CME fatigue

In the 'monkey-see-monkey-do' world of pharma marketing, it is rare to find a gem such as Nexium (AstraZeneca) and Lipitor (Pfizer) whose market leader status are the resulting of pure marketing genius which turned the 'me-too' drugs into the global phenomenon that they are now.

CMEs in my opinion, no longer serves as a reliable lever given that every brand in the market are doing it. Last I heard, distributors are holding their own CMEs for post-patent products in the hope to regenerate some new interest.

And certain companies too, have led the pack into organizing GSAs (Group selling activities) led by drug reps to less than impressive results if i must say. The proliferation of these GSAs have caused the rest of the industry to follow suit and develop an industry norm.

From what doctors have candidly professed, they are simply there to enjoy the food and collect CME points. And with the abundance of these meetings, they can well afford to pick and choose which to attend.

Given the common pool of physicians that most pharmas are courting, high- level GPs, cardiologists, oncologists, ENTs, psychiatrists, and various others, it is little wonder that they are suffering from CME fatigue.

Like how one particular cardiologist said it: "I see 30patients at each clinic, after which I'm accousted by 3-4 drug reps with nothing interesting to say. I'd rather pay for my own lunch and be spared the repetitive drug spew.'

With the dwindling number of attendees and the increasing number of poorly organized CMEs, it is perhaps time for the industry to think if it is all worth it in the end. A mediocre event will perhaps put your A&P back $80 per head and given the recent inflation, it may not generate the kind of ROI that we like to imagine.

That is not to say that we shouldn't hold anymore CMEs for that is still the most effective way to get out message out to the people who matters. But it is time to relook and finetune it to an art. Bringing back the crowd through more professional content, credible speakers, knowledgeable exchange to provide value for the audience is more important than putting on an event for the sake of meeting some KPIs and stressing the reps to deliver the audience.

Another bites the dust

Pharma's big brother, FDA yesterday released the recommendations of its endocrinologic and metabolic advisory board who met to ascertain the safety of Sanofi's Acomplia. The panel of 14 experts have unanimously given Acomplia a shake of the head due to increased suidical rates observed in its clinical trials. (http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/13/news/companies/sanofi/index.htm) While the fate of this once-highly-touted-to-be-the-next-blockbuster drug now hinges on FDA's final decision on its approval, the ground seems to be fast sinking from beneath Sanofi's feet.

Although it is already available in Europe and few other countries, Singapore's HSA usually looks towards FDA before reviewing any products for local approval. this turn of event is bound to implicate the approval process locally.

Besides the tedious reanalysis of the NCE's projections, etc, etc. any company caught in a similar situation would be fumbling with issuing corporate statements and internalizing communications. while most non-approvals tend to affect the immediate share prices rather than the ongoing business, it is still a hassle to deal with.

After the Vioxx incident, FDA has certainly tightened its regulatory reins, this has resulted in many pharmas having to delay new product launches/ indications to produce more data. most big pharmas have experienced at least one major setback in the aftermath. AZ chucked the very promising warfarin-substitute, Exanta, after FDA's failed approval despite usage in most parts of Europe. Pfizer quickly released Torcetrapib without even attempting a FDA approval. BMS's muraglitazar was meant to be the first DualPPAR alpha-gamma ligand which at its late stage, was shoved down the bin by its maker and supposed partner, MSD.

Needless to say, non of these drugs made it to our sunny island.

I often question why local companies would commence their pre-marketing activities so prematurely. Surely, the agonising difficulty in having to salvage the companies' image to the customers after building up such excited levels of anticipation amongst them is deterrent enough. but i still see companies hosting extravagant dinners and sponsoring offsite meetings to pre-empt the impending arrival of the so-called blockbuster. more importantly, instead of counting your chicks before they hatch, shouldn't the marketers be more involved in the strategic planning and determining best forms of market access instead of singing about how the new cure-all compound would finally bridge the unmet medical need...

I have little sympathies for these PMs who will may now have to face the uncertain fate of handling a less glamourous product (best case scenario) alternately, the company may just reassign them to cover SFE until the next pipeline dream comes along.

What's in a mascot?

There has been an interesting trend of late. There has been more pharmaceutical brands employing the use of mascots in their campaigns. While there has been an upsurge in the use of mascots and brand characters lately (these last couple of years), it is not entirely new to the market.

Several years ago, Zoloft (which has since gone off patent) had used the familiar bright yellow smiley face icon to great success. Even till this day, psychiatrists and patients still bear a warm affinity towards the brand.

Recent local pharma campaigns have seen the creation of (to name a few):

The Protectors (GSK- vaccines), a group of children cartoon characters out to save and rid the world of naughty viruses
the Seretide dinosaur (GSK- seretide), another purple dinosaur, resembling nothing like its richer cousin in showbiz
the Nicorette man (Pfizer- nicorette), see above. 'nuff said
the Thrombus man (SanofiBMS- Plavix), a giant reddish blob of lard (mainly nasty LDL deposits)
Pneumo (Wyeth- Prevenar), a cute cuddly blue teddy bear albeit with a darkened patch over its left eye (not a side effect hopefully)
and of questionable 'taste', Mr Cucumber head (Pfizer-Viagra), this one has yet to prove whether it has 'staying power'- puns intended.

many of us have grown up with watching our mothers sweeten our morning beverage with the dutch lady milk, devouring breakfast cereal with tony the tiger promising a great start to the day, taking photos with the colonel outside KFC restaurants... the list goes on. consumer brands are rift with mascots. Mascots are great for creating a brand identity, sometimes encompassing the features of the product. besides capturing consumers' attention, they also create an emotive association with the brand and when done nicely, will essentially lead to an enduring relationship with the consumer.

with its sudden increase in popularity in pharma, i am forced to ponder about the true value of a mascot in pharma marketing.

marketers in drug companies are expected to prep the local market for launch of a new product by finding an unmet need in the treatment of so-and-so disease, penetrate the segments in which the product is indicated for, increase market share year-on-year, manage the PLC, strategize and gain market share against competitors, prepare for threat of new players, and eventually entry of generic substitutes, and depending on the pipeline potential of the company, may still be expected to grow the drug past patent expiry if the organization's survival depends on it. All these have to be done within a decade. Unlike consumer brands, drug patents only run for a maximum of 10 years in most countries. Pharma marketing is like marketing fast forward. with hardly any time to optimize profits, creating a lasting brand equity through (in this context,) the mascot seem like a real fantasy to me.

which is why i find most pharma mascots to be such a sad waste of creative effort. i believe that many are done with the intention of amusing for the short-term rather than as a real brand identifier for the long-term. and looking at how many are introduced from the mid to late stage of the PLC, it serves to ask what the brand managers are hoping to achieve in their objectives.

on a last note however, mascots can be fun and have definitely injected some level of color and excitement into this (at most times ) rather dull industry. In any case, Viagra's Mr cucumber was a real 'head' turner (apologies- just can't stop the puns!) i dread to imagine what mascot Servier would serve up for Daflon! egad!

On the campaign trail- Part I

i applaud Pfizer's latest campaign for its painkillers as evident from today's issue of MYB. the entire OBC was of a striking cartoon of an old man in pain and invertedly, one of a smiley face. it is an ad calling for contributions of testimonials from the public on their battles with pain. contestants can stand to win up to $2000.

in this highly and increasingly regulated industry, DTC is a strict no-no. and under normal circumstances, Pfizer's competitors will be questioning if there has been any breach of compliance. Does the offering of prize money equate to inducement to prefer a certain brand of painkiller to another?

but what makes it legit is that this contest is held under the auspices of two organizations- with strong medical links and relevance. the corporate involvement is reduced to purely one of a financial sponser, unbeknownst to the consumer that this whole campaign was probably drawn up in the boardroom of the drug manufacturer.

further inside the same issue of MYB, there is another ad for a public forum that costs $10 including light refreshments. having been a sufferer of chronic pain (not just in the neck from too much corporate wrangling) i too, was interested in registering to attend until i realised that it is a pharma sponsored talk (similarly endorsed by the same organizations) i decided not to attend as i can already anticipate the pitch and flow of the talk in my mind. but i have no doubt it will be a successful event even without my humble participation.

i am not criticizing Pfizer for its efforts. instead, i think its brilliant. its about time the pharma industry try to push the boundaries wrt its marketing. it has been too conservative for too long. i love the simple and understated approach that Pfizer have taken to steer a human interest angle towards as uninspiring a condition as pain. i have no doubt the company will launch into a full scale PR campaign hereafter to highlight the plight of chronic pain sufferers (and how only a particular brand of painkiller will have the perfect blend of feature and benefits to alleviate their suffering.)

this is not the first of its kind in pharma marketing, nor the most creative, but it is by far, one of the most succint. too many brands try to encapsulate too many objectives into their campaigns and this often leads to consumer confusion.

Pharmaceuticals are unlike FMCG. the consumer doesn't have to make informed, conscious decisions when it comes to buying shampoo. for drugs, without the possibility of DTC in this country anytime in the next century, pharma companies have to educate the public on the medical conditions which warrants a specific type of treatment. this will undoubtedly elongate the already complex consumer decision process. and when a pharma campaigns tries to educate the public on a highly specialized subject such as disease and treatment, it has to make it easy to relate a certain treatment to a particular disease. this is more complicated than it seems, and even the best executions will fail to sustain an overloaded campaign.