The world as we know it is changing. Our stakeholder’s way of thinking, and behaving, is changing due to 24/7 access to global information. So how does this impact our industry and what are the opportunities for pharma marketers?
Patients are engaging online around their health, and they expect to be able to engage online with other people and companies in this space. They do not understand why big pharma companies does not engage and this exacerbates the industry’s poor reputation. From a corporate marketing point of view this is an easy win. By accepting social media, rather than avoiding it, companies can start to have a positive impact on their reputation, and build corporate brand value.
This new dynamic is also impacting physicians, who face patients coming to appointments well informed, and with different questions than they used to, for example “is there an app for that”. Here again is a nice win for marketers. Rather than focusing on providing the information that they want physicians to hear, i.e. all about their product, why not look at also providing value by helping physicians with some of these real-world issues? Why not sponsor an assessment of disease apps, or ensure that the physician is kept up to date with what patients are Googling?
Another impact that the digital environment has led to is an increased pressure on people’s time. Marketing now means that you are no longer just competing with another pharma company. You now compete with a whole array of different parties to get a slice of a physician’s time. Give a person the choice to access information when they want and how they want, or to physically sit through a sales call at a specified time and it is a no-brainer which option people will increasingly choose. That is not to say that people will stop choosing the physical meeting altogether but they want a mix of options – and a choice.
Here again that word “value” comes in. As a marketer the way to grab a piece of someone’s time is to deliver value, both in terms of channel preference but also in terms of content. Digital enables us to understand individual’s areas of interest – why not then deliver your marketing information tailored to their preferences?
Of course this costs money, which is an age old problem. Again digital can help. Traditionally pharma marketing has been very siloed, by brand, function and geography. Digital provides the means to break down these siloes and generate cost efficiencies. By working in a more collaborative way, digitally facilitated, companies can reduce waste, for example in asset development and in time. Why should each brand, in each country, produce their own app? Often they have a similar end use and the backbone could be developed jointly and then adapted for local end use.
And this brings me onto the final massive change that digital, and in particular social media, has led to – namely access to information. The amount of information available on our stakeholders online is huge. Despite this I still see teams basing the bulk of their marketing plans on traditional market research with very little social media listening included. Now social media listening is not the be-all-end-all but it should be included. It provides key insights that need to be part of a modern marketing plan, for example where do your customers go for information, what topics are they talking about (and here is a hint – it is probably not about you) and what are their needs. Social media enables pharma marketers to get a better understanding of stakeholder’s emotions and behaviours, and at the end of the day it is emotions and behaviours that impact pharma sales.
Digital is no longer new and it is an integral part of daily life. Companies today should be optimising their marketing to reflect this digital impact and to start offering their stakeholder’s real value.
Last week I had the immense pleasure of chairing the SMI conference on social media in the pharmaceutical industry. I have to admit that I really enjoyed chairing, despite some minor hiccup with some of the name pronunciations (for which I do apologise!).
On the whole I enjoyed it and found the vast majority of presentations really interesting. Not surprisingly Boehringer dominated the event. There was Müge Gizem Bıçakçı Akalın from Boehringer Ingelheim Turkey who presented some great slides on what they have been doing in social media. The first thing, that got lots of raised eyebrows, was their Facebook page targeting women with period pains for their product Buscopan. The page is a profile page for a “retro” female character called … Buce Kopan! To many of us this just seemed so blatantly DTC but apparently this is not seen as such in Turkey and both Buce and Kopan are well known Turkish names. Doing a bit of research I can confirm that there are in fact numerous people called Buce Kopan so perhaps it is not quite as bad – just a tad a risky in my opinion!
The other thing that I thought was fantastic to hear from Boehringer Turkey was that they are integrating their social media into their sales efforts – so they are encouraging sales reps to support the social media campaigns and are rewarding them for their involvement. This to me is taking social media to the next level and it is great to see Boehringer again being a pioneer in this space.
Another Boehringer presentation was made by John Pugh who showed some really interesting research, which I believe Silja Chouquet did for Boehringer, comparing the various pharma social media accounts. There were some interesting points about how number of followers correlates to a degree with company size. Reach however does not – so Novartis has far more followers that Boehringer on twitter but the same reach as Boehringer.
