Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Die SlideShare-Präsentation wird heruntergeladen. ×

2005 Medical Marketing Association Presentation V1.3

Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Wird geladen in …3
×

Hier ansehen

1 von 38 Anzeige
Anzeige

Weitere Verwandte Inhalte

Diashows für Sie (20)

Anzeige

Ähnlich wie 2005 Medical Marketing Association Presentation V1.3 (20)

Aktuellste (20)

Anzeige

2005 Medical Marketing Association Presentation V1.3

  1. 1. Measuring Promotional Success Optimizing ROI Sponsored by ScienceMedia Become Part of a Greater Body of Knowledge
  2. 2. Table of Contents • Introduction and session objective • Traditional promotion in a changing environment • Historical return on investment summary • eDetailing ROI case study • Maximizing your return on investment when producing digital assets
  3. 3. Introduction • Chauncey Smith – Sr Brand Manager at Glaxo SmithKline Consumer Healthcare – Medical Marketer of the Year 2002 – VP elect for MMA – Programs 2005-07 – Committee Chair: Medical Marketer of the Year – 2005 • The information shared in this presentation has been collected from a variety of sources and reflects my personal point of view of medical marketing and return on investment methods • Every effort has been made to reference all sources and not infringe on proprietary or trademarked work • Michelle Youngers – CEO at ScienceMedia has underwritten this session. – ScienceMedia is a company that uses rich media for the visualization and communication of scientific concepts in marketing and training programs with an emphasis on instructional design.
  4. 4. Overview • Session objective: Stimulate a robust peer to peer discussion about the promotional returns on investment, from several points of view: – Relative and absolute cost efficiency of non-personal selling tactics – Full utilization and amortization of digital assets created to support these tactics
  5. 5. The untapped potential of non-personal selling for medical marketers Medical Marketing Association 2005 Annual Conference
  6. 6. A recent article in Product Management Today proclaims not having sales force support is a product manager crisis! Let’s examine this a little closer
  7. 7. A “historical” perspective helps to start framing our discussion by examining where physicians prefer to get product information is probably useful 0 20 40 60 80 %response Percent response Important Sources of Medical Information Journals CME Conferencesymposia Colleagues Reference Publications Dinner Meetings Pharma Reps Audio Cassettes Videocassettes On-line Source: PERQHCI, June 1998
  8. 8. Promotional Environment Situation Analysis • Physician’s attitudes regarding drug promotion are changing, and although personal selling is preferred method for brands with sales >$100M, the use of non- personal methods are growing (eg- journal advertising, eDetail, eCME, web based tactics) • The current industry model remains with the status quo, because of the fear of a competitive response • However, clever marketers are testing new promotional alternatives, like eDetailing, with success – Smaller brands are adopting these non-personal strategies at a even faster rate, because of the efficiency of spend • Many small to mid-sized brands can not effectively support the expense of personal selling and recognizes the challenge of a non-personal selling strategy as our way forward
  9. 9. How do we as medical marketers successfully navigate today’s environment and identify “small brand opportunities” into market success? • Personal experience and traditional wisdom have taught us to believe personal selling is imperative for a successful product launch. – But is this tenet still a truth in today’s marketplace with 95,000 pharmaceutical reps clamoring for physician attention? • While the answer is not yet definitive, there is clearly evidence to suggest “detailing” may not be as influential today as in years past, because physicians have more outlets to get their information • Non-personal selling can be an efficient and effective alternative to our traditional wisdom
  10. 10. In today’s crowded offices, more representatives are finding it tougher to break through and have meaningful a dialog with physicians 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Physicansresponding Targeting realities Total calls See MD More than Sample drop More than 2 mins Message recalled Pharmaceutical Executive Supplement – 5/04 * Out of every 100 attempted sales calls, pharmaceutical reps get 2 or more minutes with physicians less than 10% of the time, and less than 5% is the message recalled
