Reaching new heights in branding

pharmafile | February 15, 2006 | Feature | Sales and Marketing |   

The pharma industry has come a long way from the days when it believed that products were all about safety and efficacy, and evidence of both was enough to ensure successful uptake by doctors.

In recent years there has been an increasing realisation that clinicians are people too, and that they have the same emotional aspirations as ordinary consumers, and that their purchasing (ie, prescribing) decisions are not just based on purely rational and functional factors. Because if they were, then every doctor would end up prescribing the same treatment in the same circumstances, and that is clearly not the case.

Even in an industry where regulation and artificial restrictions on product lifecycles (through patents) create an environment which constricts true fmcg thinking, pharma marketers are increasingly looking to this sector for inspiration on how to build product pipelines based on strong, sustainable, genuine brands.

Strong brands are seen by pharma companies as a vital source of wealth creation, maximising revenue generation from existing and future products. The emotional aspects of a brand are seen as an antidote to the realities of informed, enfranchised patients, the threat of generic competition, the drying up of blockbusters from the pipeline, and the growing empowering of patients to play a greater role in managing their conditions (and associated shift to OTC distribution).

But to what extent is the industry just paying lip-service without actually maximising the opportunities that brands present? Is there a real understanding of what strong branding can do, and how it needs to be created and maintained? Are pharma marketers really leveraging the power of the brand? Or are they suspicious of  and even threatened by  talk of adopting a more fmcg-focused approach?

Product or brand?

Pharma companies live and die by their products, and there are still many who cling to the idea that if the product is functionally well-placed within the market, then it will succeed. But as Derek Stonebanks, brand research director at Praxis Research and Consulting points out, doctors are not swayed by clinical trials data alone.

"When a new drug treatment is launched it is common (however compelling the trials data) for physicians to take time to become comfortable with it: gaining clinical experience to back up the 'evidence/rational' base, but also internalising it into their perspective of the therapy area.

"It is as this process of internalisation occurs that the product begins to become a brand. If we choose to (and have the expertise), we can direct this process to ensure that the brand takes on an identity which is in line with our marketing plans; if we don't, then a brand identity will develop by default – and it may not be the one we would like."

Chris Marks, consultant at The MSI Consultancy, also thinks that a product can only become a brand if the concentration is more on the attitudes, behaviours and mindsets rather than simply adhering to some kind of formula.

"A true brand is only created when the intended target no longer sees your product as a member of a drug class and compares it with others within the class but instead sees it as the only choice because of the associations, memories that they link to it.

"For this to happen, the manager responsible must think about their product in terms of both the rational and the emotional, really investigating and evaluating how the features can be turned into both functional and emotional benefits which align with what it is like to be a doctor treating a particular condition – and that means doing something which changes perceptions."

Interestingly, although they work extensively in the pharma industry, Stonebanks and Marks have worked with big brands in the fmcg world, and it appears to be this experience which colours their thinking.

The relevance of fmcg

A common reaction of pharma marketers when confronted with the argument that they should adopt more fmcg thinking is to point out the disparities, rather than the essential truths, which drive business in both sectors.

There are certainly factors at play in the pharma industry that limit the way that fmcg thinking can be adopted:

• Regulatory constraints
• The influence of a raft of external bodies such as NICE, PCTs and so on
• The fact that the purchasing decision-maker is often not the payer, and the perception of customers that they take decisions purely on a rational, evidence-based basis

These factors, and others, reduce the scope for building more sophisticated customer relationships.

But this is not a reason to ignore the power of brands, or even to downplay them.  The old fmcg concept of brand value, where value = benefits – price, and benefits are functional and emotional, is just as true for pharma.

"The underlying ideas – about brands consisting of relationships with customers – are, I believe, wholly applicable," says Stonebanks.

"Healthcare professionals are also people, and even in the context of their professional life (where rational decisions are held at a premium) they have emotional responses to patients, products, treatments, disease areas, etc.  Physicians want to be 'good doctors'. If all prescribing decisions were entirely rational and evidence-based, then all physicians would prescribe the same treatment in the same circumstances – this clearly does not happen.

"The mechanisms by which brands are developed – building relationships with customers/potential customers – are equally applicable whether in fmcg or pharma markets. It is only the environment in which the relationships must operate that is different."

Some industry people claim it is exactly that environment which inhibits them from leveraging the brand fully. Provided what you say is legal, decent, honest and truthful, then everything is fair game in fmcg, goes their argument.

Whereas in pharma, most of what the industry wants to say – and indeed most of what we are led to believe doctors want to hear – is governed by evidence, with no hanging comparatives. No Persil Washes Whiter here then – and all this is compounded by the fact that the prescriber is not the payer.

But is this different to what happens in fmcg? Marks thinks not, saying: "I would argue that it is a bit like buying soap powder – if the brand is not on the shelf, then the consumer cannot purchase it. Similarly, if the pharma brand is not on the formulary or on protocol, then the doctor cannot, or at best is reluctant to, prescribe it."

