Check this out. What you will see is a piece on how pharma needs to work extra hard in 2021 to capture attention. Much of our population suffers from pandemic-induced Zoom fatigue. Virtually everyone is awash in streaming media from hundreds of sources. The result? The bar for attention-grabbing has been raised significantly. What to do? Get over using simple graphics and move on to emotion-grabbing “visual storytelling.” Sophisticated cinematography. Speed, clarity, accuracy. These are all boxes that must increasingly be checked if we are to grab our increasingly sophisticated customers’ attention. As this piece points out, the elegance with which a spot is shot is now as important as the strategy underlying the message.
Bottom Line. BUT. This is not just art for art’s sake. Powerful renditions, it is argued here, draw people into the story, raise emotions, let the viewer experience what the people in the story they are watching are experiencing.
Gone are the days of “Pop Pop Fizz Fizz, oh what a relief it is” being all you needed to sell Alka Seltzer.
Check this out. What you will see is a “pull through” strategy being employed by Biogen to increase the sales of its Alzheimer’s drug, Aduhelm. Take an unvalidated quiz to see if your concerns about having Alzheimer’s are, well, valid. Whatever your score, the online quiz is programmed to tell you to speak with your physician about cognitive screening. OR. You can enter your zip code and be turfed to a specialist who can do fun things like a spinal tap to determine if you have a buildup of amyloid plaque.
Bottom Line. Pull throughs like this are not new to the pharmaceutical industry. Raising physician consciousness of an underdiagnosed disease is probably a good thing in most cases. Ditto raising patient consciousness through DTC. BUT. How about here?
My two cents worth is that using an unvalidated quiz to get patients to believe that even the most casual forgetting is Alzheimer’s is iffy. Throw in the optics of trying to get new patients to take a drug that maybe works and maybe doesn’t, but in any event costs the health care system over $50,000 per year per patient, and Biogen has certainly given muck raking journalists something to feast on!
As you will see in these survey results from FirstWord, that is the desired scenario for about half of the 100 doctors they polled. Throughout the six months of reporting on the results of my On Doctors’ MindsSM conversations, that about lines up with what I have been finding. As we predicted back in November of 2020, many doctors are looking forward hopefully for a return of the “old normal.” BUT. About half of all physicians we have talked to, and especially many specialists, have learned over the course of the pandemic to “do without” PSRs, readily getting the answers and information they need in their practices from other sources.
While you are looking at these results, check out the data concerning virtual details. Here, 57% of doctors reported that they find them to be equally or more “effective” than personal PSR visits. BUT. In my conversations with physicians, the majority of doctors are avoiding these virtual visits like the plague (Sorry!) due to difficulties in scheduling and the extra time required. Translated, perhaps the virtual details that are happening are “effective,” but most of my discussants, and I believe most physicians more generally, are not letting them happen.
Bottom Line. Throughout our study of the effects of the pandemic on office-based physicians, we have been telling our pharmaceutical clients that they had best be prepared to increase their physician micromarketing sophistication as the pandemic winds down. Doctors are differing widely in their preferred mode of communicating with pharmaceutical companies. One size definitely doesn’t fit all here, and we need to be ready to respond to these differing physician preferences.
Check this out. What you will find is a very strange form of Telehealth. BUT. While strange, this company’s offering is interesting and important enough to garner investments form the likes of JNJ.
Several novel things going on here. First of all, 30 Madison has three separate subcompanies, one for each of the three conditions its offerings treat. Hair loss, migraine and gastric reflux. Second, for those medications requiring an Rx, the consumer can get channeled directly to a consultation with an appropriate physician. Third, while appearing to be “telehealth,” the real business model here is mail order pharmacy.
Bottom Line. I’ve said it before and I will say it again. We have only scratched the surface in terms of truly novel ways in which “telehealth” can be employed. 30 Madison certainly brings a novel approach to the marketplace. The notion of a patient self-diagnosing and tapping directly into a portal specifically designed to service that diagnosis is a model we haven’t seen before.
Check this out. For those lucky folks like me, who have decades of experience in pharmaceutical marketing, this piece might hit you a little in the gut. What you will see here is that Allergan is ponying up $750 Million because it planned to pull the “hard switch.” Translated, that means that they planned to take Namenda off the market months before the cheaper generics would become available, thus forcing prescribers and patients to move on to the more expensive/patent protected XR version where they would likely remain when the generics became available. A class action suit was filed against them when the plan went public, which they appear to be settling at the 11th hour without admitting wrong doing.
Okay. Think about this for a minute. What is really going on here? A company and its product team were trying to blunt what we used to call “generic erosion.” At first blush, it looked like they had come up with a fairly clever way to do it. Welcome to 2019. You get sued based on anti-trust law when you try this stunt. AND. Since the plan never got off the ground, sales of the Namenda branded product have not surprisingly done the usual nose dive following “patent expiry.” They are now at a whopping 10% of their former sales levels.
But there are bigger issues here. A decade ago, it was expected that brand managers would develop plans to slow and minimize generic erosion. Failure to do so could cost a product manager her job. There were lots of different ways to do it. For example, some companies struck special deals with wholesalers to “stock up” on the brand in advance of generic availability. Others offered special patient programs so that they could argue that their product went “beyond the pill.”
One of my clients, who will remain nameless, conveniently kept introducing a “new and improved” product to replace the one going off patent. I watched that strategy work for a decade. No more. The company has now disappeared from our industry.
Other companies ran programs that “educated” doctors about the “inferior” approval process that got generics their ANDA’s. Much talk of birth defects resulting from Italian (generic) tetracyclines, etc.
