Mathew Lyons from Research Magazine interviews Mike Owen.
Mike Owen 
19 Feb, 2008
Q & A with Mike Owen
How
does the consumer relationship to a healthcare brand differ from his/her relation
to other consumer brands?
That depends on what you mean by a healthcare brand. If it’s an over-the-counter (OTC) medicine, then there is no real difference except that the focus is on the consumer’s needs in respect of his or her health. Consumers are consumers regardless of whether they are buying food, drink, music, furniture or medicines.
However if the brand is prescribed by a physician, then the relationship with the brand can vary, depending on the nature of the patient’s condition, the duration and frequency of the medication, the relationship they have with their doctor, and so forth. The patient’s relationship with the brand can therefore range from being virtually non-existent – some patients cannot name the medication they take – to highly dependant. There was a good example of the latter in the 1980s when asthma patients switching from Ventolin inhalers to the generic salbutamol often complained that the new drug did not work, even though it is chemically identical!
How does that impact on branding?
In many respects pharmaceutical branding is no different from branding in any other sector. Indeed, as far as I am concerned, OTC brands are just like other consumer brands. Prescription pharmaceutical brands, too, offer a mix of rational and more emotional or psychological features and benefits; and, as with other sectors, the aim is to make the brand more meaningful and coherent so that the consumer – who in this case is the prescriber – has a clear understanding of the role that the brand can play and of the benefits that it offers to the patient, the prescriber and the medical profession.
It is about creating a sense of confidence and trust in the brand. Of course, that come partly from the ability of the drug to deliver at a rational level. But it also comes from the way in which the brand presents itself through its brand iconography and from the values and imagery that surrounds it. Do it right and you can create a strong sense of brand-loyalty. Look, for example, at the reluctance of many doctors in the 1990s to switch from Losec to cheaper brands, despite the evidence suggesting that their functional properties were similar and the potential savings considerable.
What’s different about pharmaceutical brands?
The sector faces challenges that are not always evident elsewhere. Firstly, the regulatory framework significantly restricts what can be claimed about a brand. The kind of claims made by Benecol about its impact on heart disease, for example, would probably not be allowed if it were a pharmaceutical brand.
Secondly because the “consumers” of the brand are typically “experts”, they are unlikely to be influenced or persuaded by attaching brand values, imagery and personality to a brand unless these are well supported by the product’s features and attributes.
Thirdly the channels of communication are much more restricted than in the wider consumer market. Medical representatives, advertising and communication in medical journals and meetings and symposia are the main forums, and in general these encourage a more rational approach to communication.
Could you walk us through the lifecycle of a pharmaceutical brand?
It’s very hard to generalise, but at its simplest there are three stages in the product lifecycle: pre-launch, post-launch, and patent expiry.
Pre-launch, there are typically seven or eight years from discovery during which you conduct clinical trials and get the drug through the regulatory process. This is also where global brand development usually takes place before handing most communications responsibility to local markets one or two years pre-launch.
Post-launch, the drug typically has about 10-12 years before patent expiry. The number of indications will expanded over that time, and there will also be attempts to extend the life of the brand by creating line extensions with added benefits, such as less frequent dosage or different modes of administration. Depending on the competitive environment, the drug is likely to reach peak sales towards the end of this period.
Patent expiry usually signals the end of commercial activity, as generic companies can produce much cheaper alternatives. Some brands may launch OTC versions, generally at lower strength, to maintain the brand, while a rare few others manage to survive patent expiry if, for example, they are particularly hard to produce.
At what point in the lifecycle of a pharmaceutical product does branding enter the equation?
It takes 12 years to develop the average drug from discovery to launch. For the first five years of that process you’re simply establishing the safety and potential efficacy of the drug through the phase 1 and phase II trial periods. In the UK alone, some £9m is spent every day on pharmaceutical R&D, often on products which never come to market. At that point, about seven years before launch, you have to decide whether to proceed to the pre-launch phase and begin phase III clinical trials, which benchmarks a product’s efficacy against the existing “gold standard” treatment using a large sample group of patients. But only half of the products which enter phase III ever see the light of day. That’s the point at which market research and brand development can really being to offer value.
But isn’t it hard to justify market research for products that only stand a 50:50 of getting to market?
Quite the opposite. It’s true that the further you are from launch the less certain you can be about what will actually happen. However, I say that research at this stage is a bit like saving for your old age; every penny spent now will be worth a lot more later on. Prior to phase III, you need research to assess commercial viability; to identify the requirements from phase III trials; to identify market preparation needs; to create core ‘branding’ principles; and to help brand teams to achieve greater levels of insight.
Research cannot tell you exactly what the future will look like but it can provide you with real insights into what is possible, what is probable and what is just fanciful.
And planning at this early stage should incorporate sales and marketing considerations – including brand building?
Absolutely. One of the great failures of the pharmaceutical industry is to create clinical trial data that lacks future value to marketing and sales. Measuring a drug’s impact on a specific marker may be enough to get a licence; but the industry really needs to be asking, “What is required of this product in terms of clinical data to support a successful marketing effort and maximise its potential in this future scenario?” Pity the brand manager asked to launch a new brand using clinical data based on out-of-date assumptions or comparing the product to a superseded “gold standard”!
Does market research offer insights regarding product development unavailable through more traditional clinical routes?
Yes, those developing new products will often believe that they have made a more significant breakthrough than HCPs or patients recognise. Their focus is typically on functional superiority rather than really understanding patient needs. New types of research – for example, ethnographic research – have been especially valuable here in generating real insights to underpin the brand development process.
About Mike Owen
Mike Owen has been active in the field of pharmaceutical research for over 25 years. Previously chairman of Context Research, he has been CEO of Brand Health International since 2005. Throughout his career, he has focused on brands and brand development within the pharmaceutical industry and has written widely on the subject. Along with Jon Chandler, also of BHI, he is the author of Developing Brands through Qualitative Research (Sage, 2002).
Mike Owen on pharmaceutical advertising
Advertising in essence plays a fairly minor role in pharmaceutical communications because direct-to-consumer advertising (DTC) is not allowed in Europe and there are significant restrictions on what can be effectively communicated through medical journal advertising.
The challenge therefore is to find alternative channels of communication and use these more effectively. Examples include communicating directly with key opinion leaders and involving them in clinical programmes; using medical PR; using tablet PCs to communicate to physicians via reps; and using websites to communicate with both HCPs and patients. Unbranded disease-therapy-area advertising is also increasingly used to communicate with patients, especially in underdeveloped therapy areas and by first-to-market products. Brands that have used this approach successfully include Imigran in migraine and Viagra in erectile dysfunction.
The potential advent of DTC advertising of prescription drugs would be a mixed blessing. On the one hand it can be argued that consumer choice requires patients to be aware of, and up-to-date with, the latest medications. For example, the contraceptive patch which would have benefited many women and might have reduced unwanted pregnancy was unsuccessful because there was no direct channel of communication to women, who were therefore ultimately denied this option. On the other hand the experience in the USA shows that advertising that by law must communicate the adverse effects, as well as the benefits, of a drug can actually scare people away from taking drugs they need. Moreover, encouraging patients to always seek the latest and best medications when they are not directly responsible for funding them could put massive pressure on the health service.
Your response:
Login to respond to this article: