Inheriting a legacy- Branding

"When Tony Blair became Prime Minister, the sun shone. When Gordon Brown took over, it rained. ... It was noted that, on 10 May, when Blair announced his resignation in his Sedgefield constituency, the heavens opened, and it has been raining ever since." - The independent 8th july 2007

Figuratively, the weather outlook for a PM(ahem.. product manager in this context) is very dependent on the work produced by his predecessor. Inherit a blockbuster post-launch and you're on your way to market share nirvana, inherit a ADR-plagued dudbuster and you'll be perspiring so hard even your sweat glands are metabolized.

Unfortunately, unless you are a boardroom politician, getting to handle any specific brand is usually down to luck. and in this highly mobile industry, hardly any PM exist to manage one product from day one to patent expiration. In some cases, a product may see anything form 5 PMs in a decade.

Indeed, this may not be optimal for a brand's development especially if companies are serious about branding. There is a wildly successful cardiac drug (simply by its impressive efficacy and lack of direct competition) that possess an incredibly schizophrenic identity, from the multiple switching of PMs (combined with the complication of a dual-company co-marketing arrangement) who decides an academic approach at one time, a commerical angle at another, a mediocre me-too compliant stance and a distasteful comedic campaign all executed within the PLC. it only managed to reach its present state of success recently when it could (& should) have been achieved way earlier.

MMs have a major role to play in maintaining the continuity of a brand, regardless of the mobility of its middle brand management. the cost of failing to do so comes at building tenable brand equity. However, all too often, the newbie would rather opt for a contrasting approach from his predecessor, preferring to do things differently, hoping to juxtapose his competencies to the senior management who usually do not query as long as general (ie sales) objectives are being met and market share is achieved.

Exercising such attitudes may lead to a misleading impression that brand objectives are met (unless it ascertained through KPIs) when in fact brand equity remains low with the business being sustained by sheer efficacy alone.

Time will be able to tell when a new entrant comes in and alter the market share equilibrium.

for the meantime, I'm waiting to see how PM Gordon Brown's drastically different foreign policy (esp towards the US) will show against former PM Tony Blair's pro-US stance.

Brand Planning II- Not again...

Speak to any PM lately and chances are his/her reply to a simple how are you would be "I'm sooooooooo busy, it's crazy..." I'll suggest you give a cursory good luck and dash for your life. For those unfortunate or clueless ones who cannot manage a timely escape, you can be sure that you will be unloaded with a whole barrage of "It's sooooooo mentally taxing, doing this marketing plan... oh, another brand meeting with the MM/GM/RBM again.." zzz

Indeed, the annual brand planning is no trivial affair to be scorned at. It is one business process that is absolutely necessary to analyse past performances, anticipate market dynamics and business impact, predict and assess future growth, evaluate cost and pursue sales strategies for the whole of next year.

Managing the day-to-day affairs can wear a PM out with hardly any time to sit down and evaluate present situation nor contemplate on future directions. Therefore, brand planning season is a great exercise to formalise the plans.

Although brand planning officially commences from May-July for most companies, PMs shouldn't only think about it come mid-year. It should be a continuous effort throughout the year. thoughts should be given to brand development and discussed about. this could greatly alleviate the load and seriously prevent the slew of unorginal and totally uncreative work that abound in local pharma.

One of the most annoying buzzword whose use is bordering on abuse is 'strategy'. every marketer is throwing it around and short of wearing it across their chest, really annoys me. Thing is, there are plenty of PMs out there who can't even tell between a strategy and a tactic! (no kiddin') Certainly one need not have gone to business school to become a PM but spewing 'strategies' incessantly is a real earsore to most knowledgeable people.

When questioned as to what grand 'strategies' they have dreamt up for their respective brands, you get the run-of-the-mill patient assistance programs, new pricing strategies (drop price/increase bonus?!?!), improved CRM through >SF optimization, running local trials (retrospective usually), increasing no. of GSAs (hello? how'd you get here?)

I know I've long lamented on the lack of creative and innovative talents in this industry. There are some brilliant ones whom I'm proud to have acquaintance of and witnessed the superior intellect, great amount of analytical prowess that complements an adventurous spirit to pursue brand leadership. However, the bulk of which, still leaves much to be desired.

...recommends a heavy dose of "LSD" or "Lead, Speed and Differentiation" to encourage innovation in Asia. A country’s desire to always stay in the "lead" lends a sense of urgency to its people to innovate. Speed, through government agencies working in partnership to meet the needs of businesses, helps shorten the lead time for companies. And differentiation, through identifying niche areas where few are staking their claim, helps sustain a country’s competitive advantage...

Lim Siong-Guan, Chairman, Singapore Economic Development Board, World Economic Forum on East Asia http://www.weforum.org/en/events/WorldEconomicForumonEastAsia2007/index.htm

Brand Planning I- Tis' the season...

Mid year. Its the time of the year again... brand planning season for most companies.

Late nights in the office, meetings after meetings of brainstorming and strategizing, phone calls overseas afiliates to gather last minute information and tips, video conferences with bosses on key deliverables, rushing to complete the slidedeck, dry runs after dry runs with the direct report, making harried changes to the final marketing plan and with bated breath (some fingers crossed) preparing for the main presentation to the management team.

Typically, this is the most dreaded time of the year for the average PM. having to slog through at least 2months from initial planning to the roll out during a cycle meeting. What the sales team gets to see during the kickoff meetings are usually far from the primary plan. It would have already been through a series of information gathering, thorough analysis, assumptions and projections, many layers of changes and approvals before the plan is deemed refined enough for execution.

But if you think the PM's life is tough, consider the marketing managers' torment, of having to sift through tons and tons of rubbish masquerading as strategies. (of cos this is not entirely true, there are some marketing managers who can't tell the difference too!) this is also the time whence the marketer gets to prove their mettle, but sadly, most plans remain generic, even textbookish! strategies are usually weak and tactics unoriginal and uncreative. (There are brilliant exceptions of cos' but they don't make for very good blogging. I'm referring to the crappy majority which we can all identify with.)

There are hardly enough given to market analysis and vision in spotting trends and opportunities are sadly lacking. Assumptions are usually made intuitively rather than analytically. Most marketing plans are cut-and-paste versions of the old, expansion of the globally provided long-range plan or rip-offs from other brand plans.

organizations should set some kind of expectations in place. to have a check measure to ensure that their marketers fulfil the minimum competencies and skills, but importantly (and sadly overlooked), to possess critical reasoning that is essential for delivering the best results.

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!