But here is the real question. In 2019, is it even legal for a company to strategize internally about preventing generic erosion of their product. What happens if a disgruntled whistleblower broadcasts an email on the topic? And what are the negative PR repercussions if word gets out about such hanky-panky?
Bottom Line. And here, folks, is the real question. Is it moral, when viewed through the eyes of the current zeitgeist, to try to prevent lower cost drugs from getting into the hands of patients?
As someone who spent years quietly watching as my clients worked hard to keep lower cost generics out of the hands of patients, I am left to ponder my answer to this very important question!
For that matter, what the heck is “empathy” anyhow? One of our clients got me thinking about this question when their advertising agency told them they would need to develop physician empathy for patients suffering from a condition that one of their products treats. You see, their marketing research had demonstrated that physicians didn’t think the condition was “so bad,” and felt that patients weren’t really “suffering” enough to require treatment. Is “developing empathy” a marketing strategy? A marketing tactic?”
Anytime I start to think about a new area of endeavor, one of the first things that I do is go to the Amazon book section and see what’s available. If a title or two looks interesting, I download them to my Kindle and dig in. My more frequent readers already know about this modus operandi.
So once again, off I went to explore empathy. Here is what I found. Quite a collection of very different books, eh? Guess what. I didn’t download any of them. None looked like it was spot on to answer my l questions about applicability to healthcare marketing. (Confession. I picked the one pictured above for a graphic because I liked its clean look!)
My second line of defense in exploring a new topic is Wikipedia. There, I actually found some useful information about empathy. For example, I found out that some psychologists divide empathy into:
Cognitive Empathy. Logically understanding how someone else feels.
Emotional Empathy. Actually feeling what someone else feels, vicariously.
Compassionate Empathy. Feeling compelled to help someone if help is required.
Bottom Line. Although I am just starting to focus on empathy’s role in pharmaceutical marketing, I think I get it. For pharmaceutical marketers, developing physician empathy for patients does not involve getting them all sobby from empathizing with their patients’ travails. It does involve making sure that they understand the nature of their patients’ sufferings and how bothersome they are to the patients, and most importantly making them want to help the patients in a “treatment area” that they otherwise might have ignored.
Sharing statistics on symptoms and their severity, sharing testimonials about negative impact on quality of life, etc. are indeed tactics that could help to enhance physician empathy and raise prescribing to a more appropriate level.
Check this out. What you will see is a summary of the transcript of a physician/patient dialogue during the course of one oncology office visit. In it, you will see the doctor and the patient banter back and forth about the goofy costs of medications, and how the “retail price” of drugs is virtually irrelevant to the amount that will be reimbursed by the insurance company. Read this quickly. In terms of real information, there’s not a heck of a lot that is new here. BUT. What I found distressing was the tone of the dialogue. Doctor and patient laughing together about the stupid costs of health care. Bottom Line. As the author of this piece rightfully observes, the unfortunate reality of this exchange is that the doctor, the representative of the healthcare community in the eyes of the patient, is making every part of that community the butt of his jokes. However justified it is to make healthcare pricing a laughingstock, there is a very unfortunate result. Trust, in pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, the whole healthcare system, gets destroyed a little bit every time conversations like this one occur.In addition to the medications, I think that this is one more thing we can’t afford!
Two interesting things to notice here. First, at Sara, M.D., we find yet another physician-helping-physician site like the one we discussed yesterday. I said they were starting to proliferate. They are. Second and more importantly, Sara suggests in this post that the physician’s spouse is extremely well positioned to recognize incipient burnout and to help to stop it. DUH!!! Of course. And the spouse is also most likely, with the kids, to suffer significant negative impact if the burnout is allowed to progress. Of course again. But are there resources available to assist physicians’ spouses in this intervention? Not that I have seen. Bottom Line. Again, it seems that there is a real opportunity for someone (Let me say it again . . . A pharmaceutical company?) to step in to make a real difference here, and to enjoy some significant positive PR along the way. Interested?
Check this out. Here you will see a report that Valeant Pharmaceuticals is returning Sprout Pharmaceuticals, and its product Addyi, to its former owners. A couple of interesting learnings here. First, the fact that there had been no products to enhance female libido on the market before Addyi’s introduction might have been better read as a sign that there is no need for such a product, rather than as an indicator of huge potential. Second, drugs that are high in price and of questionable efficacy are tough to sell. Period. Third and most importantly, even a modicum of marketing research conducted prior to the Sprout purchase would have informed Valeant that this was going to be a troublesome acquisition. I know. I did research on the concept of a “female Viagra” for several companies over the years, and both doctors and female patients were unequivocal in their panning of the idea. Bottom Line. Strategically, we also learn from this “dis-acquisition” that Valeant Pharmaceuticals, and its CEO Joe Papa, know better than to keep throwing good money after bad. By retaining royalty rights and avoiding litigation, they have freed the company up to move forward from unfortunate past decisions.Good move!
Check out this NYT story. Trust me, I couldn’t make this stuff up. Seems that in order to hold on to market share when their product is about to go generic, branded pharmaceutical companies are striking deals with payers and PBM’s that make more money, for those organizations, if patients are made to buy the brand and pay a large copay rather than buying the generic. As you can see in this story, patients like the guy pictured above are confused, and not trivially upset, by this practice and the extra money that it costs them out of pocket. Bottom Line. Clearly, patients being put into this situation are entitled to a bona fide explanation as to why the direction to request a generic doesn’t work in certain cases. I’ve stared at the wall for 20 minutes, and nothing has come to me for us to say that is going to make these people feel any better. Any ideas?