2020: Learnings From A Yearlong Catastrophic Disruption And Crystal-Gazing 2021

Posted on December 28, 2020 by Tapan Ray

Wishing All My Readers A Very Happy, Healthy, Peaceful and Prosperous 2021

Just a few days left for the year 2020 to merge with history. It will be remembered by all – as a year of all-round catastrophic global disruption. With unprecedented impact on human lives, livelihoods, economy, and ways of doing things – sparing virtually nothing. The sole cause of which is an unprecedented single event – Covid-19 pandemic. As of December 27, 2020 morning, India recorded a staggering figure of 10,118,392 new Coronavirus cases with 147,659 deaths. The threat of subsequent waves for further infection of Covid-19 infection continues.

In this article, I shall focus on some critical lessons learnt from the 2020 health crisis, while crystal-gazing 2021. I’ll do this purely from the health care perspective, in general, and the pharmaceutical industry, in particular. Keeping this in view, some of the lessons learnt during the pandemic are as follows:

A. Never allow a sense of hubris setting in:

This is easier said than done. Nonetheless, before the Covid pandemic played havocs with all, many top pharma leaders were, apparently, in a hubris. It was often laced with excessive confidence, if not arrogance. The predominant belief was nothing can go so wrong sans unfavorable policy decisions by the governments. This was against a much-known management dictum for all – always anticipate future probabilities that may impact the business and keep prepared for the worst, while hoping for the best. On a hindsight, this was, obviously jettisoned – lock, stock and barrel. No one was prepared for any biological threats, such as, Covid pandemic, till the deadly virus caught the humanity off-guard around December 2019, as we see below:

The pandemic was expected, but struck unexpectedly:

A pandemic wasn’t totally unexpected either. Therefore, they question that surfaces - Experts warned of a pandemic decades ago. Why weren’t we ready? Just in 2015, even Bill Gates, during a Ted talk titled, “The next outbreak? We’re not ready,” also predicted - based on available facts that an epidemic would kill millions in the future.

He further added: “If anything kills over 10 million people in the next few decades, it’s more likely to be a highly infectious virus rather than a war – not missiles, but microbes.” Gates further emphasized: “We have invested a huge amount in nuclear deterrents, but we’ve actually invested very little in a system to stop an epidemic. We’re not ready for the next epidemic.”

B. Research on anti-infective drugs shouldn’t be pushed to the back burner:

These warnings were, apparently, ignored by the pharma industry. For example, as reported in the first quarter of 2020, many research-based pharma companies shifted ‘resources away from emerging infectious diseases into more lucrative areas like cancer treatment. Their business decisions risk leaving gaping holes in the fight against epidemics, such as the one caused by the novel Coronavirus.’

Let’s now take a pause for pharma players to ponder. Are they ready, at least now, with a robust plan – based on almost a year’s experience of an unprecedented agony along with its customers, specifically to counter any future biological threat? Be that as it may, there have also been some good outcomes out of the Covid crisis, both for the pharma industry and also for the health care customers.

C. The pandemic hastened pharma’s digital transformation process:

As is known, compared to many other industries, pharma industry was a late learner in the digitalization process of organizations. The new realities of disruptions caused by the pandemic had significantly expedited this process to keep the business going. There were no other effective options available, either, but to move beyond business stabilization and redefine how they do business. The IQVIA article, ‘Digital transformation in a post-Covid-19 world,’ published in the Pharmaceutical Technology, on August 31, 2020, also reiterated this point.

Elaborating the point further, the article pointed out: ‘As a result, acceleration of three key capabilities is occurring to create sustainable competitive advantage,’ as follows:

Digital capabilities with modern technology are enabling companies doing the right things during the pandemic and accelerating the process.

Providing access to granular data to support the extraction of precise insights into the needs of patients and physicians.

Ensuring capabilities for sustaining relationships. While face-to-face interaction has been dramatically reduced, relationships with HCPs and patients are taking new shapes and are of more importance than ever before.

D. Telemedicine came under mainstream care, supported by Government:

Finding no other viable alternatives during the Covid lockdown period and the need to stringently follow prescribed health measures, many patients were pushed to search for a robust digital solution for health care needs. Just as many of them were already using online platforms to meet other regular needs. In that sense, Covid propelled health care into a virtual world, bringing telehealth or telemedicine toward mainstream care, supported by the Government with a policy, for the first time, ever.

E. Quality of pharma response to pandemic enhanced industry image:

As I had discussed before in this blog, Consumer centric communications, driven by the ‘hope and confidence as companies rushed to come up with COVID-19 vaccines and treatments’ of all, helped to significantly enhance the industry’s image during the year. In my view, pharma shouldn’t let go this opportunity to reposition itself, to reap a rich harvest in the years ahead.

Crystal-gazing 2021:

A. A lurking fear will keep haunting:

Moving away from the outgoing year – 2020, if one crystal gazes the incoming – yet another brand-new year – 2021, a lurking fear still haunts most peoples’ minds. Will the all-round disruptions of 2020 be the new normal in 2021 – with no further escalation of the current situation?

B. Vaccine rollout will reduce rapid spread, but not eliminate Covid-19:

Gradual rolling out of vaccines may reduce the rapid spread of pandemic, provided Covid-19 doesn’t throw more surprises, such as, complicated mutation, blunting this initiative. However, currently available evidence indicates, the new variant could be more transmissible, yet vaccines may work very well against it.

C. Masking, physical distancing, hand washing, etc., will continue:

Besides, many yet unknown side effects, the duration of immunity following coronavirus vaccination is still largely unknown due to the simple lack of time we’ve had to study such immune responses. Moreover, the trials do not tell us if the vaccines can block the transmission of the disease from those who are asymptomatic and have been vaccinated. Thus, masking, physical distancing, hand washing, testing, treating and contact tracing, reportedly, will continue to be important in the global campaign against COVID-19, even after vaccine rollout.

D. NDDS for Covid drugs and vaccines may come:

New formulations, new Covid drug delivery systems, newer methods to bring Covid vaccines, like nasal sprays, in a powder form for easy transportation and to reach more people around the world, are expected to commence in 2021.

E. Waiting for going back to pre-Covid game plan is a losing strategy:

Vaccines are unlikely to take us back to pre-Covid time, any time soon. Even McKinsey & Companypredicted the same in its article: ‘‘How COVID-19 is redefining the next-normal operating model,’ published on December 10, 2020. It emphasized: “With everything disrupted, going back to the same old thing is a losing strategy. The strongest companies are reinventing themselves by embracing pandemic- driven change.”

Many pharma majors are also echoing the same, even as Covid-19 vaccines have started rolling out for public in different parts of the world. After weighing-in the pros and cons of waiting, many of them have articulated: ‘We will not return to the old ways of working.’ They believe, it’s too early to put a specific timeline on turning that page now. Hence, the year 2021, working of the pharma companies is unlikely to be significantly different from the year 2020.

F. Need to capture and respond fast to changing customer behaviors:

Covid-19 pandemic is fast changing many human attitudes and behaviors, forcing organizations to respond. ‘However, the need to respond won’t end when the virus’s immediate threat eventually recedes,’ reaffirmed the Accenture article ‘COVID-19: 5 new human truths that experiences need to address.’ The massive behavior changes of key pharma stakeholders, at a never before scale and speed, will continue to prompt many leading drug companies to respond to them with well thought through digital tools, to gain competitive advantages.

G. Virtual meetings with reps, doctors and others will continue:

As witnessed in 2020, often for the first time – virtual meeting of sales reps, key opinion leaders and others will continue in 2021, even after ‘live’ ones return, but with more innovative structure and content. Pharma marketing’s long awaited and comprehensive digital foray will continue gaining a strong foothold, entering into new areas, without glancing back over the shoulder, in 2021.

H. More new drug launches will move entirely digital:

It began in 2020. For example, dozens of new drug launches moved entirely to digital, for the first time in 2020. As a pharma leader remarked, with the traditional launch framework gone during the pandemic, “we had to throw out the playbook and really embed into people’s heads that playbook is no longer meaningful. It no longer works, and we have to think outside the box.” She further added: “There’s truly no bigger place for a marketer right now. This is the new world.” None can deny this fact as we enter into the new year.

