Consistent vs coherent

I remember many years ago that the buzz word for global campaigns was consistency. Everything across all markets had to be consistent and the pressure to be consistent was so strong that companies would completely miss how illogical that requirement really is when marketing globally.

How can you be consistent when the market is not, when the audience is not, when the sales force is not? In some instances individual markets were forced to secretly change materials or add additional tactics simply to attempt to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Now don't get me wrong, I understand that pharmaceutical companies want their brands to have a certain reputation and feeling in the eyes of their customers...a consistent brand identity. Does that mean that the marketing should be consistent? No, I do not believe it does. Because markets are different, you need to be able to adjust your communication to each market. That does not mean changing the brand identity, only the approach - there are many roads leading to Rome.

"Consistency" is to "coherence", what "unchanged" is to "connected" OR what "same" is to "similar". Global marketing should have elements that are similar across all markets, but the implementation should be adjusted to fit the market by the individual country teams. After all, who knows the country markets the best? Surely the people who live there, work there, raise kids there.

I was raised in South Africa and moved to the UK, where I lived for a decade and I can tell you that even excluding culture and language differences, even the attitude to daily life is different. I would go as far as to say that  in some cases marketing needs to be individualised to regions within countries.

Ultimately coherence allows markets to adjust communication to their customers, it allows for greater creativity, and I believe, greater acceptance of a global brand identity.

Alternative medicine = honesty?

I have yet to have a discussion about the pharmaceutical industry without a conspiracy theorist crawling out of the woodwork. The sad thing is that the pharmaceutical industry has been so closed off to the general public that the view of a "Big Pharma Conspiracy" is widely held and no longer the sole domain of the conspiracy theorist, apathy on the side of the pharmaceutical industry has resulted in this view moving towards fact!

This has created a lack of trust, not only in medication, but in the physicians who prescribe them. This situation can result in some dangerous consequences. Last year a family member started bleeding after taking a natural supplement, luckily he told me, I researched it and told him that the natural supplement he was taking could cause internal bleeding and he stopped taking it immediately...bleeding stopped, I still made him go for a check-up though.

Just as the "Big Pharma Conspiracy" seems to exist, so too the view that alternative medicine equals honesty and better health! That is why just about every lay person out there is happy to walk to their local chemist and buy something based on the fact that it says "natural" on the bottle. Many people won't take paracetamol, but are happy to go into a Chinese herbalist and take whatever they are given without checking what it is or what it interacts with.

My feeling is that it is very naive to think that the purveyors of natural/alternative medicines are somehow above the very human characteristics of dishonesty and greed. These products also use marketing, PR and advertising agencies and they market directly to the consumer, without in many cases having to prove their worth.

The pharmaceutical industry can only help itself by being more transparent with its processes, results and finances. However, I also believe that alternative medicine and natural remedies should be held just as accountable. These practices and medications should also be proven within the same rigorous system and regulated more stringently than they currently are.

Ultimately, the pharmaceutical industry (despite some bad apples) do not equal dishonesty, whilst, alternative medicine (despite a few good apples) does not equal honesty.

The joy of the drudge

I know that referencing and editing the work of a healthcare practitioner is not every writer's favourite job, but I do sometimes get slide sets or the writing work of others to reference or create reference packs for. When working in an agency this is the work you dread! It takes ages, the referencing is sometimes not accurate even when you manage to find the references and, because you are working on a million different important things at the same time, it just isn't what you want to spend your time doing!

This is why these jobs are often outsourced to freelance writers in order to free up "in-house" resources and I have to say that I do sometimes quite enjoy this kind of work. You can just sit, rest the right hemisphere and get on with it, step-by-step. The sleuthing nature of it also appeals to me, there is such a sense of accomplishment when you can find a reference from only an author name and year, although this is supremely rare!

It may not be glamorous or win awards, but there exists a time and place where the drudge becomes a joy!

Ebb and flow

There is an ebb and flow the work within an agency and that is certainly true for freelance writing. I have been kept busy with quite a flow of work in the last couple of months, which is why I have been quiet on the blogging front (not good for my stats, I know). But I have a couple of days to rub together so here we go again...

The 3-question interview - Dominic Marchant talks digital

Digital communications has become an important part of any Pharma campaign. So what does digital add to the equation and how much does it encroach on the traditional methods that companies have employed for decades. Dominic Marchant has agreed to enlighten us on the role of digital communication in Pharma.

Dominic is MD of DJM Digital Solutions, a full service digital agency working for clients like GSK, AstraZeneca, Ferring, Abbott and Shire as well as Coca-Cola, Panasonic and the National Portrait Gallery.  He is a member of the Interactive Media Council and regularly speaks and writes on the role of digital within the pharma industry.  

