Webinar “Using counter-biosimilar messaging to protect your brand”
•
1 like•1,297 views
Biosimilars are an inevitable force in pharma. The introduction of biosimilars may be a major threat to the branded product. One of the challenges for biologics at the end of their patent protection is how to communicate the tangible and/or emotional benefits of the branded product in the face of assumed (and real) price differences with biosimilars. In today’s pharmaceutical industry, this communication has become a more and more important part of brand’s strategy to defend the competition from biosimilars. Even a delay of a few months for the uptake of biosimilar could have significant financial impact. For well-established brands, it also represents an opportunity to leverage brand equity to communicate to key stakeholders including physicians, patients and key influencers such as nurses and physician assistants. Alex, Nicole, and Mike utilized a case study to illustrate how we address this challenge to help brands develop counter-biosimilar messaging strategies. Find out more at http://skimgroup.com/webinar-counter-biosimilar-messaging.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Webinar “Using counter-biosimilar messaging to protect your brand”
Similar to Webinar “Using counter-biosimilar messaging to protect your brand” (20)
More from SKIM
More from SKIM (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Webinar “Using counter-biosimilar messaging to protect your brand”
- 1. Using counter-biosimilar messaging to protect your brand #SKIMwebinar Share your thoughts online: Alex Zhu Manager Based in Hoboken Mike Mabey VP Client Solutions Based in Atlanta Nicole Drake Director Client Solutions Based in Rotterdam
- 2. Branded biologics are facing biosimilar competition. What should you do differently?
- 3. Defense strategies Increased promotion & messaging Change of paradigm and formulation Payer strategy
- 5. Do other industries face similar challenges? Taste and heritage seekers “for over 40 years Breyers has been bringing families together.”
- 6. However, there are significant differences There is a dominant choice The goal is different Impact of switching decisions
- 7. The goal of counter- biosimilar messaging is to increase inertia.
- 8. Two message goals Shift the adoption curve Buy time for next gen replacement
- 9. Two research goals Identify messages that create inertia Measure the impact of inaction
- 10. Our case study based on a message platform
- 11. Three steps Explore themes & emotions Quantify preference and impact Identify key drivers and combo
- 12. Step 1: Hybrid Qual Explore message themes and emotions MaxDiff/ Conjoint Ranking & rating Sorting
- 13. Step 2: Trade-off exercise MaxDiff to identify the winning message on the primary metrics Looking into the supporting metrics to evaluate the messages
- 14. Step 3: Identify drivers and message combo Clickable exercise to identify what works and what doesn’t within the message TURF analysis to identify the diminishing point when adding additional message
- 15. How would you measure message success?
- 16. Impact The size of non-prescribers is doubled The average wait time before adopting biosimilar increases by 25%
- 17. Flip your thinking about the metric end points Not prescribing Waiting longer Risk of switching Increase in hesitation Why didn’t hesitate Credibility & Believability Reduce early adopters Size of non- prescribers
- 18. Perspective matters: the conversation changes
- 19. Changing your perspective 1. Launch and end of patent messaging strategies are different 2. The decision influencing power of stakeholders may shift 3. Connect counter-biosimilar messaging to your brand strategy
- 20. Go to www.skimgroup.com/webinars for today’s presentation slides and more! #SKIMwebinar Share your thoughts online: Alex Zhu a.zhu@skimgroup.com +1 201 963 8430 Based in Hoboken Mike Mabey m.mabey@skimgroup.com +1 201 963 8430 Based in Atlanta Nicole Drake n.drake@skimgroup.com +31 10 282 3535 Based in Rotterdam
Editor's Notes
- Today we would like to discuss with you a new way of messaging in the new biologic vs. biosimilar competitive situation. We’ll talk about three things. What is counter-biosimilar messaging How to conduct a counter-biosimilar messaging research with a case study How does this apply to your brand
- The competition is evolving to be even more intense. The global market of biosimilars is estimated to reach $2.0 billion by 2018. FDA is expected to make decisions on two biosimilars in Q1, 2015. As a biologic brand, what should you do differently?
- Change the treatment paradigm or establish a new formulation as standard of care Significant emphasis on promotion and messaging against biosimilars 3. Using contracting (for preferred status) as the financial lever Counter-biosimilar messaging fits in the promotion and messaging lever.