I. Success requirements of pharma professionals will be different:

With significant transformation of pharma’s operational strategies, success requirements of pharma professionals will also be significantly different in the new normal. Quick capturing and fast adaptation to the changing customer behavior for multi-channel engagement digital platforms, will be fundamentally important – not just for business excellence, but for its long-term sustainability, as well. This is a totally new and highly cerebral strategic ballgame, where obsolescence of cutting-edge technology is much faster than anything in the tradition driven old normal.

J. More pharma companies will explore inorganic growth opportunities:

More pharma companies will look for acquisitions to bridge the strategic gaps, as AstraZeneca did in 2020.

Conclusion:

In 2021, Covid Mayhem may possibly be over with a gradual rollout of vaccines. But, the impact of utter disruptions that the pandemic has caused in multiple areas of businesses in 2020, especially within the pharma industry, would continue, as we step into 2021. As the drug industry overwhelmed by Covid-19, reset themselves with the digital transformation in the new normal -for growth beyond Coronavirus, one may also view this much awaited metamorphosis, as a blessing in disguise, as it were.

Overall, as the W.H.O observed very rightly on December 27, 2020: “We throw money at an outbreak, and when it’s over, we forget about it and do nothing to prevent the next one. This is dangerously short-sighted, and frankly difficult to understand.” He further added: “History tells us that this will not be the last pandemic, and epidemics are a fact of life.” I hope, all concerned will realize this point in 2021. Alternatively, we may need to keep ourselves prepared to move, in a similar way, from the current new normal to yet unknown next normal.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Pharma Not To Let Go This Never Before Opportunity To Reposition Itself

Posted on December 14, 2020 by Tapan Ray

‘While the COVID-19 pandemic has placed unparalleled demands on modern healthcare systems, the industry’s response has vividly demonstrated its resilience and ability to bring innovations to market quickly.’ This appeared in the McKinsey & Company article – ‘Healthcare innovation: Building on the gains made through the crisis,’ published on November 12, 2020.

Just a couple of days before that, on November 09, 2020, an interesting article appeared in The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on the resilience of the pharma industry. It also discussed on how ‘an often-disparaged industry is finding a rare opportunity to promote its value,’ to turn around public perception of its image and reputation during the pandemic. The article elaborated this point by quoting: “It was a fight between pharma, tobacco companies and the government for who would be at the bottom in terms of reputation,” – now “Covid is giving them an opportunity to step out of that world and into the world of ‘we can help,’ and it’s giving pharma a comeback.”

As is known to many, pharma industry was long vilified for its many self-serving objectives. But the Coronavirus pandemic helped immensely to highlight its role in developing medications and vaccines to save the humanity. It happened never before – ever, with this intensity and scale. Thus, the shift is inspiring many pharma giants to reposition their marketing and communications, the WSJ report added. This article will deliberate on how pharma marketers can leverage this once in a lifetime opportunity, with actionable insights on Covid pandemic-induced – changing needs of healthcare customers.

Covid-19 to change the way companies do business - A recent survey:

In this McKinsey & Company survey, published on June 17, 2020, more than 200 organizations across industries had participated in this study. Notably, over 90 percent of the participating executives expect the fallout from COVID-19 to fundamentally change the way companies do business over the next five years, with a lasting impact on their customers’ needs. In the pharma industry too, these trends are clearly visible and undergoing a metamorphosis. I quote below a few important points from this study, as illustrations:

Nearly 73 percent respondents from the pharma and medical supplies industries agree that the changes brought about by Covid-19 will be a big opportunity for growth.

Only 21 percent of the same executives feel that they are prepared with resources, expertise and commitment to address the changes they see coming, for harvesting the new growth opportunities.

Curiously, only 25 percent of respondents reported that capturing new growth was a top priority today, compared to roughly 60 percent before the crisis hit.

Notably, across the industries only pharma and medical product industries have increased their focus on innovation during Covid crisis. Although, many are still playing safe, which may be a shortsighted decision, the research paper observed.

Understand the shifts and the opportunities with actionable insights:

That the current Covid crisis has significantly exacerbated and accelerated many disruptive forces, is vindicated by another survey: ‘Global B2B decision-maker response to COVID-19 crisis.’ This was published by the McKinsey & Company on October 20, 2020. It also reiterated, ‘B2B decision-maker preferences and behaviors have shifted dramatically since the onset of COVID. The GTM revolution is here and B2B sales is forever changed.’ I shall quote two of these areas, as follows:

A. Changes to pharma sales models: Companies with significant field forces can no longer rely on in-person coverage to outcompete. This is because:

The tide has turned: digital self-service and remote rep interactions are likely to be the dominant elements of the B2B go-to-market model, going forward.

Don’t count on returning to a pre-COVID-19 level of in-person sales coverage, as only 20–30% of B2B buyers want to ever interact with reps in person even in their ideal/post-COVID-19 model.

Around 90% of B2B decision makers expect the remote and the digital model to stick around for the long run, and 3 in 4 believe the new model is as effective or more so than before COVID-19 (for both existing customers and prospects).

97% of B2B buyers claim they will make a purchase in an end-to-end, digital self-serve model, with the vast majority very comfortable spending more online.

Video-conference connections are critical and are preferred over audio/phone by almost 4 out of 5 B2B buyers.

B. Influx of competitors from different industries: Medical-device firms historically had a narrow competitive set and were insulated by a complex and highly technical regulatory approval process. They are now facing competition from previously unexpected new entrants, including Wearable Health Devices (WHDs) makers, such as Google, Apple among several others. As I also wrote about a year ago, on December 02, 2020, this is mostly because, WHDs help improve disease outcomes, creating a unique disease treatment experience.

Which is why, in the new normal, creating a holistic and innovative ‘Customer Experience’ is as important and challenging as creating ‘Innovative Drugs’.

Reposition pharma to create a holistic ‘Customer Experience’ in the new normal:

At the very beginning of this year, on January 13, 2020, I asked: What Pays More: Creating Innovative ‘Customer Experience’ Or ‘Innovative Drugs’? Although both are crucial for pharma, in the current scenario, the former, I reckon, is no less important or less demanding than the latter for pharma marketers. The question, therefore, arises, what new insights it will entail to meet the unmet changing needs of healthcare customers? The answers may point towards several areas, which are worth pondering over.

Leaving this exhaustive search for pharma professionals to gain the necessary insights for action, let me give an example of only one such area to drive home the point. An interesting article deliberating this area was published by Reuters Events on November 17, 2020. Especially in the new normal, finding solutions to unmet customer needs would prompt harnessing the combined and synergistic power of medical and marketing skills, creating a culture to match, as the article highlighted.

Elaborating this need, the author stressed, the traditional model of medical and marketing functions working in silos is often a barrier to a holistic customer approach. This is because it stifles the opportunity for co-creation of well-synchronized solutions on a number of medico marketing issues during patients’ disease treatment journey mapping. These customer-centric medico-marketing issues, I reckon, are coming more often now with the increasing number of more informed patients, especially about their personal health care and treatment needs.

Traditionally, in the pharma industry ‘working in silo culture’ is quite prevalent – medical and marketing functions are no different. Encouragingly, during this pandemic, several companies have formed cross-functional teams of medical and marketing professionals. They also create brand plans, develop content and communication strategies in the new digital platforms, as preferred by the customers. Let me hasten to add, most companies, especially in India will need to catch up with this new way of working, creating a new culture, soon.

Two interesting examples of medico-marketing during Covid Crisis:

There will be several examples in this area. However, to illustrate the point of creating a holistic ‘Customer Experience’ in the new normal, let me cite two examples of medic-marketing in this area, during Covid crisis. Coincidentally, both the examples are from the global pharma major Pfizer – the Company (along with BioNTech) that offered the first Covid-19 vaccine to the western world for public use under ‘Emergency Approval’ by the British drug regulator.