  11. 11. Source: Access to high prescribers: The World of Doorknob details, 1999; Scott-Levin; associate ride-alongs and interviews; financial press articles; MD interviews FEWER MEANINGFUL PHYSICIAN INTERACTIONS MEANS FEWER OPPORTUNITIES FOR REPRESENTATIVE LED PRODUCT DIFFERNTIATION • Only 12 out of 300 (4%) possible details are recalled by physicians 87% of calls last less than 2 minutes • Drop samples off at receptionist’s desk •Leave before receptionist’s desk (i.e., other waiting reps, restricted access signs) • No physician recall• Drop samples off at sample closet 85 reps 100 reps (300 details) 57 reps 20 reps = 20 calls 8 calls ?? 12 recalled details** 15 28 37 12
  12. 12. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Focus on top recommenders Ignore mainstream recommenders Traditional Medical Sales & Marketing
  13. 13. 2004 Traditional Medical Sales & Marketing Personal Selling Potential Overspend? 50-60% No Contact 70-80% No Contact Good Spend 90-95% No Contact
  14. 14. 2004 Self-Service and self-selected for lower tier ($) Integrated Medical Sales & Marketing Personal Selling Integrated Marketing (1:1) Optimal experiences with heavy recruiting for top prescribers ($$$) Mass-Customized approach with moderate recruiting for mid-tier prescribers ($$) “Spend in proportion to HCP value, and in alignment with their preferences” Decile 8-10 Specialists Decile 4 -7 Specialists Decile 7-10 PCP NP/PAs in Specialty Decile 1-3 Specialists Decile 1-6 PCP NP/PAs Pharmacists $$$ $$$ $$$ $$ $
  15. 15. • Traditional selling model • Elements of new selling model • New selling modelSteps can be taken to improve the existing model Steps can be taken to improve the existing model • “Tightening the screws” – Enhance sales force productivity – Simplify organization strategy – Improve front-line performance management – Maximize DM impact – Ensure technology payback – “Turbocharging the model” – Develop more sophisticated capabilities for customer knowledge, e.g., segmentation, CRM and KAM – Pilot tailored approaches – Explore new channels – Drive pull through with marketing and managed care – Ensure streamlined, effective technology support – “Creating a new paradigm” – Create new avenues of access – Reach physicians through multiple coordinated, highly effective channels – Micro-segment and deliver tailored messages and benefits – Provide a solution across networks of physicians and patients Capabilities must be built in the intermediate term Capabilities must be built in the intermediate term Future paradigm informs intermediate steps Future paradigm informs intermediate steps The consulting community discussed this rapidly evolving Pharma Selling Model way back in late 2003 Clever marketers are evolving with the market to address the new model’s realities
  16. 16. The old, tried and true media provide a reliable ROI Journal advertising, banner ads for patient record forms have solid track records Tying a direct response mechanism to them can add life beyond the single impression
  17. 17. Journal advertising remains a very efficient non personal selling tactic delivering excellent target reach and frequency Spend ($000) Sales Increase ($000) ROI (Per $ Spent) Print Only $ 939 $ 2,244 $ 2.39 Detail Only $ 9,988 $19,477 $1.95 Print+Detail $25,213 $67,571 $2.68 TOTAL (49 campaigns) $36,140 $87,097 $2.41 Source: IMR Survey of 125 Pharma. Co. Marketing Executives – 999
  18. 18. The Tuck School of Business recently reconfirmed this dynamic with the publication of the RAPP study ROI per Dollar spent (1991 – 99 launches with Brand sales of $25-200MM) 1997 – 1999 launches (Brand sales of $25- 50MM) Margin of error 95% confidence Detailing $1.72 $1.45 + $0.19 Journal Ad $5.00 $2.22 + $0.88 Medical Ed $3.56 NA NA DTC $0.19 $0.25 + $0.52 Source - ROI Analysis of Pharmaceutical Promotion Study – Ass’n of Medical Publications - 2002
  19. 19. “Low tech” example of banner ad campaign dampened anticipated erosion FORMEDIC NSAID Promotional Evaluation- Market Share 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Dec-96 Jan-97 Feb-97 Mar-97 Apr-97 May-97 Jun-97 Jul-97 Aug-97 Sep-97 Oct-97 Test n=22,068 Control n=22,068 Match Period Covariate Period Test Period
  20. 20. Test vs Control NRx Patient Record Banner Ad test Physicians who were using Formedic patient record forms (test group) prescribed 29.4% significantly higher new prescriptions for a new ADHD line extension as compared to the control physicians during the 17 month post-test period. (cl*=99.99%) Note: *cl = Confidence level; if cl >= 90% the program impact is significant, else it is directional. Analysis conducted : ANCOVA. 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 Jan- 02 Feb- 02 Mar- 02 Apr- 02 May- 02 Jun- 02 Jul- 02 Aug- 02 Sep- 02 Oct- 02 Nov- 02 Dec- 02 Jan- 03 Feb- 03 Mar- 03 Apr- 03 May- 03 Jun- 03 Jul- 03 Aug- 03 Sep- 03 NRxs Control Test
