Measuring Promotional SuccessOptimizing ROI

Sponsored by ScienceMedia

Become Part of a Greater Body of Knowledge

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

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.

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

The untapped potential of non-personal selling for medical marketers

Medical Marketing Association

2005 Annual Conference

A recent article in Product Management Today proclaims

not having sales force support is a product manager crisis!

Let’s examinethis a little closer

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

% r

es

po

ns

e

Percent response

Important Sources of Medical Information

Journals CME Conference\symposia Colleagues

Reference Publications Dinner Meetings Pharma Reps Audio Cassettes

Videocassettes On-line

Source: PERQ\HCI, June 1998

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

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

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

5060

70

80

90

100

Ph

ysic

ans

resp

on

din

g

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

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

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Focus on top recommenders

Ignore mainstream recommenders

Traditional Medical Sales & Marketing

2004

Traditional Medical Sales & Marketing

Personal Selling

Potential Overspend?

50-60%No Contact

70-80%No Contact

Good Spend

90-95%No Contact

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 SpecialistsDecile 7-10 PCPNP/PAs in Specialty

Decile 1-3 SpecialistsDecile 1-6 PCPNP/PAsPharmacists

$$$

$$$

$$$

$$

$

• 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

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

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 – 9\99

The Tuck School of Business recently reconfirmed this dynamic with the publication of the RAPP study

ROI per Dollar spent(1991 – 99 launches withBrand 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 N\A N\A

DTC $0.19 $0.25 + $0.52

Source - ROI Analysis of Pharmaceutical Promotion Study – Ass’n of Medical Publications - 2002

“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 CovariatePeriod

Test Period

Test vs ControlNRx 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

NR

xs

Control Test

So what’s up with all the noise around eDetailing?

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 valuephysicians• Current eDetailing Users write 193 Rx/week vs. 108 for non-users

Online Detailing is an important channel for keepingup 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

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

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

19%

21%

25%

26%

35%

46%

21%

22%

27%

24%

36%

48%

17%

20%

24%

27%

35%

45%

Will improve the quality ofthe time I spend with detail

reps in general

Supplements the amount ofinfo/visits I receive from

pharma companies

Will reduce amount ofredundant info I receive

from the detail reps I see

Have the option to obtainmore info after a visit from

the detail rep

Can access informationwhen a new product is

launched

Can access info when andwhere it is most convenient

for me

ePharma Specialists

ePharma PCPs

ePharma Physicians

Increasing Interest in Participating in eDetailing

Source: Medsite and Industry Research

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

My recent experience with eDetailing agrees with the

researchTest 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)

eDetail Aclovate/CutivateProgram 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

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 CD\DVD 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

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

Test Case - Program Summary Program Launched August 26th, 2004

Cumulative results through March 9th, 2005

Average time spent in iDetail: 7 minutesTotal Time spent in iDetail: 31,620 minutes

2000

28862590

2106

296

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Program StatisticsSummary

2000 2886 2590 2106 296

Enter GoalTotal

Details

Unique

Participant

Unique

Completion

Repeat

Participant

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

Post period analysis shows a TRx change of +25% for brand prescribers, while segment

was +3%

11451441

11519 11924

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Pre eDetail Aclovate TRx 5/04-07/04

Post eDetail Aclovate TRx1/05-03/05

Pre eDetail LPTRx 5/04-07/04 Post eDetail LP TRx 1/05-03/05

Aclovate TRx Analysis on All Docs Receiving eDetail

Rx Derm eDetail - ResultsIncreased 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

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

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

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

Measuring Promotional SuccessOptimizing ROI

Sponsored by ScienceMedia

Become Part of a Greater Body of Knowledge