The first example is a website for Pfizer prescription medicine assistance program – called Pfizer RX Pathways. It mentions at the very top, ‘Pfizer recognizes the public concern in relation to COVID-19, which continues to evolve. Click here to learn how we are responding.’ When clicked, it takes the viewers to another website, where Pfizer says, ‘we are committed to helping keep people safe and informed.’

The second one tackles the uncertainty and anxiety that many people feel during the Covid pandemic – reassuring the viewers that “science will win.” It starts with: “At a time when things are uncertain, we turn to the most certain thing there is—science. Science can overcome diseases, create cures and yes, beat pandemics. It has before; it will again.”

There are many other examples, including a social media series on Covid-19 of the Company, which help enhancing holistic ‘customer experience’ in the contemporary situation, for which the concerned companies’ brands are also rewarded by the customers.

Conclusion:

As of December 13, 2020 morning, India recorded a staggering figure of 9,857,380 of new Coronavirus cases with 143,055 deaths. The threat of subsequent waves for further spread of Covid infection still looms large in many states. The good news is, at least, one Covid-19 vaccine is expected to be available in India within a month’s time. Meanwhile, as many people believe, when a company or an industry does most things right, as experienced by its customers, its reputation goes up, and vice versa. For example, the Gallup Poll, published around a year ago – on September 03, 2019 said: ‘The pharmaceutical industry is now the most poorly regarded industry in Americans’ eyes, ranking last on a list of 25 industries.’ Interestingly, similar Gallup Poll, published a year later – on September 08, 2020 noted, ‘the pharmaceutical industry’s image has improved modestly since last year, and it has yielded the “worst rated” distinction back to the federal government.’

So, something good must have happened during this one-year period, the most influential of which being Covid Pandemic. We have seen above, how some pharma players have repositioned themselves to provide a holistic ‘Customer Experience’, through innovative multichannel communication – being on the same page with customers. Medico-marketing approach played a stellar role in these efforts. As more healthcare customers get enlightened on their health and treatment needs by charting through the cyberspace, they are expected to lap-up such multichannel communication, alongside other equally cerebral pharma initiatives.

Undoubtedly, Covid pandemic is a triggering factor for this change, both among the healthcare customers and the pharma players. This trend is not going to disappear soon, as various top research studies have highlighted. Well-deserved pharma image and reputation boost has started gaining speed, following what some companies are demonstrating to customers during the Covid crisis. Pharma marketers, I believe, will not let go this never before opportunity to reposition their respective companies. It will help them achieve well-cherished brand excellence, supported by a robust Company image and reputation. As the good old saying has proved again to the pharma industry – even during the Covid pandemic, ‘as you sow, so shall you reap.’

By: Tapan J. Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Pharma’s ‘Value Delivery System’ Still Tuned To A Self-serving Mode?

Posted on February 4, 2019 by Tapan Ray

Just as any other industry, pharma business is also primarily a ‘value delivery system.’ Its each and every employee need to understand and internalize this basic philosophy of the business. This organizational mindset needs to be created by the very top – setting examples for others to embody the same. The top could encompass the promoters themselves, or the professional CEOs – truly heading the organization and not working under the shadow of the promoters, or even the Board of Directors of professionally managed companies.

Although, this mindset should prevail pan organization, pharma sales and marketing functions are usually responsible to deliver a well-thought out set of brand values and associated services to doctors, patients and other stakeholders, effectively.

Against the above backdrop, I shall explore in this article whether it is happening in the pharma industry. If yes, is the ‘value delivery system’ is tuned to a self-serving mode, wherever it is happening? If so, to what extent it is denting the reputation and image of not just of the companies concerned, but of the drug industry as a whole. Before I proceed further, let me elaborate on what exactly I mean by the ‘value delivery system (VDS).’

Value Delivery System (VDS):

Creating more and more customers and retaining them, as long as possible, is the core purpose of any business, as was articulated by the management guru Peter Drucker, decades ago. Thus, like others, pharma organizations, as well, require making it happen in a sustainable way for business excellence.

The entire organization – starting from product and service development activities, right up to the frontline sales and marketing, should always be engaged in delighting the customers with the values they expect – driven by this mindset. It is worth noting that value expectations of pharma customers, are expressed in various ways. These need to be properly captured, analyzed, interpreted, packaged and effectively delivered during each company- customer contact, such as, while interacting with doctors, patients, hospitals and Government.

Thus, the term ‘Value Delivery System (VDS), encompasses an integrated chain of processes within an organization. From this perspective, it should get ingrained in the culture of a pharma company – without any broken links – between the functional areas and the integrated value delivery process.

Who is deciding what patients would value in pharma?

In the real world, ‘customers point of view’ or ‘what the patients would value’ in a product, is decided by the pharma companies – derived generally from the published clinical trial results of the products. Accordingly, these are woven around the brand features and benefits.

The value delivery system of the company packages these in a way that it thinks would generate increased prescription demand and delivers to all concerned. These values, which are overall financial business performance-centric, are mostly ‘self-serving’, and was working very well to meet the internal objectives, until recently.

How to ascertain value for patients in pharma marketing?

One way to ascertain these factors is to ask patients directly. But this process has certain limitations. This was once aptly articulated by Steve Jobs in an interview, where he said: ‘I think really great products come from melding two points of view -the technology point of view and the customer point of view. You need both. You can’t just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they’ll want something new.’

Taking a cue from it, I reckon, drug companies need continuously generate and analyze enough relevant data, from multiple sources, for an in-depth understanding of what patients will value. Making these values an integral part of the product and services, in a creative way, pharma should aim at delighting the customers through effective delivery.

The article titled, “Reclaim The Glory Of Value,” published in the eyeforpharma on January 08, 2019 also reiterated that such ‘value’ must always be defined by the customer. ‘And true value can only be achieved by understanding the world of the patient and solving the issues most critical to them.’

The external impact of product centric value assessment:

This financial result focused value delivery system got exposed to the stakeholders, since sometime. Overall business performance, though generally slowed down, some companies did produce extraordinary results, even after remaining tuned-in to the self-serving mode. Nevertheless, what got dented most is the pharma industry reputation, with a long-term impact.

Although, the survey capturing fast declining reputation of the drug industry, was done in the United States, it is apparently no different in other countries. Consequently, the quality of general public’s trust in pharma started getting murkier. Strong headwinds are now limiting the pace of progress of the industry, with many governments, including India, taking stringent policy measures to protect the patient interest.

The only way is to ‘reverse the pyramid’:

The only way for the pharma industry, in general, is to take a fresh look at their business approach, which still remains a value delivering machine. The companies need to think afresh while arriving at the ‘value for the patients’, by reversing the business pyramid – positioning the patients’ core values at the top, and delivering them to all concerned with well-crafted content, on the most effective platforms.

Tuning VDS in sync with patients’ core values, is fundamental:

It has been well established today the delivering values built around the quality, efficacy and safety of a brand can no longer ensure the best clinical outcomes for patients. This holds good even when the conventional sales and marketing activities are carried out through a large sales force and backed by huge financial resources. The main reason being, the pharma value delivery system is not delivering the core value that modern day patients expect.

Many patients of the new generation value empowerment and desire greater involvement in their end-to-end disease treatment process. For example, when they want understanding and help on how to manage the high treatment cost to survive from a life-threatening illness, some companies try to compare the ‘cost of treatment’ with the ‘cost of life’, which is an undiluted self-serving value.

It may sound absurd, but I have witnessed the top echelons of pharma companies saying so. This can possibly happen only when they feel contended with a smaller patient base fetching higher profit due to high drug prices, though unaffordable to most patients. But this model is not sustainable. It would further damage already dented pharma reputation, drawing more ire from stakeholders, including the government.

Thus, tuning VDS in sync with patients’ core values is fundamental in the emerging scenario. The question that follows what then are the core values of the new generation patients?

Two ‘core values’ that patients generally expect:

In my personal view, there are the following two ‘core values’ that consumers of medicines would generally expect during their end-to-end disease treatment process. However, the signals of such expectations – direct or indirect, may come in different ways and forms that need to be properly captured by the pharma companies, with the careful application mind:

Value of unique product and service offerings: The need for this value arises right in the beginning, when patients are in search of a solution for prevention, cure, or management of a disease. It is, primarily, the difference felt by the customers between the product and service offerings of one pharma company from the other. While finalizing the choice for the resolution of the problem, patients may take into account one more important factor. This usually covers the quality of their interaction with the doctors, including the pharma companies, though their respective patient engagement platforms, if any.