  21. 21. So what’s up with all the noise around eDetailing?
  22. 22. Physician Acceptance of Online Detailing* Physicians are using Online Detailing • 206,280 physician participants • 109,440 intend to participate in 2004 • In 2004, roughly 50% of all physician will participate in an online detail • Current eDetailing Users attended 8.8 programs/physician in past 12 months and expect to increase to 14.8 programs Physicians who use Online Detailing are high value physicians • Current eDetailing Users write 193 Rx/week vs. 108 for non-users Online Detailing is an important channel for keeping up to date on info • Current eDetailing Users expect to decrease time with reps by 30% and double their time with electronic detailing programs • Physicians access from home an average of 59% of the time *Source: Manhattan Research
  23. 23. GSK has been testing alternative methods of promotion for more than 2 years now to measure the changing attitudes of physicians 59% of participation time was outside of rep work hours! A GSK product eDetail test - 2003
  24. 24. An early insight to me was that physicians view “e-Details” more like symposia and less like a sales call The implication of this finding may be a driver of future intent of eDetail use
  25. 25. 19% 21% 25% 26% 35% 46% 21% 22% 27% 24% 36% 48% 17% 20% 24% 27% 35% 45% Will improve the quality of the time I spend with detail reps in general Supplements the amount of info/visits I receive from pharma companies Will reduce amount of redundant info I receive from the detail reps I see Have the option to obtain more info after a visit from the detail rep Can access information when a new product is launched Can access info when and where it is most convenient for me ePharma Specialists ePharma PCPs ePharma Physicians Increasing Interest in Participating in eDetailing Source: Medsite and Industry Research
  26. 26. High – Medium (varies by cluster) Very High Very High (varies by cluster) Medium High High - Med ROI (depending on volume) Medium – Low High High Med - Low ROI (depending on volume) Med - Low ROI (depending on volume) eDetailing has utility throughout the Product Life Cycle High - Med Decile Lower Decile Launch / Growth Mature Decline / Harvest General Strategy  Accelerate Adoption  Anchor Key Messages  Integrate with Reps  Protect Relationships through smarter segmentation of customer base…defend market share  Deeper Penetration of customer base…fill in coverage gaps  SFA /eDetail feedback loop  Cushion Erosion  Migrate to low cost promotional / sampling channels Reported ROI 300% -1500% 200% - 1000% 200% - 400% High - Medium Response ROI Key Source: Medsite
  27. 27. My recent experience with eDetailing agrees with the research Test Objectives • CH was interested in exploring online promotional marketing to maintain professional relationships with US prescribers (challenge faced with reduction of field sales support) • Focus on two mature dermatology products Aclovate® and Cutivate® • Increase interaction with brand message and raise brand awareness • Communicate the use of these products in combination therapy • Creating a low cost solution for developing an online marketing channel Targets • The program goal was 2,300 completes with 10% high value targets recruited by MedSite based on a target list of 40,000 (MedSite received 8,000 derm & ped targets)
  28. 28. eDetail Aclovate/Cutivate Program Overview • A 1-wave; 7-minute interactive multi-media program • Includes comprehension and profile questions to keep participants engaged in (and to measure) the program • No honoraria in a channel where pharma companies are offering up to $25 worth of medically relevant gifts • Launched August 26, 2004 • GSK owns all assets which can now be redeployed on www.dermprofessional.com
  29. 29. Full amortization of digital assets is must to maximize ROI • The animations used in the eDetail for the mode of action, etc was extracted from a CDDVD based training program – Source files (flash) were sent to the eDetail provider during storyboard phase – Out of pocket expenses were minimal for content development, because the bulk of the cost was absorbed by previous project
  30. 30. Recruiting is key! Participants & Completers – By Channel Physicians may enter site through more than 1 method 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Participated Completed Completion Rate Participated 1525 854 244 2623 Completed 1157 755 214 2126 Completion Rate 76% 88% 88% 81% Email Fax Invites Total