Boehringer is also known for trying things out, and John talked through another example of this with the hypertension Facebook page for HCPs. They had chosen an area where products are soon going off patent – so not a priority brand area – to test how relevant and effective a Facebook page for HCPs would be. So far it looks like this has been a success – with some interesting learnings such as to advertise on the platform you are using rather than on other platforms (i.e. Facebook advert to a Facebook page).
That was not the end to the Boehringer mentions though! I myself used them as a case example when I talked about building relationships with KOL and KOI online. My main points were that there is value in doing this and that there is a clear process to follow. You can see my presentation here:
Gary Monk also spoke about how human Boehringer’s approach to social media is, citing their Facebook disclaimer as a great example, contrasting markedly with Novartis’ very legal and formal disclaimer. Gary also made a great point that Novartis, a company based in Switzerland, a country with four official languages (none of them English) has called out in their disclaimer that they community is English language only. Boehringer of course manages very nicely to deal with multiple languages! You can see Gary’s presentation here.
There were also some great examples from companies other than Boehringer. Sherri Matis-Mitchell from Astra Zeneca presented some really interesting information on how they are using social media listening in R&D. This actually seemed to complement a theme than ran through the event – namely the move of social media from marketing and communicaitons into R&D. There were a few other mentions of the use of social media in clinical trial recruitment. Dr Alfred Steinhardt presented a really interesting case study where social media had been used to reduce clinical trial recruitment down from six months to five weeks. The cost-saving implications for this are huge!
He also mentioned a fantastic example where social media intelligence had unmasked a competitor creating multiple online profiles to negatively influence consumer behaviour via social media groups! Sadly he would not divulge more information on this.
There was also a very brave step by Sanofi to have a lawyer come present at the conference. Audrey Hagege presented on how legal need not be a barrier but should be a partner in social media development. I thought it was fantastic to see someone from legal there and I really have to say hats off to Sanofi for have legal not only attend but also present.
We also had a large presence from the #hcsmeu twitterati. There was @thibaudguymard from Merck who talked about Univadis France and some of the great work they are doing. Having seen Shona Davis present around Univadis from the global point of view last year it was great to see the local point of view.
We then also had a whole array of twitterati present “virtually” through video thanks to my ex-colleague Piotr Wrzosinski from Roche. It brought back many happy memories I must say!
It was also interesting to see such a broad array of social media being presented. Besides the Facebook and Twitter initiative already mentioned there was also a presentation by James Finney from Novozymes around their use of Linkedin and Claire Perrin from Lilly demonstrated an mhealth initiative in depression. I was so impressed with the app that I wanted to get my father to download it to show to my brother (a GP) but sadly I could not find it in on iTunes.
Perhaps my very favourite presentation however was the one that brought us all back to the reality of social media. Ben Furber from Asthma UK talked about having fun online and … the fact that social media is all about cats! How true! Yes at the end of the day social media is and always will be about cats ;)
I like to think that most people in the pharma industry now accept that digital is an important channel that they need to think about and include in their marketing plans. Marketeers now include digital in their brand plans and the number of dedicated digital marketeers within pharma is growing.
Another area where we are increasingly seeing digital is in sales, with more and more reps being given iPads to use in their details with physicians. This is not, in my opinion, edetailing – this is essentially still a traditional detail but using modern, digital, detail aids. I find it can be really confusing that some companies call a traditional detail (i.e. face to face) that uses iPads an edetail while to others an edetail is a detail delivered electronically (as opposed to face to face).
Edetails (the non -face-to-face sort) themselves also have various formats – again rather confusing. There is the self-serve edetail which is a pre-recorded video / presentation which the physician can watch, pause and stop as needed. There is then the rep edetail which is more like a video conference between a rep and a physician (but where you can also still have the presentation element).
This confusion also means that companies who have implemented ipad detailing (let’s call it idetailing) think they have innovated when in reality they have only moved with the times. It also means that they are not fully optimising the opportunities that digital presents. The value that a true edetail brings is that the doctor can schedule them at a time to suit them – not just within office hours. From the pharma company point of view the value is that edetailing cuts costs. Even when using a live rep to do an edetail the rep no longer has to travel, cutting down on travel expenses, and could even conceivably work from home and work part-time, opening up opportunities to people who require flexibility around work.