Value of a unique patient experience: After making the final choice, patients would value to feel a unique experience during the entire span of the treatment process. The quality of a brand, its effectiveness, safety, affordability and accessibility, among others, would be the individual components of the whole experience. What would matter most is the residual impact, created by the sum total of each of these components. And this value may be termed as – the unique patient experience.

Effectively delivered, the wholesome impact of patients’ treatment experience will be a lot more than the sum total of each the individual components, as mentioned above. Conversely, any hurdle faced by patients even with one component of this value chain, can potentially create a bad patient experience. This may adversely affect both patients and the concerned pharma company, in tangible terms, which I shall discuss below. Thus, the perceived value of ‘unique patient experience’ is very high, and can’t be wished away, any longer.

Tangible gain of pharma for doing so, or vice versa:

Let me illustrate this point with an example – drawing from the above core values and a self-serving value delivery system.

As we know, non-adherence to medication is one of the important reasons for poor clinical outcomes, besides progression of the ailment – further compounding the disease burden. Ample research studies indicate that ‘high cost of drugs is the biggest barrier to medication adherence,’ or, at least, one of the major causes of non-adherence.

Patients pay for non-adherence by their deteriorating health conditions. Alongside, pharma companies also pay a high price in terms of lost sales and profit, besides dent in reputation – for this single factor. Another research report estimated an annual revenue loss of USD 637 billion for non-adherence to medications for the treatment of chronic conditions. The same report highlighted, globally, revenue loss has increased from USD 564 billion in 2012 to USD 637 billion in 2015, with US-based revenue losses increasing from USD 188 billion in 2012 to USD 250 billion in 2015. Otherwise, this could have been a significant tangible gain for pharma.

Conclusion:

Pharma business, just as any other industry, is a value delivery system. This system needs to be optimized, both for tangible financial gains and also for building company reputation. Creating increasingly satisfied patients, including other stakeholders, should be the prime drivers for this optimization process.

Two core values – built on signals, suggestions and indications coming from the bottom of a conventional business pyramid – the patients, need to be effectively captured, analyzed, packaged and then delivered through the VDS. In no way, these values are to be based on what the top of the pyramid thinks, based on only clinical trial results. Such values are usually self-serving in nature, the long-term impact of which is not quite favorable, either. Reversing the pyramid, patients should be allowed to play a pivotal role for the company in the core value creation of a brand, in innovative ways, for subsequent delivery on appropriate platforms.

This will create a win-win situation, both for business growth and also in delighting most patients with access to high quality and affordable novel treatments, for a healthy life. However,considering today’s reality where most pharma companies’ ‘Value Delivery Systems’ are still tuned to a self-serving mode, a serious introspection by individual companies seems to be an urgent need. More proactive players in this game, will emerge as winners with better business performance, in tandem with improved corporate image and reputation.

By: Tapan J. Ray

‘Unbossing’ Pharma Culture For Millennials – A Sine Qua Non For Future Growth

Posted on December 31, 2018 by Tapan Ray

Wishing All My Readers A Very Happy, Healthy, Peaceful and Prosperous 2019

‘Unbossing’ an organizational culture is an interesting idea – more in the context of promoter driven Indian drug companies of all sizes and scale. The word – ‘unboss’ is associated with nonhierarchical and open leadership culture, aiming to achieve value-based higher goals, across the organization.Not many pharma companies are attempting to imbibe this culture, just yet, barring a very few.

‘The organizational culture is something that comes with the job’ – has been the general perception of all working for the company, including most CEOs, since long. Pharma industry being a more tradition bound, and hierarchic, such acceptance is more visible in drug companies. However, some industry majors have started challenging this status quo by asking: ‘Has our organizational culture, over a period of time, become too hierarchical and somewhat archaic? Are we still clinging on to the dated, and somewhat fossilized views and practices of the great predecessors, which were quite relevant in those days, but no longer now?’

In today’s changing scenario, the corporate culture of a pharma company should be able to unleash the full potential of its employees, who are an increasing number of vastly talented millennials, with generational differences in behavioral pattern. They come with different values, mindset, expectations, aspirations, and feel comfortable working in a an ‘unbossy’ culture.

In this article, I shall explore how in the new millennium some pharma CEOs are going beyond mere tweaking, to usher in a substantive change in the sensitive area of organizational culture, keeping pace with time. This seemingly rare breed of head honchos clearly recognizes that developing a positive corporate or brand image, starts with the development of an enabling corporate culture.

Let me now start linking the organizational culture and business practices with brand or corporate image, through stakeholder loyalty, to corporate business excellence – all in the pharma context.

Intended corporate image starts from practices within the company:

Instead of being always combative to prove how unreasonable are the stakeholder demands emanating from the complex business environment, drug companies need to accept some hard facts, and act accordingly. One such fact is – a positive corporate image or reputation based on an enabling corporate culture that is aligned with organization’s identity and good business practices, help earn stakeholder loyalty and enhance business performance.

This concept has passed the acid test in several research studies, over a period of time, e.g. the research paper on ‘Corporate Identity and Corporate Performance’, published in Scandinavian Journal of Business Research (Beta), (ISSN 1504-3134. Its findings may be summarized as: It is important for managers to understand that while building a strong reputation, the intended image projected by the company, needs to be consistent with the actual identity perceived inside the company, especially by the important internal stakeholder – the employees.

This is because, a positive corporate image reflects the way customers perceive a company’s product and service offerings to them and vice versa. This is not a recent phenomenon. It has been happening over decades. But only a few companies have taken it seriously to bring necessary changes within the organization, by remolding the organizational culture in sync with time. This point was also vindicated by the August 1998 article on ‘The Effect of Corporate Image in the Formation of Customer Loyalty’, published in the Journal of Service Research.

The findings of the above study from the goods and service sector are based on theory of consumer behavior, cognitive psychology, and social cognitive psychology. It clearly articulates that corporate image has a significant, but the indirect impact on customer loyalty. The authors claimed that customer loyalty is also driven by positive corporate image.

A positive corporate image originates from an enabling corporate culture:

That developing a positive corporate image or reputation starts with the development of an enabling corporate culture, is also corroborated by the above article featured in the Journal of Service Research. It highlights that a favorable corporate image is formed through a process of continuous updating without any behavioral time-lag within the organization.

Like many other industries, this holds good in the pharma sector, as well, to excel in business. Itis fundamental to ensure that the concerned pharma company always enjoys the confidence and loyalty of its internal customers – such as employees, along with the external customers that include employees, doctors, patients, Governments and the general public, among others.

This is equally important to make sure that the overall organizational culture does not get fossilized, at any period of time. It should always remain in conformance with the changing needs of time – new aspirations of the employees to unleash their full potential, for the best possible business outcomes through customer delight.

Some early indicators of an image problem:

In the pharma industry, some of the early signs of a company’s brand or corporate image problems get manifested by its indirect impact on customer/stakeholder or employee loyalty. The symptoms may encompass a whole gamut of areas, ranging from high employee turnover, through difficulty in getting brand prescription support from doctors and hospitals, into deteriorating relationship with the government, culminating to declining company share value with business growth stagnating or going south.

Positive or negative culture originates from the C-suites:

Many may be well-aware that both a positive or a negative corporate culture originates from the C-suites – mostly starting from the CEO office, including his direct reports, percolating down to even the first line managers, across various functions. A CEO should obviously carry the can and be held accountable, unless such incidences are aberrations or restricted in some functional areas. The reason being, an adverse company reputation or image, usually develops when the concerned CEO’s primary focus is on short-term results – not investing enough time on developing a positive and enabling organizational culture.

As the famous Warren Buffett once said:“It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.” This is important for all consider, especially in pharma, and in today’s scenario.

In the Indian context, one recent example, could be the ruckus created, especially in the United States and Europe, on the dubious quality and pricing of generic drugs. A bit older example is – how once top ranked Indian pharma corporate Ranbaxy almost vanished in the thin air, over good manufacturing practices and drug quality standards.

