Pharma Conversations

I am, therefore I blog

whoa!

Has it really been almost a year since I last posted? When I started this blog, I had the modest goal to post 1X a month...pretty unambitious of me :)

But obviously I have failed to meet even these low expectations...

Surprisingly though, I am not really disappointed or beating myself up. I spent the last year completing a Masters degree on-line and much of my posting energy went into my on-line class work.

I also spent a great deal of time performing,  and establishing on-line identity for,  my "secret life" as a songwriter and performer. http://www.roblytle.com :)

Plenty of opportunities to share my thoughts and explore...my needs were being met.

I share this perspective because I think it is core to this idea of social networking...people generally seek the experiences that meet their elemental needs. Maslow, in a modified and updated way, is still relevant...

Sure, there are people that treat social networking as a business, or as part of a business, but most of us simply look for ways to _belong/connect_, _express_, _impress_, or _escape_.

I am sure that this is not a complete list, as I am making it up on the fly as it leaves my fingers, but I think it is a good paradigm for discussion.

So, who knows what I will need tomorrow? but for today, I am back!

What do you think?

Change, Creativity, And Buying A New Pen

Wow, I have been away such a long time that it is hard to know where to start without it sounding like a travelogue or a personal diary.

Like everyone else in the Pharma space, I am personally on  roller coaster of change.  I am engaged in managing a large and strategically significant program and the impacts of all the publicly announced "operational efficiency" and "restructuring" efforts have largely been positive for me.

However, I know that is not the case for a large number of my friends and colleges across the industry.  My thoughts and best hopes go out to you and your families if you are in a difficult situation.

I just returned last night from my second trip to India in the last few months and I am going to share some thoughts over the next few weeks and months on the delivery of software projects with partners in India.

For now, I just wanted to share an observation that there is nothing like stepping outside the narrow boundaries of your culture and personal rules / self-image to re-energize your life and perspective.

For the last 3 weeks, I tried very hard to recognize the boundaries that I place upon myself.  Whenever I found myself saying, I am not the kind of guy who does "x", I tried to ask my self "why?"

I am sure that many of you would find this trivial mid life crises stuff.  I trimmed my hair all the way to the scalp.  I went out and talked to people, even when I was tired,  instead of sitting in my hotel room and watching movies.  I dressed a little nicer than I normally would. I bought a few Indian style shirts and then actually wore them as part of my wardrobe.  I got up early and went for a swim in the hotel pool before work.  Trivial things.

But somehow, they helped me look at me and what I was doing in a new way.  I was not the same guy that yesterday was trapped in that paradigm of frustration.  I was this new guy that was ready to take some chances and have an adventure.

It reminds me very much of a trick I would use in college (and still do today) to spur my creativity. 

I would buy a new pen.

Oh, sometimes it would be a nice pen, or pen with color, and sometimes I would even spring for a new notebook. But I think the main requirement was simply that it was different.

How could I possibly not have something new to say with this cool new pen? How could this new pen possibly be stuck in the same rut as that old one?

So my only advice, as we all go through change, challenges, and midlife crises is to not be exactly who you were yesterday. 

That person was not nearly as smart, resourceful, and good looking as you :)

The myth of total control

I wanted to write briefly about the illusion of control and the false comfort that it brings. First, let me say that anyone that has ever worked with me knows that I am obsessive about preparation.  So, this blog post is in no way endorsing a lack of planning or preparation.

Instead, for me, it is about honesty and about truly being able to face fear and uncertainty.

Project Managers and Marketers seem to always want to project the image that everything is totally planed in the most minute detail and under control. To some extent it is part of the job.

But the reality is that nothing is truly under control.  Without going too Zen here, we are riding the wave.  Life is inherently not in our control.  Every adult learns that the first time tragedy strikes.  It is random, it is unfair, and most of all, it is unpredictable.  Tomorrow is unknowable.

We all know this, but yet in spite of this (and perhaps ironically because of the fear in this knowledge), we feel we must know all the answers and we must know them now. It is terrifying and paralyzing in the extreme.

My personal belief is that this limits my ability to accurately see, and respond to, the world.  I now try my best to say "I don't know" when I don't know something without any shame or defensiveness.  I also try to stop myself when I find that I am doing detailed planning based on too little information. When this occurs, I either get more information to support that detailed plan, or I accept that there will be a certain amount of uncertainty that needs to be accepted and I analyze what that really means in terms of risk.

What I don't do is let it stop me.

So, what does this have to do with New Media Channels and Technologies and Pharma Marketing? 

Everything I think.  Once you accept that the future is unknowable and that perfect planning is always impossible, it becomes much easier to feel comfortable that we can prepare based on scenarios and risk and take a few baby steps into social networking or blogging - or any other project for that matter.  We don't need all the answers first. 

We just need the foresight and determination to prepare as best we can and the courage to face the future.

Thoughts?

People Strategy 2.0

I have commented on it before, but I feel compelled to say it again.

Conversation Marketing (and "Web 2.0")is a people strategy.  I am constantly in conversations with colleagues and hearing (and sometimes relating) stories about large technology initiatives with significant spend that fail  because the company has not thought through the people strategy.