The other value that edetailing offers to companies is potential access to physicians who are no longer seeing reps or who are too expensive to send a physical rep to (for example in rare diseases).
There are of course concerns that edetailing of this nature will make the traditional rep (and I mean the face-to-face rep not just a rep without an ipad!) redundant. However this should not be the case. edetailing is often an extension opportunity to traditional detailing – and in fact it has been shown that the most effective sales technique is in fact the mix of traditional detailing with edetailing (see graphic below). What will change however is the role of the rep and this has already started in some companies.
The rep of the future will become an orchestrator rep – he will provide a more concierge like service to physicians, providing them with product information but also information around the digital services that the company offers, or information from recent conferences for example. The role of the rep will move away from the traditional hard core sales focus to a value focus – providing information rather than pushing sales messages which the physician is not interested in. Of course sales will still be the objective but the sales message will be delivered in a more customer centric, value driven way and this will then be supported by the edetail online.
The value that edetailing provides means that more and more pharma companies will start to use it, but, as much as I am a fan of digital, I believe there will always be a place for the face-to-face rep. The future though will be totally value driven and value comes from partnering human and digital interactions.
I was recently in a department store and was struck by the amount of effort consumer goods companies put into packaging. The product packaging can make or break a purchase decision so it is clearly an area that warrants attention for FMCG companies – but what about pharma companies? The first response would probably be that this is not really a relevant area of concern for a company that sells prescription products.
I, however, would disagree. This may not have been an issue in the last century but I think this is now no longer the case. There are a number of reasons for this but perhaps the main is patient adherence. This is a topic that has been a headache for the industry for some time – one that has still not been resolved. When digital technology came to the forefront it was initially greeted as the saviour – the ideal solution for patient adherence. Subsequently it was denounced as a disapointment – technology did not solve the patient adherence problem. This was in part because some of the early programmes were too simplistic and did not factor in the complexity involved in patient adherence. Another issue is that technology can only solve part of the problem. The rest of the problem needs to be addressed in other, more tangible, offline ways.
This is potentially where a greater focus on packaging, and making packaging more consumer friendly, could play a role. If we take for example pills that a chronically ill patient has to take daily. There are numerous digital tools now to remind patients to take their pills, but what about just simply labeling the day of the week on the package? Contraceptive pills do this so why not for other long term medication? Whilst it may not provide the nudge to take the medication it acts as a reminder, as well as for of documentation, that the pill has been taken for that day. I for one would be more adherent – I often cannot remember if I have taken my pill for the day, and err on the side of caution by not taking another one (meaning I may in actual fact have missed my pill for the day). I have taken to writting the days on the packaging so that I can check if I forget – but it would be so useful if it was printed on the package. This would be such a simple but consumer friendly and helpful thing to do – and yet it is not common practice (I have not actually seen it on any pills other than contraception – have you?)
Another area to look at is the patient insert. This is a bulky piece of paper that comes in the box with the medication. Whilst the text has improved over the years to be more consumer friendly, the insert itself is an issue. For products that come in bottles, such as acne lotions, the information is not always printed on the bottle, even if there is space. I suspect many patients are like me – they take the pills and the bottle out of the box and probably throw the box, insert included, away. Whilst for pills it may not be possible to print the instructions on the packaging there is plenty of room on bottles. This way a patient would be able to check and get accurate information around how to use the product once the insert has been thrown away and thereby be more compliant.
One major area where packaging is a huge concern though is for patients with disabilities or movement restrictions, such as arthritis patients. To be developing packaging that your target market – i.e. the patients – cannot even open seems to be to be a huge issue! There needs to be more innovation to address the needs of patients who struggle to open packages or bottles. Packaging should be developed with the end user in mind – not just to comply with regulation or meet storage or distribution needs. If a patient cannot access their medication then what use is it?!