Marks says the problem is that pharma have not gone far enough in translating the benefits beyond the clinical into what it means for the doctor in terms of what they aspire to be or achieve.

"My belief is that in fmcg most companies examine their products or offerings on the basis of what does it do?', 'who will this appeal to?', 'what are the features?', 'what are the benefits to the person, their role in life, their aspirations and why?'. I am not sure that pharma has embraced this beyond 'what does it do?' and 'what are the features?'.

Limited lifecycle

Another often quoted limitation of pharma brands is the length of time they can be sustained in a world of patent expiries. It is true that few brands survive patent expiry when generic alternatives are introduced, although this could be because few companies are prepared to invest in the brand after this time, unless it is either the bedrock of a franchise or stepping stone into OTC.

But, according to Tracey Brader, healthcare consultant at the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising (IPA), this doesn't have to be so.

"Brand names live on in the pharma industry long after the product patent expires. Many patients emerge from surgeries claiming to have been given Augmentin or Losec when in fact the name on the pack is that of the generic. Conversely, some of our industry's output remains a product forever, never becoming a brand in the true sense of the word."

Although brands can potentially live forever, much as in the consumer world, the average lifespan of new brand launches is decreasing, both under the weight of the number of new launches and the reluctance to continue investment much after the launch phase.

"Durable brands are complex entities – existing in the relationships they enjoy with customers," says Stonebanks. "Forging these relationships takes time (so a brand does not spring fully fledged into being) and they must be worked on as they develop over time to take account of changes – in the environment in which they operate, in the attitudes, perceptions and needs of customers.

"Some of this is possible within pharma markets, but is made more difficult by the patent situation imposing, as it does, an artificial limiting factor on a brands development/longevity – but brands can live on by line extension or by use as 'umbrella brands'."

Maximising the brand

Even the most enthusiastic proponent of strong brands wouldn't argue that they represent a panacea for the pharma industry in an environment of less than full pipelines, generic threats and continuing regulatory constraints. But within these harsh realities, branding does have a valuable role to play, in building better customer relationships and extending the attractiveness of products beyond the purely functional.

Looking wistfully at the freedoms enjoyed by fmcg marketers is not enough – the lessons they have learned through years of harsh experience must be adopted.

"Pharma marketing is akin to fmcg marketing in the seventies," argues Marks. "It is about the manufacturer telling the consumer why they should buy the brand because of the benefits, and then telling the retailer about the marketing support behind the brand that will generate sales.

"As we all know the power has shifted away from the manufacturer towards the retailer, who also sells his own brand and controls what goes on his shop shelf. Any similarities with pharma? Well how long before the PCTs or SHAs become the retailers and protocols become the shop shelves – including own label, which we know as generics?

"This might well turn out to be the real new thinking of the 21st century, as the NHS wakes up to the fact that it might be the one in control, not the pharma companies – just like Sainsbury's did, changing the way that fmcg worked (I know I was at Nestle at the time!)."

Maximising a brand's potential requires a consistent approach, which doesn't mean inflexibility, but always positioning it in what Stonebanks calls the "optimum point on the landscape of underlying needs – both rational and emotional".

Unfortunately, the structure of pharma marketing doesn't help, as Brader points out: "In the course of a patent life, brands must endure a dozen 'managers', given the average product manager lasts two years.

"Each comes along wanting to make a difference (for this read make a change), and they are allowed to play fast and loose with what the brand stands for. I would argue that sustainable brands in our sector cannot be built in such a short horizon.  Until we appreciate that brands need a long-term custodian to flourish, we will not see them reach their true potential."

Much has been written about the 'new' branding, but the effective creation and management of strong brands hasn't really changed. Which means that leveraging the power of your brand is down to some simple principles.

This is neatly summed up by Marks: "Really understand where your brand sits on the power grid and what your brand stands for in the minds of your customers and work with it. Understand what your brand stands for (its vision) and be sure to know where the brand can go and where it cannot. Understand what are its strengths and weaknesses from your customers' perception.

"Use your strengths and address your weaknesses as appropriate but above all keep your brand relevant to your target customers and segments. Markets evolve and change, failure to keep the brand relevant will result in it dying.

"Determine what you need your target customers to Know, Believe, Do and Feel and stick to it. Make sure that everything you do to and with the brand is consistent with the desired brand positioning and supports/enhances the core proposition.

"And stick with it – just because there is a new selling cycle or a new product manager does not mean that you need new materials and new messages. The only reason why you need these are when the market changes, there are new competitors or when consumers are beginning to lose the sense of relevance that your brand offering has for them."

The brand will continue its inexorable rise in the pharma industry, just as it did 20 years ago in fmcg.

Those pharma marketers who follow these wise words will reap the benefit; as ever, those who bury their heads in the sand and pretend that pharma has nothing to learn from other sectors will be left behind.