January 29, 2010 » HCP RM: Let’s Not Repeat The Same Mistakes

As we have been discussing on our blog, many pharma companies have been contemplating the implementation of HCP RM programs, although very few have made any concrete progress. The initial steps companies have been taking are all too familiar, however, and I am concerned that the industry may follow the same path that they followed in the adoption of interactive marketing back in the late 90s/early 2000s.

The path goes something like this:

• Identify an emerging trend that presents a new marketing channel opportunity (ie, the Internet)
• Research and purchase a large, comprehensive system or platform that is a “best in class” solution for highly sophisticated marketing campaigns (think BMS and Broadvision)
• Pay an enormous sum for an outside consulting firm to determine the best way to implement the platform and train the organization…and then spend a year+ doing so
• Attempt to force brands to use the resource by mandating platform usage as well as providing partial funding and man power
• Do all this before the solution has been proven successful to brand marketers, or before they understand how to integrate it into their marketing plans

What then follows, of course, is that the platform is under leveraged and usually deemed obsolete three years later, after millions of dollars have been invested and much time wasted. Finally it took some “Cowboy” brand manager on an overlooked brand (See Famvir at Novartis, circa 2001, the first brand to utilize an online coupon) to be the first mover, which the company then used as a model for the rest of the organization.

Why didn’t this path work for “e”, and why won’t it work for HCP RM? Two reasons:

1. The company failed to follow a simple business rule – fulfill market demand. In this case, the “market” is their brand management, and no one in brand management was clamoring for a sophisticated, enterprise-wide solution. They wanted to dip their toe in, follow the guidance of their agency partners and test different solutions, different approaches. They didn’t want the 500 lb gorilla solution, and they weren’t prepared to leverage it so early in the adoption lifecycle (Neither was MLR or the rest of the organization).
2. The company tried to circumvent evolution – the most effective form of natural selection. Innovative brand marketers (aka, the “brand cowboys”) will see the new channel opportunity and find a way to test it out, to start small, to move in the right direction. If successful, this effort will grow and evolve and eventually become something comprehensive that can be replicated across other brands. Think of the early brand adopters of paid search, and how that spread like wildfire once the ROI was demonstrated! If unsuccessful, the solution will fail, without undue time or budget waste, and it will be up to the next brand or partner to do better. By starting with a massive and mandated solution, this process was overridden and platforms that did not serve the needs of the brands or the end customers were mistakenly chosen.

I certainly understand that HCP RM is complex, more complex than internet marketing, and involves many groups across the organization. Thus, no one brand cowboy can likely implement a true RM program without a lot of internal support and collaboration. However, let’s pick a cowboy on a brand that has much to benefit from RM; start small and simple, and scale up from there. Once success has been demonstrated and processes have been worked out, then consider what larger platform or system might be needed, and what other brands can be added. At the end of the day, it will have taken just as long to get the whole company on board, but the solution will be far more suited to the needs of the company/brands, it will have been proven successful in driving business and there will be meaningful support and adoption throughout marketing and the rest of the organization.