marketing effectiveness « Return On Focus --- http://returnonfocus.com --- Return On Focus

What’s Missing from Tactical Execution? An Evaluation Criteria

August 26, 2011

Physicians (And Patients) Are Moved by Stories, Not Statements

I recently received my second report of a ‘failed’ messaging research project from a client that was looking to ROF for some evidence-based diagnostics (or as I call it . . . sanity check).  Both Clients used the term ‘failed’, not I.  In looking at the stimuli and methodologies for both projects, I came back to a simple tenet that I learned long ago from personal selling.  The tenet is that physicians are moved by stories—not statements—and these stories must be written for them, not by them.

Doctors are not marketers, yet traditional messaging validation techniques often ask them to act as if they were, by laying out dozens of discrete messages before them and then asking them to rank which are most compelling.  This democratic approach to message development is comforting yet suboptimal, because it gives the client a false sense of security that the brand messages are being presented in the right order.

There are two fundamental flaws in this approach at the end of the day.  First, physicians are human beings and as such, they base their decisions on reality, not potential reality. It is really just simple human nature.  Opinions are grounded in what is and not what can be, which allows them to quickly discard messages that don’t align with today’s reality.  There is much evidence within communication theory that demonstrates, quite simply, that we don’t know what we want until it’s been shown to us.

Second, is the difference between presenting robust factual evidence and the power of a compelling story based on these facts.  The vogue term now is “storytelling” because it accurately describes how most people process and internalize information – as part of a story with a beginning, middle, and end.  What physicians ultimately remember is a theme or vision, not a series of disconnected bullet point messages.

It’s time to step out of your comfort zone and start telling your Brand story. Not sure how?  Give us a call.

TwitterLinkedInFacebookPinterestGoogle ReaderShare

August 18, 2011

Does an Increase in Treatment Options Directly Correlate to an Increase in Patient Involvement?

A Client recently asked me to weigh-in on a debate the marketing team was having regarding the role of patients in a specialty care category that was becoming more crowded with treatment options. The question was simple:
Does patient involvement in the treatment decision-making process increase or decrease as more therapies come on the market in rapid succession?

It’s a great question, especially for categories like prostate cancer or hepatitis C where multiple new product entrants have been introduced over the last 18 months. My counsel to the Client was to closely examine the potential factors that influence ownership over the treatment decision-making process.

  • MD ‘Involvement’ – to what degree do physicians believe that the category is a high involvement category for them? In other words, does the physician believe his/her consideration is essential to the patient’s outcome? It’s not binary, but scaled. In categories that are low involvement for physicians (allergies), patients have the potential to play a larger ownership role.
  • Patient ‘Involvement’ – to what degree do patients themselves believe that their involvement is essential to the outcome of their treatment? Classic example is breast cancer where even before women are diagnosed, they have been conditioned to believe that they should play a significant role in this disease.
  • Symptomatic vs. Asymptomatic disease – to what extent does the disease itself impact the current QOL of the patient? Less impact, less patient decision-making. Classic example here is hypertension drugs. There are a ton of them, but they’ve never really been able to move the patient needle because it’s hard to secure end user involvement in this class. “I feel good and I don’t fully appreciate the risks of having high blood pressure, so I don’t understand why I should be involved.”
  • Symptomatic vs. Asymptomatic treatment – to what extent does the patient feel the effects of the treatment itself? It starts with side effects, but it could also include efficacy. If multiple products in a category have varying side effects or varying dosing schedules, physicians often allow patients to play a larger role. We see this with treatments for rheumatoid arthritis that have varying toxicity profiles and modes/timing of administration. These treatments often drive increased patient involvement in the decision-making process.

The outcome of this discussion was a more structured analysis of the key questions with a listing of the corresponding hypotheses and support (or lack thereof).

What are your thoughts? What criteria am I missing?