A final issue I have is around the visual design of packaging itself. Firstly very few companies give much retail space to the brand name – which differs from FMCG who place far more value in corporate branding than pharma does. Being familiar and trusting a corporate can have a positive impact on adherence for some patients and again this could be something that companies could dedicate a little more attention to. The final issue comes again with bottles. I have in my cupboard a mix of FMCG products that look good and prescrription bottles that look dreadful. The FMCG ones I am happy to have out on display whilst the pharma ones go in the cupboard. It is a no brainer which ones I use more simply because they are visible. Whilst I am not suggesting pharma invests in beautifying their packaging to the extend of FMCG packaging they could perhaps just modernise their packagaing a bit and make them less ugly? I warrant this point is very minor but it does bother me as a female patient!
Will any of the above happen? I doubt it. This is a very old fashioned industry and packaging is at the bottom in terms of prioritites but it would be great if someone listened and started to make packaging more customer friendly. Until then I will continue to hide my ugly bottles and write the days on my pill packaging.
This year I had the pleasure of not only attending Digipharm but also of chairing part of the event, including a round table discussion on engaging with stakeholders. As with many of these conferences the most enjoyable part is the networking and catching up with fellow digital evangelists, such as InVentiv’s Emma Darcy and Merck’s Shona Davies. Content wise the event covered many of the same old, age old, topics but there were a few interesting snippets and case studies that were shared.
Some of the key themes that emerged were around the need to be more customer-centric, the importance of insights and strategy, and the potential impact of CLM and MCM. These are topics that have been doing the rounds for a few years now so for me, and many other attendees, they were not particularly insightful. This led to a few tweets questioning why we were still talking about this and why more digital “newbies” were not attending these conferences, as they would benefit from this content.
The answer to both these questions is that firstly we are still talking about this because much of it has still not become a mainstream reality for much of pharma. The second point is that perhaps these “newbies” are still newbies because they are not interested in coming to these events or perhaps because the conference organisers are not targeting them. Either way I fully agree that we need to start seeing more non-digital brand managers and pharma marketers attend these conferences. Those of us in the know should probably be going now to non-pharma digital events as this is where the innovation is being discussed.
That said I still enjoyed Digipharm and there was some great content presented and shared on twitter. Going back through the tweets from Digipharm I pulled out some great quotations and some key messages and insights. Unfortunately I failed to copy paste most of the people who originally sent the tweets – so if you see your tweet please flag that this was your great content in the comments below!
Some Key Messages from the event:
1. Focus on the customer
“How to be #goodpharma balance moral & commercial drivers. 1 focus on patient, 2 go beyond pill”
“Pharma must develop customer intelligence to fulfil unmet needs – a key message from the last 2 days”
“We need to use that channels that are used by the customer segment”
“Need to know your customers to know which digital channel to use”
2. Stop being so promotional
“Recurring theme through the 2 days. Don’t start with promoting your product! Ask customer needs, engage with them, then Tailor”
“Pharma marketing – too much push, not enough pull!”
3. Digital is just part of the equation
“Dr Tim Ringrose. Digital should be used as an augmentation of existing communication channels, not a replacement. Absolutely!”
“Digital won’t replace the rep, says Tim, as docs use all channels and still value F2F for some discussions”
“Stop measuring the rep’s performance alone – measure qualitative data. Move from rep data to customer insights”
“You need to make your reps great story tellers. Make your reps amazing storytellers so the HCPs will recall the story once the rep has left”
“Still a lot of focus on the rep channel but discussions missing on cost of interaction”
4. ROI is not the issue
“It’s hard to prove the digital ROI” disagree, it’s the easiest channel to manage ROI as long as you know what to measure and how”
“100 rep visits we set out on, only 20 talk to the physician and only 8 docs remember the meeting. WHAT’S THE ROI??!!!!”
5. Senior Management needs to get involved – even if they are not today
“Great point Rene we spend 80% on build and 20% on promotion and mgmt when it should be the other way round! Top mgmt take note”
“The problem in pharma is that change needs to be led from the top, and snr mngt just don’t engage”
Some really interesting Ideas and Insights:
“Need to find a way to get bright, lateral thinking people to the top straight away” @nickbroughton
“It should be company policy to slap anyone that calls anyone but the patient a customer” (!)
