Monday, 26 September 2011

It’s that time of year again…

With the falling leaves and morning chill in the air, it certainly feels like summer is over.  For all you pharmaceutical marketers, whether you are agency-based or in-house, your environment is however hotting up.  With offices full to the brim with job bags and emails about everything from stand plans to speaker briefs, to the colour of fruit smoothies, it can only mean one thing; it’s conference season!

Conferences are indisputably an integral part of many healthcare professionals’ year, offering an arena for discussion and continued education, as well as interaction with their peers...and industry.  In principle, with your key target audience under one roof, it seems like a highly relevant environment to maximise your engagement with HCPs.  The big question is whether this maximisation requires spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on a top of the range stand and expensive, interactive digital experiences, or whether there are more cost-effective ways of achieving the same thing? With everything for us at Mash beginning with a why, it seems pertinent to ask: why this specific conference? What do you want to achieve? Are you really reaching the HCPs who will be prescribing or recommending your products? And are you reaching enough of them to make it worth the expense?

A fresh look at why you are attending a conference is vital, especially if you are attending “because we do it every year” or “our competitors are always there”.  Not attending a conference does not necessarily do a brand a disservice, especially for products that are market leaders in their field. If you are confident that there are alternative means of communicating to your target audience, or reaching more of the change-activators within your target group, then there’s no need to be intimidated that your competitor is attending and you are not.

Once you make the decision to attend, the next point to consider is how to maximise your investment. What are you hoping to achieve and what will your return look like? For example, if you have a £30,000 outlay on a UK conference attended by 1,000 HCPs, you would hope that 500 of those attendees will visit your stand: a cost of £60 per HCP.  Not too bad, I hear you say, but if you drilled down into the number of truly change-activating conversations held with those stand visitors, then realistically, this could be as low as  25. Working out at a spend of £1,200 per positive HCP connection, it begs the question, is this a reasonable return on investment?

But then you could argue that this calculation is missing a trick as conferences aren’t just about engaging HCPs on your stand.  Conferences often act as catalysts for change and what is happening off-stand, in the symposia, in the poster presentations and on your competitors’ stands, is just as important as what takes place on-stand for your brand. It could also be argued that face-to-face interactions with your target audience enables you to build a deeper understanding of their issues, needs and preferences, which is invaluable in helping you shape your future communications.

So, the right conference can be a good investment and allows you to explore the medical landscape of your brand and not only see where your brand fits but also where to set your sights for the coming year.  Medical marketers should never lose sight, however, of the many other ways to build successful and fruitful relationships between HCPs and the brand - educational programmes and tools, joint working initiatives, CPD modules and PR campaigns - can all offer excellent returns on investment and are viable alternatives to attending a conference just because you think you should.



Thursday, 15 September 2011

Does commercially-sponsored CME in the US have a pulse?


Controversy and questions over what’s ethically acceptable persist in an industry where the traditional model of continuing education for HCPs was largely directed by commercial sponsorship from big pharma. There’s no question that the call for transparency and non-biased CME has had a significant impact on what the 2011 model looks like. But, if a recent move by Pfizer is anything to go by commercially-sponsored CME may have just been down, not out.

Back in 2008, at the height of criticism for big pharma-sponsored CME, Pfizer announced they were eliminating all direct funding for CME programs provided by medical education and communication companies. But now in 2011, it seems they’ve found ways to support the CME that shows them in their best light. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has recently received a $2 million educational grant from Pfizer to support the first CME program measuring the impact on patient outcomes and clinician performance through data collected in the NCCN Oncology Outcomes Database for Breast Cancer. Now, who could lever criticism at such a move? Driving forward physician performance is undoubtedly a goal of CME and a $2M investment is no small chunk of change for furthering progress in this area.

Sponsoring delegate attendance at congresses (see Astra Zeneca’s recent announcement that they’re ceasing to do this), or running overtly promotional events is never going to be en vogue again, particularly with the Sunshine Act coming into effect next year. But we welcome pharma educational grants to improve patient care with open arms. It’s a win-win – transparent, supportive and relevant role for big pharma in CME and it helps us to improve patient care, which is, of course, our ultimate goal.

Gemma Bloomfield