TwitterLinkedInFacebookPinterestGoogle ReaderShare

August 7, 2011

Reactive Market Research During Brand Planning

There’s an important distinction to be made between reactive and proactive market research as it relates to brand planning. It’s August and we’re seeing a number of our clients scrambling to conduct physician and patient research to help answer important questions from the brand team. The plan is to use this information to aid in the development of strategic and tactical recommendations for 2012, but there is very little time left to complete it and even less time to do it with the appropriate rigor. A more proactive approach to market research as it relates to brand planning is warranted.

The harried pace of reactive research could easily be alleviated by implementing a system of quarterly check-in meetings with your team versus the current annual pre-planning review. Start the process of convening your extended team at the end of each quarter and use these meetings to think about the following year. What key issues is your brand facing that will need to be addressed? What are the key unknowns concerning your prescribers and users? What research or analysis needs to be conducted to answer these questions?

At ROF, a central part of our business lies in conducting Level of Evidence Appraisals for our clients. We formulate a set of core hypotheses related to brand strategic / marketing issues or specific brand investments and then review and align the existing evidence against them. This process provides the foundation to then identify the key research needs and proactively formulate an action plan that attains the necessary information.

I realize in the day-to-day craziness of brand marketing, it is often extremely difficult to think about getting out in front of brand planning months in advance. But conducting quarterly issue meetings or performing an LOE early in the year will make it easier for your entire team and will allow for ample time to conduct worthwhile research that yields reliable results.

Think about it.

TwitterLinkedInFacebookPinterestGoogle ReaderShare

July 29, 2011

Not Making a Decision is Really Making a Decision to do Nothing

It’s time for a little self-reflection. How often have you said to yourself or your team, “we really need to do something about that” or “we should get together to figure out what’s going on there.”

The truth is, too often key strategic issues are tabled for a time to be determined in the near future, only to be overshadowed by more pressing issues or forgotten altogether. By not making time to reevaluate some of the foundational underpinnings of your brand, you’re actually making a conscious choice not to do it.

Look, I know these conversations aren’t easy to have. Confronting the value (or lack thereof) in your physician or patient segmentation schemes can be unnerving. Bringing up the fact that your brand’s global positioning may not be focused or supportable by your proof sources is not for the faint of heart.

The point that I’m getting at here is that there are consequences to deciding not to examine these things. When you don’t examine a difficult aspect of brand planning, tactical execution, or communication development, you are in fact making a decision. You’re choosing to ignore it.

TwitterLinkedInFacebookPinterestGoogle ReaderShare

July 22, 2011

What’s Missing from Tactical Execution? An Evaluation Criteria

Admit it! You have ‘bright shiny object syndrome.’

It’s easier and more pleasurable to think in terms of tactics and the creative development behind them than it is to think about strategic issues and level of evidence. But, before you fall in love with a tactical idea, take a step back and evaluate it with some objective criteria. Chances are in 2011 that you’re either going to be asked to prune some tactics or be given the opportunity to add to a tactical funding wish list. Why not be ready?

After objectively assessing the level of evidence behind more than two-dozen pharmaceutical marketing brand plans in 2010, let me share with you the basic ROF evaluation criteria for investments:

  1. Focus – Effective in reaching a defined, high value target that is quantifiable
  2. Scale – Able to be tested in a pilot phase and easily ramped up, if proven successful, to a level that can impact sales
  3. Additive – Covers multiple channels of communication to enhance the impact of each one
  4. Proximal – Close to the ‘point of prescription’ in the buying process
  5. Measurable – Beyond surrogate, transactional metrics to derive an ROI

The key is to have a set of objective criteria because when you’re put on the spot you want to and need to have a rationale. Publish the criteria to your team to increase the quality of ideas brought forth as you continue to iterate your plan moving forward.

TwitterLinkedInFacebookPinterestGoogle ReaderShare
Older Posts »
Follow us on
Pinterest Twitter slideshare
Contact Us
XXX
YYY

Powered by WordPress