“Docs give patients musty old mags in the waiting room – let’s give them health tools instead
“Univadis – 70% of members opt in for promo messages from MSD. That is a permission database of 1.5 million!! In some markets it’s up to 95%”@ShonaLDavies
“Univardis #merck . It may be a non commercial engagement but the value of reach and trust is clear”
“How much does Univardis cost per year? Even if €10 million, that’s less than €5 per customer. Good value!”
“Why has Univadis succeeded? It is part of the corp culture says @ShonaLDavies, in other words leaders have stayed behind it”
Univadis success due to leadership commitment and vision for long-term engagement
“24% of interactions with JP HCPs are eDetails. Highest eDetail market in the world”
“Univadis philosophy –customers expect corporations to be doing something of value originating from a core product”
“Measuring Univadis relationships – user retention, engagement levels, customer satisfaction and NPS”
“Nice segmentation of engagement levels (light, deep, extensive) as KPI’s for Univadis. Engagement on its own is too vague”
“@ShonaLDavies customer relationships aren’t a mystery, can be measured in multiple ways, challenge is translating measurement”
“82% of HCPs interested in engaging with pharma – HCP communities = great value. Obvious way to know your audience to be relevant”
My favourite Quotations from #Digipharm:
“Digital innovation = talent x time x budget x culture” @xaviolba
“Our obsession with compliance at all costs is responsible for pharma’s loss of virtue” @NickBroughton
“Engagement means getting a response” (Sorry I didn’t jot down who this came from … if it’s you please mention yourself in the comments!)
“Mobile is not a technology or a platform, it is a behaviour” @nickcampbell
Xavier Olba @Sanofi “we must provide engaging services to our Patients not just medications”
‘we are redefining MSD as a healthcare company not just a drug company’ says @ShonaLDavies
“It’s not about digital marketing, it’s about marketing in a digital world” Dr Ringrose
In my last blog post I summed up some of the discussion points at the Fleming eMarketing conference in Barcelona. One of the speakers, Nicolas Pokorny, talked about emotions and behaviours and this really inspired me and resonated with me. I also believe it is an area that companies, and physicians, often underestimate.
It is well known now that changes in technology have led to changes in behaviour, for all stakeholders, including patients and physicians. As a marketer and strategist I have long been familiar with the customer journey, a tool used in the FMCG market to get a better understanding of customer behaviours leading up to purchase. This is a tool that I have also used with digital agencies within healthcare, looking at how the key interaction and health decision points for patients in their journey from being ill to being healthy. However within pharma companies strategy and marketing is still often based on the traditional customer journeys, for both physicians and patients, not taking into account these new interaction points that now exist thanks to technology. The reality today is that the customer journey for pharma stakeholders has changed dramatically thanks to new technology.
The other element that has a role to play here is emotions. As mentioned the impact of emotions on our decision making is huge but rarely mentioned in the far more analytical approaches to marketing and strategy development. Generally we look at demographics and perhaps some top level behavioural elements but we never really talk about the emotional drivers. For example if we look at a patient’s emotional reactions and feelings to a physician interaction we may actually see a number of different behavioural decisions – not necessarily rational and certainly not positive but none-the-less relevant.
Looking then at behaviours from an emotional point of view we then get a clearer picture of what stakeholders really do and also of how we can influence these behaviours and decisions. Taking a look at the patient in the example above who had the negative physician interaction, we could see that in today’s patient journey her next step may well be to go online to look for support. Here is a great opportunity to counteract the emotional negative experience, providing positive emotional stimuli to help her modify her behaviour in the direction it would have gone post a positive physician interaction.
Who provides these positive stimuli depends of course on the situation but there is a role for everyone within healthcare here. A physician, for example, who comes across our sad patient, may encourage her to go get a second opinion, reassuring her that not all physicians are the same and she just had a bad experience and she should not give up hope. The physician is not providing any medical advice – purely support and direction to get formal medical advice offline. In fact this act alone may help re-energise her to behave most positively from a health perspective. A pharmaceutical company could play a role here, for example, by sponsoring a support group who could provide the positive stimuli or directing a KOL or KOI to this discussion – with hopefully an end result of a more compliant patient.
Even if we do not take the final step in proactively engaging, as suggested above, companies and healthcare providers need to be more realistic around today’s reality and the reality of human behaviour. Decisions need to be based on this understanding, and not on the comfort factor of sticking with the way things always have been done in the past. By truly understanding the customer emotions, behaviours and the full customer journey, that those of us working in healthcare can bring true value and make a positive impact on our customers, and on patient’s health.