What culture would the millennials want with pharma companies?

The December 10, 2018 report on the Best Company Culture for 2018 of Comparably - a workplace culture and compensation monitoring site, highlight some important parameters on what type of organizational culture the millennials appreciate and look for. To illustrate this point, let draw the following examples from the report:

Open and collaborative company culture, where everyone is updated on the latest and greatest things happening to the company as a whole, across functions.
Autonomy with willingness to help, from all.
Everyone is trusted to do their job, no micromanaging.
Anyone can ask questions and provide input that will genuinely be heard.
Hanging out with each other.

These are just a few examples to get a flavor of the change. It is also quite likely that many senior pharma managers may say: ‘Oh! We are already doing these and much more.’ It’s a different matter, though, that millennials of the same company may not be on the same page with these managers.

Unbossing pharma culture – the ball has started rolling:

At the Forbes Healthcare Summit 2018, held in New York City from November 28 -29, 2018, the global CEO of Novartis - Vas Narasimhan, called for a cultural shift to cater to the millennial generation’s needs, expectations and aspirations at the work place. He said: “The goal we set out to do is create an ‘unboss’ culture.” Half of Novartis current 120,000 employee strength being millennials. This move is directed to enhance the company’s appeal to them. A part of ‘unbossing’ the company culture in Novartis would be relaxing the current rules, by allowing employees to wear jeans to work.

Expanding the point while talking to Business Insider, Vas Narasimhan said: “For many people, they love the idea of the culture change, everybody then wants to know why can’t it happen right away. So, then you have to explain to people, this takes time, leadership, it takes a lot of changes in how we work. But I think there’s been a lot of acceptance of the culture change, but now the hard work has begun.”

Some key traits of ‘unboss’ culture:

The article titled, ‘5 signs that you might be an ‘unboss,’ appeared in YOURSTORY on April 08, 2017 explains: The word ‘Boss’ originates from the Dutch word ‘Baas’, meaning ‘Master’. Where there is a master, there are slaves, and that’s not a good thing. More often than not, this word leaves a bad taste in the mouth, and rightly so. Thus, in a ‘unboss’ company culture, the topmost quality that the person in-charge, irrespective of organizational functions should possess, is being ‘unbossy’.

Some common leadership traits that define a ‘unboss’ culture, as I sense from the above article, are as follows:

Giving a great importance to sharing of knowledge.
Quickly identifying the ability in others and bring out the best in each team member.
Never feeling insecure and passing on credit where it’s due and not coveting praise that’s rightfully others.
Being flexible enough and possessing maturity to also do the legwork when required.
Treating everyone the same, without playing favorites, ever.
Creating an environment of learning and encouraging the team to experiment.
Setting benchmarks for each individual member to assess their own career growth.

In the pharma industry, not many leaders, I reckon, possess these qualities. Some drug companies, both local and global, may pontificate about practicing these qualities, but the majority of employees may not experience most of these in the real work situation.

Conclusion:

In most pharma companies, including India, much of the workforce, in addition to field staff, constitutes of millennials, which will continue to show an ascending trend. Thus, it is critical to align the company culture to attract and retain talents from the new generation A large number of companies still don’t consider this issue as a priority task for the corporation. The example set by the Novartis CEO, as quoted above is refreshing, in that sense.

Moreover, a number of research studies have established that organizational culture helps form the context within which corporate identity and corporate image are established. There can’t be a better time for a relook at the respective organizational culture, as the image of pharma industry has still not found its bottom.

A positive image, irrespective of whether it is a brand or a company, based on a robust organization culture, establishes a stout emotional connect with stakeholders. This is central for a long-term business success, and vice versa. It isn’t an easy task for any pharma player, especially for the promoter driven Indian companies of all sizes and scale, but not impossible, either.

Be that at it may, with the pharma business environment facing increasingly strong headwind, ‘unbossing’ pharma culture for millennials, I reckon, is sine qua non for long-term success – from the corporate perspective.

By: Tapan J. Ray

The Importance of Managing ‘Perception’ in Pharma

Posted on August 27, 2018 by Tapan Ray

Each one of us – individually or collectively in a society, community or even as a supporter of anyone or anything, view certain things in a certain way, and tend to believe only this is true. This process consequently leads to developing a ‘perception’, which the Oxford dictionary defines as: “The way in which something is regarded, understood, or interpreted.”

A ‘perception’ once formed, creates a long-lasting impact – helps form a strong opinion, often making people judgmental in their expressions. Based on ‘perception’, people also try to act and influence others, which are not always in a persuasive manner. On the contrary, the methods, are at times rather coercive, using fear as the key. The sources that help create ‘perceptions’ may not be genuine, often fake or doctored and picked-up from half-baked, unproven and unverified provenance.

Just as any other business, in pharma industry too, stakeholder ‘perception’ plays a critical role, especially in building or tarnishing reputation of the sector or individual companies. In this article, I shall discuss, the importance of managing perception – the right way – overcoming a key barrier, for sustainable business success.

‘Perception’ often stands between success and failure or winning and losing:

In today’s world ‘perception’ often stands between success and failure or winning and losing, more than ever before. Creating and maintaining a ‘positive perception’ is time consuming and a challenging task, for anything. Interestingly, a negative ‘perception’ may also be deliberately created for self-serving purposes, and that too in a much shorter time. Although, there is a high financial cost attached to it, such instances aren’t too few, either.

Umpteen number of instances can be cited, in this regard. However, to drive home the point, let me quote just two examples – the first one is of a negative ‘perception’ mostly created by the industry from within. The other one – again a negative perception that prevails outside the industry, but mostly created due to the acts pursued within the industry. Interestingly, both these adversely impact the pharma consumers too, and are tough to neutralize.

1. ‘Perception’ created by the industry insiders:

The general ‘perception’ that ‘branded generic drugs’ are superior to more affordable ‘non-branded generic medicines’, mostly in terms of overall quality, efficacy and safety. This negative ‘perception’ has been successfully created without enough credible scientific evidence, and irrespective of names, size and the operational scale of the manufacturers. It is worth noting, both need drug regulatory approval and all such approvals come only in the generic names – and not in any brand name. The brands for a generic drug molecule may be as many as, say sixty or hundred, or even more. So are the numbers of ‘non-branded generics.’

To enable the consumers availing benefits of this category of drugs in reducing out of pocket expenditure on medicines, both the State and the Central Governments in India are trying hard through various measures, such as ‘Jan Aushadhi Scheme’. But the negative perception towards ‘non-branded generics’ doesn’t seem to wane a bit, in the face of an ongoing campaign to maintain the status quo.

2. ‘Perception’ created outside, due to the acts of the industry:

Similarly, the general negative ‘perception’ leading to a declining reputation of the industry, prevails across the world – even in India. Again, the issues leading to such negative perception may, at times, be grossly exaggerated and generalized. But the fact remains, despite serious attempts by individual companies and their lobby groups to negate the same, it continues to exist. Nevertheless,continuing efforts by the industry in this direction, which are often quite expensive, are visible globally.

Let me illustrate this point quoting a recent media report on PhRMA – arguably the largest pharma trade body globally. As the pharmaceutical industry faces potential pricing reform and continued criticism from patient advocates, PhRMA reportedly spent US$ 15.5 million lobbying in the first half of this year, which is an 11.5 percent increase (US$ 1.6 million) compared with the same period last year. But, the negative ‘perception’ is too strongly entrenched to neutralize so quickly and effectively. It continues to exist.

That the money spent to alleviate the impact of negative ‘perception’ has not yielded results since long, is vindicated by the June 19, 2018 Business Insider report. Quoting the research and consulting firm Reputation Institute, it says, in 2018, the pharma giants saw a 3.7 percent decline in reputation score from last year. This was driven by a decline in the public perception of transparency, openness and authenticity of drug makers. In the midst of an overall descending trend, of the 22 pharma companies ranked, Sanofi features in the first and Pfizer takes the last positions.