  31. 31. Test Case - Program Summary Program Launched August 26th , 2004 Cumulative results through March 9th , 2005 Average time spent in iDetail: 7 minutes Total Time spent in iDetail: 31,620 minutes 2000 2886 2590 2106 296 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Program Statistics Summary 2000 2886 2590 2106 296 Enter Goal Total Details Unique Participant Unique Completion Repeat Participant
  32. 32. Rx Derm eDetail - Results Increased Self Reported Intent to Prescribe • Before eDetail 19% self reported prescribing Aclovate • Following eDetail 63% ‘very likely’ (top 2 box rating) to prescribe Aclovate • Before eDetail 22% self reported prescribing Cutivate • Following eDetail 67% ‘very likely’ to prescribe Cutivate High Marks for Engagement / Completion • 1,308 completes in 5 months • 82% completion rate • 52% completing after business hours • 13% visited the web site after the eDetail
  33. 33. Post period analysis shows a TRx change of +25% for brand prescribers, while segment was +3% 1145 1441 11519 11924 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Pre eDetail Aclovate TRx 5/04- 07/04 Post eDetail Aclovate TRx 1/05-03/05 Pre eDetail LPTRx 5/04-07/04 Post eDetail LP TRx 1/05- 03/05 Aclovate TRx Analysis on All Docs Receiving eDetail
  34. 34. Rx Derm eDetail - Results Increased Scripts • The number of scripts for Aclovate among the targeted physicians who completed the eDetail more than doubled in Q4 ’04 vs. Q1 ’04* (controlling for all other forms of promotion) – Pre eDetail monthly avg. scripts per HCP - 1.372 vs. Post eDetail monthly avg. scripts per HCP - 2.817 – There was a 105% increase in total scripts between the two quarters (219 v. 614 scripts written post eDetail) * Note: the results only refer to Aclovate as Cutivate came off patent in May and the number of scripts actually declined
  35. 35. My eDetail Summary • Key Take Aways – This Interactive Learning Program has proven to be successful – Not having an honorarium slowed the completion rate but has not stood in the way of success – This is a low cost approach to educating HCPs about our products • $44 per completed detail • Drove traffic to the web site and gained opt-in for future communication – This cost per contact may not be easily replicated since it was taken on as a trial by the provider – Scaling up may be to NPs, PAs and other PCPs but high value Derms and Peds have proven hard to reach
  36. 36. My Conclusions • No doubt, Pharma selling model is evolving rapidly as physicians have more channels to access for information • While personal selling may be the “gold standard” of promotional opportunities, there are viable alternatives channels for marketers to consider, regardless of size. • My experience has been with a well known drug in a well established category. This dynamic and opportunity may not be as well defined in emerging or replacement therapeutic categories. • Non-personal selling strategies can greatly increase reach and frequency against category prescribers when compared vs personal selling centric plans • When I combine these industry facts and data with my own experience, I believe it’s possible that small to mid- sized brands can be effectively promoted without personal selling and return a positive ROI for your respective organizations
  37. 37. Acknowledgements for significant contribution to my learning and presentation • GSKCH – Alan Schaefer, Cameron Poluszek, Jari Rouas, Will Hignett • E2 - Peter Rush • Medsite – Bill Paquin, Natasha Allam • H2 – Tim Husni • Formedic – Kent Roman • ScienceMedia – Michelle Youngers and Julie Gegner, PhD
  38. 38. Measuring Promotional Success Optimizing ROI Sponsored by ScienceMedia Become Part of a Greater Body of Knowledge

Hinweis der Redaktion

  • Doctors see 10.5 reps a week, encounter approx. 15.5 details a week and spend about 35 minutes a week with sales representatives.
    It is a zero sum game, when you push in, someone always gets pushed out.
    During the timeframe shown, there were several product launches, Advair, Bextra, Benicar additionally, our network grew from 1,000 to 1500 and in April to 2000- drs. See 10 reps a week, for 15 details for approx. 35 minutes.
  • HCPs noted the convenience of this online program (44%) and their preference to learn online (30%) as compelling factors in taking the OPP. Note that 59% of HCPs took the program outside of the normal 8-5 office hours.
  • The majority of participating HCPs perceived the program to be a mostly educational or at least a balanced presentation.

×