The revival of SFE?

SFE.
Last week alone, i heard the mention of this almost obliterated acronym from a pharma veteren who was talking excitedly about how her company is driving towards SFE innovations,increasing bottom line profitability by improving sales productivity and another co-worker who was being headhunted for a job as a regional SFE champion. this week, in a kind of deja vu, a senior ex-colleague highlighted that SFE has become his one of his core responsibility for his role in his organization's new structure. incidentally, all three of them were speaking for descriptively smaller companies.

Few in pharma would not have heard of SFE, whose ubiquitous spread, sometime back in 2002 within the industry caused many a drug reps sleepless nights filling up tedious forms to identify their customers, separating the KOLs from the laggards, profiling and classifying them into ABCDs or HMLs customer groups, studying their purchasing patterns, sorting out their level of influcence, sussing out their brand advocacy/support, etc.

Many organizations also created a new position in the sales division within the Singapore offiice- the SFE manager. whose immediate task is to draw up a spankng new SFE blueprint after studying the sales forces' productivity and practices and explaining why the existing system is not good enough. After intense research, the SFE manager will propose, develop and introduce (often to the dismay of reps) new methods, programs, initiatives, expensive hardwares and whatever other fancy ideas (with even more ludicrious KPIs) that will intensify the sales forces' efforts and hopefully, propel the company to profits haven.

Fast forward to present day pharma, most of the original SFE managers have gone, without replacements. The amount of raw data collected have yet to be crunched nor input to any viable SFE systems. many of the half-hearted initiatives launched have not yielded any positive returns for the companies which had invested relatively vast amounts into what may well have only been an idealistic pursuit.

The problem with most local SFE initiatives were that they were primarily customer centric. tactics were planned to exploit the customers' projected potential into maximum returns. little emphasis were placed in building and developing a strong sales force that could do the above and exceed the customers' potential beyond their projected limit by forming positive CRM

SFE does have its success story in capitalistic US, where big pharmas are pouring good money to hire specialty consultants to design proprietary products and solutions to engage their customers and optimise their sales foces' effectiveness. many local set ups opted for the more economical approach of employing someone whom they consider with adequate sales experience and insights to lead SFE. there are bound to be exceptions to this case. the success of any effective sales force cannot simply be attributed to any one style or methods.

The sales force is a dynamic entity and is essentially about people, the way sales people work, their beliefs and motivations, the workplace environment and culture, their interaction with external parties- doctors, purchasers, HC authorities, etc

With many of the larger companies having had a bite of the SFE pie, i now hope that it will not leave a bitter taste to the others coming into its path.

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.

Setting the scene

Singapore, in comparison with many other countries, may be small in land mass. but her dimunitive size has not diminished her giangantic dreams. What Singapore wants, Singapore almost always get (think F1 racing)

it is encouraging indeed to see how it has, in the mere span of 40 years been transformed from a laid-back kampung to the technologically advanced, economically competitive first world country that it is today.

Many of the regional offices of phamaceutical companies are located in Singapore. the government has gone to great lengths to woo the biomedical companies. the big money spinner for them is in manufacturing, contributing to $18b in 2005 alone.

pharma companies exist here not simply to promote their drugs but also to exploit the fantastic infrastructure and support committed by the government in this era of globalization.

And in the dawn of China and India rising, cosmopolitan Singapore may be in an advantageous position of bridging the gateway between the west and the immense markets up south.