Reported practices of drug makers also influence public ‘perception’:

While explaining why Pfizer has been ranked 22 with a strong negative ‘perception’, the same Business Insider article reported as follows:

“Pfizer had the lowest reputation score among the pharmaceutical companies that the Reputation Institute looked at, based on the general public’s perception of the product, prices and public hospitality. It was reported in May that Pfizer used charity to mask a heart drug price hike. Pfizer also had a huge role in the drug shortage crisis, according to Fortune.”

Similarly, in a relative yardstick, better public ‘perception’ for Sanofi’s among the big pharma players were ascribed to the following reasons:

“Sanofi’s winning characteristics lies in its promotion of ethics and transparency, according to Reputation Institute. Sanofi has in the past year promised to limit price increases and disclose ‘transparency reports’ behind overall costs of its drugs.”

Destructive power of negative ‘perception’ on pharma industry:

An interesting survey, titled “Restoring trust in the pharmaceutical industry by translating expectations into actions” conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) Health Research Institute captures the realities of ‘perception’ on the pharma industry. Pharmaceutical industry executives, consumers, and stakeholders, such as doctors in physician groups, researchers in academia, former health policy makers, hospital executives, managed care organization executives, participated in this survey.

The paper highlighted that ‘perception’ driven peoples’ behavior is triggered by a myriad of reasons attributing to the recent loss of trust of key pharma stakeholders’, such as regulators, payers, physicians, and patients. The authors suggested, the industry should act to restore trust as the central tenet of all of its relationships.

Two major perceptions of pharma consumers and stakeholders were captured, as follows:

A high percentage of pharmaceuticals in the total healthcare costs, distorts the value–for–money argument used by the industry.

The process and the nature, extent and quantum of money spent on pharmaceutical sales and marketing lack transparency, especially with respect to drug risks and benefits.

Constructive power of positive ‘perception’ needs to be strengthened:

Likewise, the constructive power of positive ‘perception’ needs to be strengthened.

Let me illustrate this point with three examples out of many. The first two examples come from the pharma players in India, and the third one from a top non-pharma giant.

- To add public confidence to the corporate brand and strengthen its image among its stakeholders in India, Mankind Pharma appointed Amitabh Bachchan as the brand ambassador. The company wants to primarily emphasize the importance of good health and affordable treatment for all.

- To enhance public ‘perception’ and corporate reputation further, Abbott rolled out a corporatecampaign in India – ‘live life to the fullest.’ The advertisement communicates to the people in an interesting way that “At Abbott, we’re all about helping you live the best life you can through good health. We keep your heart healthy, nourish your body at every stage of life, help you see clearly, and bring you information and medicines to manage your health. Every day and around the world, we’re discovering new ways to make life better.”

Since,the public ‘perception’ of pharma keeps getting worse, let me illustrate the point of constructive power of ‘perception’ from the huge success of several companies from the tech industry. As featured in Tech Times on July 23, 2016, in the ‘perception strength’ of customers in the world on a yearly basis, Apple Inc ranked the world’s top company in 2016 followed by Microsoft.This survey conducted by FutureBrand asked 3,000 customers to rank the big enterprises by 18 different factors, such as trust, price premium, individuality and innovation.

As defined by the survey report, “future brands” are those with a high chance to grow in the future. One of the defining characteristics of such a brand is that it has a consistent balance between the customers’ perception of its purpose and its delivered experience, the article indicated.And that’s exactly what constructive power of ‘perception’ that needs to be strengthened.

…But a key barrier to remedial measures still exists in pharma:

Regardless of industry’s intensive advocacy and multimedia initiatives, a strong negative ‘perception’ on pharma business persists. One of the reasons could be that the nature of most of these overt and covert measures questions the stakeholders for their negative ‘perception’ – justifying the industry practices. This approach often boomerangs. Consequent responses keep getting stronger – leading to a no-win situation. This arises out of a discord between the two concerned entities on the merits of the views that lead to adverse ‘perception’.

The PWC research paper quoted above also substantiates this point. It brings to the fore that pharmaceutical executives and stakeholders hold strikingly different views on a number of issues related to the development of ‘perception’ affecting the reputation.

The article, titled ‘Reputation and Its Risks’, published in the February 2007 issue of Harvard Business Review (HBR) also emphasizes, a clear recognition that reputation is a matter of ‘perception’ of stakeholders, will help companies to effectively manage their reputation. It also says, if companies fail to be in sync with stakeholders’ changing beliefs and expectations, building reputation through effective ‘perception’ management, would appear a tough call.

Conclusion:

Public ‘perception’ plays a crucial role, not just in shaping government policies and regulations, but also in the long-term business success. More positive the ‘perceptions’ are, easier will it be for the company to smoothly sail through, in business – even while navigating through occasional headwinds. Thus, the ability in shaping up a positive ‘perception’ for any business, is fast emerging as an antidote even to any possibility of getting ultimately shipped out. This ability is not dependent just on presenting hard positive facts to all concerned, but a tad more.

Which is why, it is so critical to understand the root cause of the views or ‘perceptions’ of the stakeholders in the industry or an individual company. In case of pharma, when the ‘perception’ is so negative, it will be worthwhile to neutralize it first, rather than immediately trying to counter it with a fresh coat of yet one more fact-based narrative. As a ‘perception’ is not necessarily based on hard facts, such attempts may lead to a never-ending debate on which ‘perception’ is right – ‘your perception’ or ‘my perception’, rather than ‘what is right to do’?’

There lies, therefore, the criticality of effective management of ‘perception’ in pharma. The situation, I reckon, would be even more challenging in the days ahead, if the stakeholders and the pharma industry continue to hold strikingly different views on a number of crucial issues related to the development of such ‘perception’ – further denting its already dented reputation.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Creating ‘Shared Value’ in Pharma – The Way Forward

Posted on July 30, 2018 by Tapan Ray

Many Pharmaceutical companies, both global and local, are struggling with a plethora of critical challenges. With the industry reputation diving south successful navigation through this headwind has become an onerous task, more than ever before.

Under this backdrop, the article, titled “Creating Shared Value” of Michael Porter and Mark Kramer, published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) in its January – February 2011 issue, becomes very relevant to analyze the situation.

The paper says: “Companies are widely thought to be prospering at the expense of their communities. Trust in business has fallen to new lows, leading government officials to set policies that undermine competitiveness and sap economic growth. Business is caught in a vicious circle. A big part of the problem lies with companies themselves, which remain trapped in an outdated, narrow approach to value creation.”

The authors also articulated that pharma players, generally focus on optimizing short-term financial performance, overlooking the greatest unmet needs in the market as well as broader influences on their long-term success. They questioned: “Why else would companies ignore the well-being of their customers and the economic distress of the communities in which they produce and sell?”

Porter and Kramer advised the companies to bring business and society back together – redefining their purpose as creating “shared values”. It means generating economic value in a way that also produces value for society by addressing its challenges.In this article, I shall explore in this area.

Not CSR or Philanthropy, its engaging business as business, for social progress:

Creation of “Shared values” for a business is quite different from “Philanthropy” or “Corporate Social Responsivity (CSR)”. Philanthropy usually involves ‘donations to worthy social causes’ and CSR is primarily directed at compliance with community standards and good corporate citizenship. Whereas the creation of “shared value” means integrating societal improvement into economic value creation, making social improvement as an integral part of with a business model.

To create “shared values”, it is imperative for business organizations to create “social value” through active participation in addressing the social issues and needs related to the business. Or in other words, the creation of “shared values” would entail striking a right balance between “social value” and the “business value.”

An article titled “What Is the Social Value of Pharmaceuticals?”, published by FSG on February 13, 2014 dwells on the business relevance of creation of “social value” in the pharma industry. It writes,creation of “social value” corresponds to effecting positive change along the major societal challenges, such as affordable health care, by working more in collaboration with other stakeholders to address the needs of the underserved through commensurate value creation. This entails engagement of a business as a business, not as a charitable donor, nor through public relations, for social progress.

A resolution to create “shared value” in the pharma industry:

An interesting article, featured in SFGATE of the San Francisco Chronicle on July 11, 2018, elucidated that the reputations of drug makers have taken a hit over the past few years as the public and politicians have called out the companies for high prescription drug prices that even Americans are facing. Recently, President Donald Trump, reportedly, singled out the top pharma companies of the world for raising the list prices on some of its prescriptions.

