Successful brand
building means solving
customer problems
Pharma marketers need to listen to HCPs and patients to find out what issues
they face and then position products to meet these needs.
In a recent presentation Michael Holgate,
founding director of Brand Genetics,
talked about the first rule of successful
brand building being: “No problem, No
opportunity”. He told the audience, “We
have to wait until our customer’s mind is
open before they are willing to buy.” He
was giving an audience of pharmaceutical
marketers a perspective on what constitutes
successful consumer brand building.
In pharmaceutical marketing we can
go further and state “No problem, No
brand”.
The days when share of voice and
representative power could create a need
for a specific brand attribute are long gone.
Yet how much of our market research
budget do we spend researching customers’
problems and how much working out how
to sell the perceived product’s USP (Unique
Selling Proposition)? Usually much more is
spent on the latter.
While the USP concept was developed in
the mid-20th century and may have different
titles (Key Sell Point, Key Differentiating
Message, Brand Essence etc), the intent is
still the same: to line up the competition and
focus on the differentiator of our brand.
Let’s examine the brand development
process in a top-20 pharmaceutical
company – a process which is also quite
common across the industry. The clinical
development team works mainly in isolation
from the commercial team, increasingly so
because of compliance issues (Sunshine
Act et al), until the product hits a phase III
gateway. The initial focus of the commercial
team is to understand the product, the
competitive set and make some initial
product forecasts. This usually includes
making some assumptions about primary
patient segments and conducting some
market landscaping and trade-off research.
The team also creates a SWOT
(Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and
Threats) and other analyses to synthesise
Kim Hughes
the product’s relative advantages and
disadvantages versus the competitors. The
SWOT then becomes a primary document
for an internal positioning workshop and
development of the USP (Figure 1).
“
“
As brand builders, we are interested
in the important goals that HCPs are
unable to achieve
This approach can leave out an important
ingredient: a deep understanding of what
problem the brand is solving for the
customer – the HCP or patient.
The fundamental rule in defining the
problems brands solve for the HCP is to
use a common language. We often use
the term ‘unmet need’, but this does not
translate as a question to ask HCPs, as
those who are patient empathetic give
a different perspective to those who
are not on the unmet patient needs. All
clinicians, however, translate patient
unmet needs into goals for themselves,
whether they are patient empathetic or
not. Consequently, more robust data is
collected when asking HCPs about their
goals.
As brand builders, we are interested in
the important goals that they are unable
to achieve with their current product
arsenal. This defines the problems that
our new product can target.
Of course these problems can change
for different patients and where there are
common problems (unachieved goals)
across groups of patients, we refer to
these as Goal States.
In the past it was felt that there was
just one unmet need that the brand
was targeting. Goal States analysis
understands that the doctor’s goals
change in different situations and helps
in both competitive and portfolio
positioning.
To create a good Goal States map
(Figure 2), first it is essential to
understand the different patient groups
through the eyes of the clinician.
The map guides us straight to the
greatest opportunities, in the topleft-hand
High
Importance/Low
Achievement or Problem Quadrant.
Goal State A is the most attractive to
target, being both important and not
achieved using current products.
For the second target goal, we would
discuss the cost implications of increasing
the importance of Goal State D versus
targeting the smaller Goal State B.
Goal State E is not important and,
unless we can provide a significant leap
in the achievement of Goal State C, it
will not motivate customers. Satisfying
Goal State C is cost of entry rather than
differentiating.
From this model we know that to
build a strong brand there are a number
of Goal States that we can target, but
achieving Goal State A offers the greatest
potential.
We can now bring this insight on
customer problems (unachieved goals)
into the positioning process to create the
recommended process (Figure 3).
The recommended process does
not take any longer than the common
process, as market research into Goal
States can be conducted in parallel with
clinical development.
Indeed, it is better to conduct Goal
States research before phase III trials
begin as it will inform both how to define
the patients (so that they match the way
HCPs see them) and, more importantly,
secondary endpoints that will solve HCP
problems.
Thus we can avoid wasting time
with USP positioning that does not
solve customer problems and focus on
positioning, and clinical data points if
we are early enough, that solves the main
customer problems.
In one case history we used the Goal
States approach for the European launch
of a once-a-day version of a twice-a-day
product in Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.
We were able to show that compliance
was a much less important and more
satisfied Goal State than nocturia (night
“
time toilet visits). So the problem the
brand needed to solve for the customer
and patient was that of nocturia, rather
than compliance. These data were
available sufficiently early to position the
product on nocturia.
This was not only successful as a launch
but also maintained 60 per cent of its
sales after a generic competitor entered
the market – something that could not
have been achieved with a compliancebased positioning.
Another advantage is that if we are
solving a problem for our customers then
the strength of data they require can be
lower. For example, in the above case,
secondary endpoint data against placebo
was sufficient to successfully support a
credible brand story.
Markets are becoming increasingly
competitive, as can be seen in the PD1
and PCSK9 arena. In this environment
This was not only successful as a
launch but also maintained 60 per cent
of its sales after a generic competitor
entered the market
it is even more important that brand
positioning development is based on the
customer problem being king.
Reprinted with permission from
www.pharmaphorum.com
About the author
Kim Hughes is CEO of THE PLANNING
SHOP international. He gained a
dual Economics and Business Studies
degree and his early career was in
consumer marketing at Beecham.
He worked as a strategic brand
planner with Bates Advertising London
before becoming strategic planning
director for the Fortune group of
advertising agencies in Australia
(Dancer Fitzgerald Sample, the
Weston Company, Schofield Sherban
Baker and Hammond Advertising).
On returning to the UK in 1987 Kim
established THE PLANNING SHOP
international with Tina Berry, another
strategic planner. He pioneered
the company’s healthcare division
and eventually bought it out
and established it as a separate
company.
Contact him on +44 (0)20 8231 6888
or at [email protected]
“