- What is counter-biosimilar messaging? To get a good understanding of this, let’s first look at traditional messaging. Because counter-biosimilar messaging is quite the opposite. The purpose of traditional messaging is to appeal to the emotion of acceptance and drive adoption. For example, talk to your doctor about product X. It is a call to action. However, the purpose of counter-biosimilar messaging is to justify the emotion of resistance. In other words, it is a call to inaction. Now why do we want to appeal to the other side of emotions? Facing a new competition is not new, but the biosimilar competition is a more disruptive force, which requires a fresh look.
- We first look at what we can learn from our past research in CPG or Telecom. Does CPG or telecom face a similar situation? Yes and No We believe it is similar but different. Let’s take Breyers’ legacy product, black pack vanilla ice cream for example. There has been a category shrinking with disruptive substitution from yogurt or frozen yogurt. One of the strategies for customer retention in messaging is to appeal to brand legacy and heritage (since 1866, sticker). We have also seen a segment of customers who are taste and heritage seekers Another example is Ragu pasta sauce, in which the processing system (fine-tuned over many years) is an important differentiator
- 1. Delay the uptake and buy time for transitioning to the next generation products vs. maintain share 2. Switching to a lower-cost biosimilars seem to be the dominant choice from health economics perspective. There isn’t such a dominant choice in other categories. It is a much tougher uphill battle for the branded originators 3. Buy ice cream/pasta source every week vs. switching is likely to be permanent. Also the risks and the deliberation of switching are high With the goal and unique aspects in mind, we believe the traditional messaging falls short in the disruptive biosimilar competition. We believe counter-biosimilar messaging better fits the more disruptive situation.
- Essentially we would like to increase inertia with counter-biosimilar messaging
- A message platform is a foundation that all communications spring from, a document you can reference for future marketing activities.
- There are three steps involved and here’s how we put it together
- First, we will need to explore message directions and emotions to inform message creation. For example, what does generics mean and what does interchangeability mean? Iterations of qual research may be needed to inform final message creation and prioritization. In this case, we used a hybrid qual approach. These are qualitative interviews but we incorporated quantitative elements such as Maxdiff/Conjoint and interactive sorting and ranking exercises. Varying content and exercises is crucial to keep respondents engaged; Consider an example of 8-10 message platforms with 60-80 words each, it is quite a lot of information. These exercises can be programmed to give you on the fly results, allowing you to probe dynamically, again to provide further personalized engagement.
- In Step 2 we use MaxDiff again but in this case it is to identify the winning message quantitatively (how hesitant are you to prescribe biosimiilars) MaxDiff gives us a read on the relative preference. So it is important to have absolute measurement of being credible and believable.
- Thanks Alex Yes, How would you measure success with your new “Call to Inaction” messaging? Well, you probably should focus on only a few critical touch points. For instance, with one client these were the two most important metrics
- First, the impact of each message tested on HCPs Second the impact of each message tested on the hesitation time – that is how much longer the HCP will wait before prescribing your new competitor. Double the size of non-prescribers and reduce the size of early adopters 25% means 3-4 months of delay in this case, which has a big financial impact if you consider how often your patients visit their physicians But you might have other metrics that are critical for you. The overall framework though is that you should Flip your thinking about the metric end points, compared to the metrics you traditionally use.
- Here are the most frequent metrics we have used The likelihood of NOT prescribing The likelihood of waiting longer before trying out the new drug The risk of switching – for HCPs and for patients The increase in hesitation Why didn’t the message cause you to hesitate? Credibility and believability are still critical metrics Reducing the size of the early adopter cohort Size of the non-prescriber cohort The metrics you choose should be specific to your needs. However, flipping your thinking is a great exercise to help you look at the messaging and communication challenges differently.
- At the end of the day, regardless of the metrics you choose, the important issue is that when you are facing a disruptive new competitor, you must change your perspective in order to change your thinking.
- Understand your goals – launch and end of patent strategies are different. Unlike traditional messaging, counter-biosimilar messaging is about creating inertia and delaying adoption. As we are changing the context, things that are not suitable to support uptake at launch may be essential to create inertia (e.g. manufacturing process, complex molecule structure, patient assistance program). And, of course, your measurements of success – the metrics – change. Has the decision influence power shifted among your audience in the counter-biosimilar context? Do you have to re-think your relationship dynamics and types of messages that work for your four primary stakeholders: physicians, nurses, patients, and payers. We find that understanding the Decision Influence Model for new brands and then as the brands move through their lifecyle is very important. And finally, in a bigger picture, how is counter-biosimilar messaging connected to your brand’s overall strategy? Bypass biosimilars The implication of the delay of biosimilar uptake is more time to transition patients to your next generation product