Last week I had the pleasure of attending and presenting at the Fleming eMarketing conference in Barcelona. It turned out to be a very interesting and fun conference – great insights, great presenters, fabulous location and social focus!
First let’s start with a disclaimer – given my somewhat dodgy memory I will be writing this up based largely on my tweets (a further demonstration of the value of Twitter) so there may be some bias towards speakers who spoke while I still had battery!
The conference included the normal rhetoric around the need for the industry to change, get on board the social media train (which has now left the station) and start taking digital far more seriously. This was nicely balanced with some great insights and case studies – showing that some companies are already very comfortably onboard the said social media train and other have already implemented the organisational changes needed to be truly effective in digital.
Shona Davies, from Merck, gave a very insightful presentation around Univadis, showing how a non-promotional digital, global presence can bring value to a pharma company. Univadis is also a great example of a global service / tool that is localised and adapted by local markets – providing value at local value whilst following a strict global branding guideline. There is also flexibility at local level to try out new offerings or to ignore new global offerings based around what works in the local market. Univadis’s global klout also helps with partnerships, bringing access to global publications to local markets – as well as helping well known local publications, such as the Lancet, gain global klout and audiences. Another important factor that came out during this presentation was that “Univadis is well placed to engage at a time when face-to-face engagement is getting harder.”
Haider Alleg from Gedeon Richter, shared some great information around global / local process and implementation and co-operation. What I found particularly exciting was when he talked about how he had got HR involved in the digital process to look at changing the reward and recognition system to accommodate the changes needed for successful digital implementation, for example long term goals and co-operation.
There was also some emotive talks about patients and participatory medicine. The delightful Emma Darcy gave a fascinating presentation about the changes we are seeing as a result of behavioural and technological changes. She talked about how we have gone from information overload to engagement overload – however as an industry we are doing nothing to help physicians and patients to deal with this. She also made a fantastic point – namely that the pharma industry is now facing new competitive pressures, not from within the industry but from outside the industry, in the shape of companies innovating to get a part of the healthcare “pie”. As Emma said this must be a wake up call for pharma. Another great quote from Emma was around multi-channel: “it’s not about multichannel – it’s about me!” – flagging that the essence of multichannel is about individual channel preferences.
Xavier Olba from Sanofi made a very good point when he said that at Sanofi digital is part of the value proposition – it is no longer just about the drugs. Sanofi has been demonstrating this through some of their innovative use of digital – offering new technology products to support patient in their key therapeutic areas, such as diabetes. Cancer survivor, Andrew Schorr, gave a very powerful presentation around the power of the internet and social media for patients, highlighted by the fact that he felt he would not be alive today had it not been for the internet, and the experts he was introduced to via digital connections. This was such a fantastic point that pharma really could learn from and should be listening to – and as John Mack said “you can’t really argue with a cancer survivor”!
Nicolas Pokorny did a great job of following this emotive presentation by giving a fascinating perspective on the impact of behaviour on the industry. He pointed out that it is all about emotions and behaviour. He quite rightly pointed out that everything is “based on behaviour and personal decisions, Pharma often underestimates feelings and emotions”. I think this is so true! Personally I often see a huge emphasis on analytics and numbers – with decisions being based purely on this highly impersonal, quantative approach, and not taking into account that we are human beings and we are very emotional beings. There is plenty of research showing that humans often do not make rational decisions – i.e. they do not follow the decision the numbers predict. To be truly effective we really need to start bringing in far more of this human, emotional element to our decision making – especially in multi-channel decisions.
One final comment made by Nicolas was that smart companies invest profit into innovation. I love this point and I think this sums up the feeling coming across from many of the presenters, myself included. We need to start investing in the future, and not the present. We need to start changing the way we work as an industry to be ready for the future – because before we know it the future will be now and as we stand as an industry now – we are not ready for that “today” – we are in fact not even ready for the present today – still too focused on old business practices and process. It is time pharma leapfrogged to meet the future head on – here and now.
And finally the highlight of the event for me? Well I think the photo says it all!