So, what do I mean by a "people strategy"?  It's not complicated - you need skilled players in the skill positions.  Much of the management movement in my professional lifetime has been away from actual management and away from appreciation of talent.  The trend has clearly been to take anything that is special and unique and turn it into a commodity that can (supposedly) be churned out by _any warm body_ that you can find to sit in the chair. 

This is particularly true in my core area experience as a project manager. I have often told friends that I would someday write a book called "Monkeys with Tools" about the fallacy that if you just have the right process and tools that any monkey could do the job. (Anyone that wants to collaborate - just get in touch!) Process and Tools are important - but they are less important than having the right people and good management.

Managers have increasingly been, not the ones responsible for the true development of their teams or for the results that their teams deliver, but rather, facilitators of HR documentation.  Most "managers" I know spend a significant minority of their time "managing", mentoring, or teaching anyone.  In many cases they are not even accountable or responsible for results that can be measured or observed at all.  Instead,  they are busy "managing up" to the boss and creating  ways (other than actual performance) to get visibility. 

So where is this general gripe and critique going?

It is leading to the statement  that you can't fake competence with customers.  Your blog is well written and compelling or it is not.  Your messages are either thought provoking and respectful or they are not.  Your campaigns are either effective and well executed or they are not. etc...

There is a lot less room to hide and a lot greater need to pay attention and be creative and passionate to succeed.

It is a people strategy. And that is a good thing.

Any thoughts?

Marketing vs. Selling

I was having a conversation recently and I made the statement that conversation marketing is more analogous to the sales process than it is to traditonal marketing.

Since I work in a culture that understands and reveres the value of the one on one sales interaction, I am hoping that this comparison resonates.

Here is what I mean.  Even when it is very well informed by market research, traditonal marketing is really about blasting a message at an audience.  The individuals that make up that audience then have a binary choice.  They can  either accept the postion of the company or they can reject it. (of course, there is allways the 3rd choice to ignore). 

The sales call is different.  The salesman makes his pitch, the customer then has a chance to voice their objections, and _then_ the salesman has the oportunity to _overcome_ those objections.  Any great salesman will tell you that they welcome objections and view them as opportunities.

Conversation marketing presents us with this same opportunity.  We now have the abilty to hear the customers objections and address them.  We have the abilty to make the sale.

How about it? Does this resonate with you?

Killing the myth of the big pharma cash cow

Today a brief rant about the quickest way to turn me off to a relationship with a vendor.

Treat me like I am nothing more that a potential short term revenue source that needs to be exploited.

The reality is that champions within an organization are your best "sales person", but often the initial explorations of the relationships can quickly become so inflexible and accountant driven, that I find myself wondering just why I am bothering to make the fight. 

Second, pharma companies are looking to be efficient in every aspect of their operation.  Every initiative needs to be able to show value, if not hard ROI , and telling me that "this it the way we do it", does not cut it.  Especially when we are talking about relatively immature  technologies and marketing channels and companies that did not exist  more than  a few years ago.

My perspective is that large companies run on momentum.  The ability to do _something_ even on  a modest scale  and then elevate that success is critical in convincing skeptics that new  ways of thinking  are  _possible_ and that new channels can and should be an important part of the mix.

If you are unable to be flexible and look for a win-win, then just say so and walk away.  I respect that. 

Just realize that you have just fired your best sales person.

 

Comments?

------------------------------

Disclaimer:  I work for a large Pharma company, but the thoughts here are my own.   

Ruminations on legal and regulatory responsibilty

We are in an awkward time.  One topic I think about a lot lately is the extent to which engagement creates responsibility and what the limits of that responsibility are.

Here is one simple example, If I am a regular reader of blogs, am I responsible for reporting something that I clearly recognize as an adverse event that I see on that blog? I think the answer is clearly yes based on my understanding of the legal landscape.  Just as it would be if I found out such information through a traditional off line channel.

But what if there is an adverse event report on the blog, but I either don't read that particular message, skim it quickly, or simply don't recognize what has been said as a potential adverse event?  After all my purpose in reading widely is to  learn and engage, both personally and professionally, (activities that are clearly in the public interest), not to monitor the universe of 3rd party communications for potential adverse events. 

By engaging at all, have I taken on the responsibility to police all content past, present, and future that may be posted in that forum?  Unfortunately, even if this is recognized as an untenable position, the innate conservatism of the pharmaceutical environment can often result in a lack of engagement at all simply because it is perceived as the safest course of all. A state of affairs that, I think everyone would agree, is not in the best interest of the public. 

My personal position, and the only one that I think can make sense for companies, is that you can only  be responsible for reporting what you see or hear and, even then, for what should be obvious and clear as a potential adverse event to the person reading.  The FDA, and potentially congress, needs to act clearly and decisively to encourage companies to listen to these conversations, and what is being said about their products, without fear that casual and incidental issues of this kind on 3rd party blogs and communities will put them at risk.   

Love to hear what people think...

As always, I have been careful to "elevate" this discussion to a more conceptual level and these thoughts are my own and do not reflect the opinions, policies, or discussions, of anyone at my company, or of my company as a whole.

