Have well prepared, data supported answers to “why should we use your product rather than other therapeutic options we have available and why should we pay more when a generic drug (or less expensive competitive product) option is available?”
- A data supported cost benefit story will almost always get payer attention but again, it better be credible and applicable to their situation
- You can always create enough market noise that payers feel compelled to take a look at what you have, but you better have something worth looking at or it will just further alienate them, potentially compromising a future opportunity to get their attention
In the next post we’ll discuss “Evaluation” the single most important step in the adoption process which will represent either the greatest opportunity or biggest challenge for pharmaceutical companies in the evolving new healthcare market.
mike@pharmareform.com
Kindle Edition 
Barnes & Noble ePub version
I’ve been reading along for a while now. I just wanted to drop you a comment to say keep up the good work.
Jason. Thank you for the encouragement. Much appreciated. Mike
Dear Mike,
As always, your posts are very original and insightful. My intuition and experience say that you are spot on with respect to the changes that we should anticipate. Other countries use established formularies to take into account cost vs benefit of a drug. Long gone are the days of being able to create a blockbuster from a drug with only nominal benefit over existing therapies.
As the government takes a more active role in health care, it is going to look for every opportunity to cut costs. If done properly, I don’t think that such an approach is a bad one.
Keep up the great work!
My cousin recommended this blog and she was totally right keep up the fantastic work!
Mike – I wonder what your opinion is regarding the importance of employer programs and relations for the pharma company in “stimulating interest.” One sees increasingly, employers taking steps to “guide” health care among their employees, often times much to the dismay of the employees who are raising discrimination questions.
My husband has worked in the area of bringing solutions to pharma companies from the employee side, but in this economic climate, instead of embracing newer solutions to some of the newer issues that are arising, pharma seems to become even more entrenched in their “old” tried and true advertising and promotions.
Tsk…tsk…c’est domage.
Jeanette,
Sorry for the delayed response. I’m not sure I quite understand the question and perhaps I don’t understand the employer program concept in the context you are presenting but here is my take…
There are two “stimulating interest” groups in your question. The employee (Pharma target) and the marketing person you are trying to get to buy into a program.
My impression is that while there are a lot of well intended Pharma marketing people out there, many are probably scared to death for their jobs right now and they may feel a sense of security embracing more traditional programs rather than pioneering new (perceived riskier) programs.
I’m not sure how the “offer” is being presented to pharma marketers and whether or not it would get their attention. In stimulating interest you need to be able to define the result your customer will experience and then frame it in a way that helps avoid a high probability negative consequence, fills a need (real or emotional), or provides a solution to a problem they have or might have (the closer the time proximity the better). The more wed to traditional tactics and the more risk involved in making a change, the more compelling the offer must be.
One of the best ways to stimulate interest is to be able to demonstrate the impact of your program. Remember the stories of the vacuum cleaner sales guys who used to open your front door and throw dirt on the carpet and offer to clean it up? In tough times it takes a lot more to get peoples’ attention, unless it is a program directly related to what they are struggling with (a problem) and you can demonstrate (not hypothetically) dramatic results if they implement your program.
If people are just not getting excited about the program or the offering, think about reworking how you present or characterize the offering. If they are listening, asking questions, and considering the program, they are actually in the evaluation mode. At that stage you have to find out what they need from you to make a decision. In this case you have to ask more questions to ferret out the real reason they are not buying. Sometimes they just need time.
I hope this got to your question.
mike@pharmareform.com
Mike, I’ve been in the field for 22 years and I see it on the faces of providers every day. They are burnt out on the volume driven model and they rarely see the value of reps cutting into their time… or they are being told that there is no value by their employers. I actually think the value proposition of the rep can shine in this spot… the real professional rep creates value. Unfortunately, our sheep Pharma execs followed the sov model… and the big HC systems are following the advice of the same paid consultants… Why are our leaders sheep to consultants and out of touch with reality? Health Care Systems are gobbling up the independent doc and enforcing “integrity” or “ethics” policies that ban us. We all know the reason they want to ban us is that we cut down on their “productivity”. The perception problem is that we don’t have innovative enough products in the real time that our society demands. Today, incremental innovation doesn’t cut it, no more extended release innovation. I totally agree with your posts, R & D has to help us communicate value to providers (not just the docs, but the bean counters that measure productivity). Will new models of health care delivery, ACOs and real market driven forces, make this happen? We’ll see. Until then, I enjoy and appreciate your thoughts.
Jim,
Thank you for taking the time to contribute. One of the unintended consequences of organizational growth that I discuss in Pharmaplasia(TM) is the gradual leadership disconnect from reality and the market. Your observations and comments about the evolving new healthcare market models are the very reasons traditional marketing and sales tactics targeting physicians will continue to decline in effectiveness. mike@pharmareform.com