1. What are the unique challenges you face when creating digital projects for the pharmaceutical market as opposed to consumer?

"The obvious answer to this question is that regulation is a major consideration when working with pharmaceutical marketing.  However, the actual answer is that it is the interpretation of the codes and guidelines that is often the biggest challenge.  Each pharmaceutical company has a different view of how digital media can be utilised and stay within the confines of regulations.  Even within companies, medics will often have differing views on what is compliant.  It is this lack of clarity that causes considerable nervousness for the marketer and the agencies tasked with building digital programmes.  However, it is not the fault of the medics.  The guidance is often itself very vague.  

In my experience, the best way to ensure internal approval is as smooth as possible is to show examples of similar activity that has been produced for either our own clients or publicly available case studies.  However, this is not always possible when producing something completely new and innovative.  For example, we have started working within augmented reality and, whilst the visual appeal is obvious, there are no precedents within the industry.  In these instances, one simply has to have bold clients!"

2. What are the unique benefits of digital communications?

"Interactivity is peculiar to digital: the ability to control the story and direct the message is key to its appeal and success.  With this comes fun!  Often overlooked but digital is an experiential medium which means that users can "play" with the content and immerse themselves in the communication.  Much of the messaging within pharma is quite dry and clinical.  Most detail aids look professional and communicate effectively but do not engage the user in the same way a multi-media rich e-detail can.  Video, games, augmented reality, holograms, 3D - these are the tools with which a sales or medical communications story can be brought to life.  And it is this power to engage the emotions with these powerful tools that makes digital so attractive to anyone who works with brands.

Lastly, although not unique to digital, metrics are more readily available and accurate in digital than any other media.  It is because of this fact that all digital campaigns' success can be measured and, dependent on results, altered to improve results."

3. Can digital communications truly ever replace the sales force?

"I think so, particularly in the UK.  The more I look at research and hear customer feedback, the answer is clear: the healthcare professional has less and less time to talk to a representative BUT still wants to communicate with the pharma companies.  A medium that allows the user to engage with the message on their time and at their pace has obvious appeal.  Add to this fact that this communication is measurable and relatively inexpensive, it seems that digital has not only a strong place in the marketing mix but possibly is the lead medium.   

But there are plenty of "industry experts" like myself who talk of digital tools replacing the sales representative.  The real answer to the question though is based on whether this conservative industry is willing to back new technology in favour of a proven, albeit expensive, sales route..."

Dominic Marchant

MD of DJM Digital Solutions

www.djmdigital.com

A different approach to pitch

Pitches have always been focussed on all the bells and whistles that an agency could think of, which really means expensive projects. So imagine this situation.


You have the whole team around the table, you have worked into the evening for several days to create a presentation that will blow the clients away. You go through the projects you would suggest, cutting-edge stuff...then you get to the final slides...the costs. 


The client is probably not likely to say that they do not have that kind of money, they just won't choose you as their agency. However, say you are so good that they decide to use you anyway, but now you have to tell them that, in stead of all the bells and whistles, you can only really provide them with some hot air for the money they are able to spend.


So should pitches be approached differently?  I believe the way forward may be to focus on illustrating your company's creative thinking and presenting projects that are innovative, effective...and cost-effective or less labour intensive. This is the kind of situation where it is very important for the creative director and medical writer to work together closely to ensure practical creativity i.e. projects that hit two birds with one stone, communication that ages well and does not need to be changed constantly, to name a few. 

I don't think there is one right answer, but one thing is certain, agencies will need to think outside the box to come up tops in the competition for the limited Pharma spend.

Will agencies create their own rainbow?

Someone recently told me that spending by Pharma on advertising, medical education and the like is down by 60%. I don't know if this is true, but I think everyone will agree that, due to the economic situation, pharmaceutical companies are spending less. This leaves agencies with a problem: what do you do when your clients are spending less? Is there any point in trying to get a client to spend more when you know their resources are limited? Or is a change in focus needed?

When all pharmaceutical companies are spending less, should the focus be to get them to spend more or should it be to get more clients?

I think that with each client having a limited pot, probably the most effective way for agencies to stay on track or increase profits is to win more business i.e. several small pots = one big pot. Another strategy would be to diversify your offering i.e. greater access to more pots.

I have not forgotten the costs inherent in pitching for new business or in creating a broader offering. However, could these costs in the short-term not be more effective in generating profit than trying to cajole clients to spend money they don't have?