The slowly dying conversation...

I haven't written anything here in a while.  The main reason is that I have been very busy doing multiple projects, but I also admit that I have been a little burned out on the on line typing front.

I have been taking a series of graduate courses on-line, and the work load was greater than I had imagined.  I am also trying to pull a bunch of things together online on the personal front which has meant more typing and computer time. Then there is all the things I am doing off-line...ie.. Family!

I mention this here because it makes clear to me how easy it is for a company or a program to start with good intentions - and then let the effort fall to the bottom of a busy priority list. 

If writing the company blog is not a strategic commitment, is the CEO _really_ going to make the time to do it? or will it just fall further and further down the list as time goes by?

If there is not a dedicated support function, and clear strategic prioritization, for your conversation marketing efforts then, I suspect, that the effort will eventually be under resourced and ineffective.

I have said in the past that it may be better not to start a conversation, than to just suddenly walk away in the middle.  This is why it is so important to have a plan, understand why you are engaging, what your objectives are, and why it is important to the company or your brand.  Understanding why you are doing this from the beginning will make it a lot easier to understand why it is important to keep going when you are hit with competing priorities for your, and your teams, time.

Anyone want to share any experiences on seeing this happen?

Pharma E-detailing And The Problem Of Scale

At a recent conference, I was discussing the lack of scale in online marketing programs.  These programs are often priced on a "per complete" basis and , to some extent, this is totally illogical.

After all, once the materials are created, and the relationship established, then the marginal cost of each interaction should be very small.  Isn't that the point of the internet?

Why should I pay $40-$60 or more per complete for  a physician that has already been recruited previously and when I have already paid for the content?

These programs break down into several main components:

• Recruitment
• Content Creation (fixed cost)
• Honoraria or Sample fulfillment
• Hosting (fixed cost)
• Program Management (fixed cost)

Honoraria and/or sample fulfillment is variable cost, but is relatively small  part of the  whole picture particularly if you are able to design and price for large volumes.  The big ticket item here is the recruitment. If a Pharma company can develop a sustainable long term Opt-in relationship with the HCP, then suddenly it become economical to  run programs on a much larger scale.

I believe that companies that are smart will be focused on establishing these opt-in relationships as a primary part of their strategy (particularly for "can't see" docs).

The companies that get this right will be the ones that stop playing  periodic games  around the margins with e-detailing, and start having real, long term, relationships with their customers.

Brooks to WEGO

My long time pal Bob Brooks has just landed as VP - Product at Cambridge based WEGO Health. (http://www.wegohealth.com). 

I think that WEGO is in an important space in trying to build a supportive and informative community for health information.  We all know that even the best health care professionals find that their  relationships with patients are more fragmented and incomplete.  The days of Marcus Welby are long gone and patients need to be owners and advocates for their own care. But where is that support and information going to come from?

Others have, obviously, been in this space from an information perspective for a while now, but I think communities like WEGO have a real opportunity to help if they can make a connection beyond simply providing any and all information to truly providing the best information and building real and evolving information support networks for patients. 

Here is an excerpt from their mission statement:

"WEGO Health identifies, ranks and verifies the most helpful health information, then presents it in a single, easy to scan page. Each WEGO Health page is a living document - continually ranked, evaluated, and updated by us - WEGO Health expert researchers, seasoned editors, volunteer reviewers and casual site visitors. Everyone has a stake, everyone can join in."

My mother may never go on the web to look for help or build a support network, but I am convinced that that is exactly what younger people will do (and are doing).

Frankly, I think that to be truly successful in this space they will need to continue to evolve their site toward a more user-centric view in the presentation of information and build more on the community and viral aspects.  But hey, they are still in BETA!

I have known their CEO Jack Barrette for many years and know what a great guy and top notch thinker he is.  I was also impressed in my recent  conversations with Vannessa diMauro who is listed as the Chief Community Adviser. 

Now, with Mr Brooks joining the team...I will be very interested to see where they go.

A rant against the "pilot"

Lately, I have become pretty fatigued by the term "pilot". Talking to colleagues, I am convinced I am not alone.

Here is why?

• Most times, the things that people want to "pilot" are not particularly new or novel.  They are just very very slightly incrementally different than what we already do and know how to do very well. If it is not lowering your risk to pilot, and you know it has benefits...then just do it already.
• it is typical to not have any clear criteria for what we hope to learn and what we will do with that knowledge.
• There is often little thought or planning about the operational steps and requirements for making the "Pilot" a true repeatable service. (which is actually the major reason to do a pilot...isn't it?)
• Usually it takes so much time effort and bureaucracy to get to the point where you can actually run the pilot, that no one has any energy, life force, or enthusiasm left.
• Finally, there is usually absolutely no staffing available to actually implement a service even if the pilot exceeds our wildest expectations.

The result?  A series of one off "pilots" that end up being several years apart and everyone pretends that the last "pilot" never existed...

Since this is what I do, a big part of the blame rests with me, and I am committed to doing better...but can we just stop using the term "pilot" for everything for awhile?

Anybody else having the same experience?