Possibly it’s a sheer coincidence, but on the same day, an intent of creating “shared values” with the society got reflected in the statement of the president of the Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research. The officialexplained, why his company has a ‘contract with society’. He admitted that: The cost of health care, which has been rising has left many on the hook for a larger amount of their prescription drug cost that can place a big burden on patients in many countries, including the United States.

Consequently, the pressure from the people who need medications is now on the pharmaceutical companies for doing right, he added. Thus, Novartis feels:”We have a contract with society, and society is our shareholder. A company like ours exists to have a definitive impact on life threatening diseases, to keep people alive and healthy for a long, long time, full stop” – the official concluded.

A laudable intent, but is it credible?

The concept of pharma having a contract with the society ‘to keep people alive and healthy for a long, long time,’ is laudable, but is it credible? This question arises because, just before public articulation of this intent, the same company, reportedly, entered into USD 1.2-million contract with President Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, allegedly, to provide access to the US President.

The exact reason for the same is being investigated by competent authorities, including the US Senators. However, another report highlighted, “Novartis is among the drug companies that has put through significant price increases for its products since Trump took office in 2017 – in some cases more than 20 percent.”

Another repot of July 09, 2018, quoting a tweet of the US President, poured more cold water on the warm intent of pharma’s ‘contract with the society.’ According to this article President Trump tweeted: “Pfizer & others should be ashamed that they have raised drug prices for no reason. They are merely taking advantage of the poor & others unable to defend themselves, while at the same time giving bargain basement prices to other countries in Europe & elsewhere. We will respond!”

Consistently declining pharma’s image and public trust:

Many believe that due to such hyperbolic statements and conflicting actions of pharma, over a long period time, are driving down the public image and trust on the industry, in general, from deep to deeper level, which has not found its bottom, just yet.

The reality gets reflected in various well-recognized polls, conducted even in the top pharma market of the world, which is also one of the richest nations, globally. August 2017 Gallup Poll on ‘Business and Industry Sector Ratings,’ features pharma industry at the very bottom of the ranking, just above the Federal government.

The concern gets reverberated in the February 03, 2017 article titled, ‘How Pharma Can Fix Its Reputation and Its Business at the Same Time,’ published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR). The paper observes that the worrisome mix of little growth potential and low reputation prompts the pharma players, among other actions, developing new treatments for neglected populations, and pricing existing products at affordable levels – avoiding corruption and price collusion.

How will “shared value” creation help pharma?

The process of creating “shared values” will involve creating “social value” with all sincerity and a clearly defined purpose. Its outcome should be measurable, and the impact felt by the society. In tandem, striking a right balance between “social value” and the “business value” would call for a metamorphosis in the concept of doing business.

There aren’t too many examples of creation ‘shared values’ by pharma companies, yet. However, to illustrate this point, let me quote one such that was originated from India, which I had the privilege to observe closely. This initiative is ‘Arogya Parivar (healthy family) of Novartis in India.

‘Arogya Parivar’ is a ‘for-profit’ social initiative developed by Novartis to reach the under-served millions living at the bottom of the pyramid in rural India. As Novartis claims, since its launch in 2007, ‘Arogya Parivar’ is proving to be both a force for improving health in rural communities and a sustainable business. ‘Arogya Parivar’ is a commercially-viable program and began returning a profit after 30 months with sales increasing 25-fold, since launch. After successful implementation of this initiative in India, the company has created similar programs in Kenya, Indonesia and Vietnam, according to Novartis.

Conclusion:

The concept of ‘shared values’ emphasizes that business success of a company is closely related to the progress, development and wellbeing of the society where it transacts the business. This can be achieved by striking a right balance between the social need and the business need. In the pharma space too, the value creation in the business value chain may need to be redesigned to meet the ‘social value’. This happened as in the case of ‘Arogya Parivar’ initiative of Novartis in India.

Creating robust business models based on ‘shared values’, in sync with the business-specific needs of the society can help make more profit in areas where there is none, at present. It will also facilitate achieving additional growth of the organization and improve long-term competitiveness.

Consequently, pharma can earn recognition of the society as a powerful contributor for containing suffering and even death of many ailing patients, by increasing access to affordable medicines for those who need these most. This, in turn, would help pharma companies to improve their public image and reputation. Let me hasten to add that provided, of course, no countermeasures are taken by them, surreptitiously, as I have discussed above.

The good news is, some pharma players have already initiated action in this direction. Thus, I reckon, many of them would soon realize that creating ‘shared value – based’ business models are the way forward for sustainable business excellence.

By: Tapan J. Ray

With ‘Cutting Corners’ Going North, Pharma Reputation Dives South

Posted on January 15, 2018 by Tapan Ray

Just a few months ago, on October 24, 2017, ‘New Jersey Law Journal’ came out with an eye-catching headline – “Sanofi Set to Pay $ 61M Settlement in Antitrust Suit Over Vaccine Bundling.” The suit says: “Sanofi-Pasteur allegedly suppressed competition for its pediatric meningococcal vaccine, Menactra, by charging physicians and hospitals up to 35 percent more for its product, unless they agreed to buy Sanofi’s pediatric vaccines exclusively. Sanofi-Pasteur is the vaccines division of French drug manufacturer Sanofi.”

Nevertheless, a statement from the company said: “Despite Sanofi’s strong defenses, Sanofi recognizes that continued litigation is likely to be extraordinarily expensive and time-consuming and thus has agreed to enter into this Settlement Agreement to avoid the further expense, inconvenience, risk and distraction of burdensome and protracted litigation. Sanofi is finally putting to rest this case by obtaining complete dismissal of the action and a release by settlement class members of all released claims.”

When such incidences – of various scales and dimensions, continue being reported by both the global and local media, over a long period of time, one can fathom the potential of their cumulative impact on public and other stakeholders. Severely dented image and reputation of pharma, in general, before the eyes of so many, across the world, is a testimony to this phenomenon. Considering these as ‘cutting corners’ syndromes, I shall discuss in this article, how fast is pharma reputation diving South, with incidences of ‘cutting corners’ keep going North.

‘Cutting Corners’:

The Oxford dictionary defines ‘cutting corners’ as: ‘Doing something perfunctorily so as to save time or money’. Putting it in the context, I reckon, legally or ethically questionable actions with a deliberate intent of making quick profits, if not profiteering, can be termed as ‘cutting corners’ or business malpractices.

‘Cutting Corners’ going North:

This is no way a recent phenomenon. Gradually increasing number of new reports on pharma’s alleged malpractices are not uncommon, either. On the contrary, these keep coming rather too frequently – baffling many industry watchers and its well-wishers, for different reasons.

The details of 20 largest settlements in this area reached between the United States Department of Justice and various pharmaceutical companies from 1991 to 2012, as available from Wikipedia, provide a glimpse to its magnitude and dimension. The settlement amount reportedly includes both the civil (False Claims Act) settlement and criminal fine. Glaxo’s US$ 3 billion settlement is apparently one of the largest civil, False Claims Act settlement on the record, and Pfizer’s US$ 2.3 billion settlement includes a record-breaking US$ 1.3 billion criminal fine. A federal court also recognized all off-label promotion as a violation of the False Claims Act, leading to a US$ 430 million settlement during that period, as this report highlights.

In one of my articles, titled ‘Big Pharma Receives Another Body Blow: Would Indian Slumber End Now?’, published in this blog on May 19, 2014, I quoted a few more examples from 2013 and 2014, as well. A few of these are as follows:

In March 2014, the antitrust regulator of Italy reportedly fined two Swiss drug majors, Novartis and Roche 182.5 million euros (U$ 251 million) for allegedly blocking distribution of Roche’s Avastin cancer drug in favor of a more expensive drug Lucentis that the two companies market jointly for an eye disorder.

Just before this, in the same month of March 2014, it was reported that a German court had fined 28 million euro (US$ 39 million) to the French pharma major Sanofi and convicted two of its former employees on bribery charges.

In May 2013, Sanofi was reportedly fined US$ 52.8 Million by the French competition regulator for trying to limit sales of generic versions of the company’s Plavix.

Pharma reputation dives South:

That pharma reputation is diving south, is well captured in the ‘Business and Industry Sector Ratings’ by Gallup, dated August 2-7, 2017. According to this public rating, the top 5 and bottom 5 industries came up as follows:

Top 5:

Industry	Total Positive %	Neutral %	Total Negative %	*Net positive or negative %
Computer	75	15	8	+67
Restaurant	72	21	7	+65
Farming and agriculture	70	17	12	+58
Grocery	60	23	17	+43
Internet	59	21	18	+41

The bottom 5, including the federal government:

Industry	Total Positive %	Neutral %	Total Negative %	*Net positive or negative %
Airline	41	20	35	+6
Oil and gas	38	21	40	-2
Healthcare	38	18	45	-7
Pharmaceutical	33	16	50	-17
Federal Govt.	29	19	52	-23

*Net Positive is % Positive minus % negative (in percentage points)

Image rejuvenation campaign not yielding results:

Arguably, the richest and the most powerful pharma industry lobby group in the largest pharmaceutical market of the world, is incurring a mind-boggling sum of expenditure to mend the severely dented collective reputation and image of its members.

Vindicating this point, a January 18, 2017 media report articulated that a major pharma industry lobby group – PhRMA, is gearing up for a new image building campaign by spending in the “tens of millions” each year to drum up support for the reputationally challenged pharma industry. Such initiatives by PhRMA, as I understand, are not totally new, but rather ongoing. Be that as it may, as the Gallup survey confirms, pharma reputation keeps diving South, unabated.

Mending pharma’s reputation surfaces as one of the top concerns of the pharma industry. It, therefore, demands commensurate priority in working out a meaningful strategic plan, and its effective implementation on the ground, collectively. More so, when the POTUS – Donald Trump, has also emerged as a vocal pharma critic. He has already proclaimed that drug companies “are getting away with murder,” – as the above media report highlights.

Where is this campaign going off the mark?

On this subject, an article of September 5, 2017, published by Ars Technica – a technology news publication aptly epitomized, what is happening today with these campaigns, against what should have happened, instead. The column carries a headline ‘Big Pharma hopes research spending – not reasonable pricing – will improve image’.

The columnist wrote: “To scrub down their filthy reputations, drug makers could try lowering prices, a public mea culpa, or pledging to make pricing and marketing more responsible and transparent. But they seem to have taken a different strategy.” On this score, a relevant example, out of several others, was of Biogen introducing a drug in 2016, for a rare spine disorder and priced it at an eye-popping US$ 750,000 for the first years’ worth of treatment.

In pharma image revamp campaign, the focus on R&D spending or drug innovation, including blatant self-serving demands, such as strictest product patent and data exclusivity provisions, is rather overwhelming. It is understandable that all this fits in well with various pharma lobby group’s mission and mandate, but is unlikely to deliver what consumers would consider good behavior on the part of drug companies.

Is Indian pharma out of this loop?

The answer to this question is an emphatic – ‘No’. Alleged ‘dubious product quality’ related ongoing saga, is known today by all concerned. This had often culminated into US-FDA import bans of many drugs, manufactured by several Indian drug manufacturers – starting from the very top. Nonetheless, that’s not ‘the all’ or ‘end all’ in the ballgame of ‘cutting corners’ in India, as I explained above.

On September 26, 2017, a media report flashed: ‘The Income Tax (IT) investigation wing claims to have unearthed a nexus between a leading pharmaceutical company and doctors, and the evidence showing payments running into Crores to the latter for prescribing the company’s medicines.’

Close on the heels of ‘compromised drug quality standard’, such malpractices come as a double whammy for patients. But, the saga continues. In my article, titled ‘Healthcare in India And Hierarchy of Needs’, published in this blog on November 06, 2017, I mentioned about the October 31, 2017 public notice of the State Attorney General (AG) of Connecticut. The notice cited several instances of alleged drug price fixing in the United States. Interestingly, this lawsuit includes name of several large Indian companies, such as Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Emcure, Glenmark, Sun Pharma, and Zydus Pharma. The expanded complaint also names two individual defendants, one among them is the promoter, the chief executive officer and managing director of a large Indian pharma manufacturer.

Further, as I wrote before, the Maharashtra government’s recent announcement on enactment of a new law called the “Cut practices in Medical Services Act, 2017”, casts a darker shadow, not just on the doctors’ reputation, but also over the health care industry, in general, including pharma.

Today’s patients are more informed:

In today’s world, wider access to the Internet for a large number of global population has a profound implication in every sphere of life. News, discussions, opinions, comments and a plethora of other information on various industries, including pharma, are available from different credible websites, just as anything else.

Additionally, the social media, collectively, have made exchanges and interpretations of such information within various groups and communities, as fast as these could be. Just as many other different things, wrongdoings or malpractices, if any, of various industries, also get quickly captured and shared by the Netizen with ease and élan. These include incidences of ‘cutting corners’ by constituents of the pharma industry too.

Conclusion:

The Public Relationship campaigns of pharma lobby groups, with a hope to bridging the industry’s ‘trust deficit’, have been reported from the United States and other countries. However, any such campaign for the pharma industry in India hasn’t arrested my attention, as yet.

It’s beyond any reasonable doubt or debate that the pharma industry, in general, has saved and is still instrumental in saving more lives, in every nook and corner of the world. Ironically, the same industry, for its own deeds prompted mostly by the self-serving needs, has been suffering a massive collateral damage.

The industry’s long unblemished image and reputation have been severely tarnished, requiring rejuvenation with an inclusive approach. This may call for a mindset, at least, nearer to the same of George W. Merck – the legendary President and Chairman Merck & Co., Inc. He articulated a vision – “Medicine Is For The Patient, Not For The Profits”, and practiced it religiously. In today’s context, this may sound rather utopian in letters, but surely not in its spirit… be that as it may….

Pharma lobby groups hope to reverse the current trend by focusing only on R&D spending, drug innovation and strictest patent protection and data exclusivity ecosystem is apparently a non-starter. That ongoing multi-million-dollar pharma image revamp campaigns haven’t yet captured any tangible positive outcomes – not even in the United States, is possibly a testimony to this fact.

The status quo is expected to continue. More so, when ‘reasonable pricing’ of drugs is one of the top most demands of patients, patient groups and even many governments – and that’s exactly where the buck stops in pharma business.

In my view, pharma reputation restoration process isn’t merely a one-sided communication issue, as it appears today. A strategic blue print of this critical industry need, deserves to be drawn on a much broader canvass with a patient-serving mindset, instead of just a self-serving one. Otherwise, with incidences of ‘cutting corners’ going North, pharma reputation will keep diving South… till it finds its very bottom.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Pharma ‘To Endeavor More To Be What It Desires To Appear’

Posted on August 21, 2017 by Tapan Ray

Reputation is one of the most fundamental requirements for long-term sustainability of any business, without facing too much of avoidable distraction, or even a tough headwind from any hostile business environment. This fact is, of course, no-brainer. We all know it, yet continue faltering – often not so very infrequently.

Before proceeding further, let me recapitulate, how has the Oxford Dictionary defined reputation? It says, reputation is ‘the beliefs or opinions that are generally held about someone or something.’ Or in other words, it is ‘a widespread belief that someone or something has a particular characteristic.’

The subsequent logical question then arises – how to gain reputation? Again, this was very aptly captured long ago by none other than Socrates, when he said: ‘The way to gain a good reputation is to endeavor to be what you desire to appear.’

Taking a leaf from this quote, in today’s article, I shall focus on whether pharma is making enough endeavor to be what it desires to appear in the eyes of its stakeholders, and the public at large. If not, what are the ways forward.

Not all of it is pharma’s own creation:

The host of reasons for pharma’s adverse public image, may not necessarily be its own creation. Some of these could well be lying miles away from its operational domain. For example, articles such as, what appeared on July 7, 2017 in the BMJ titled, ‘We need to end cut practice in Indian healthcare,’ doesn’t seem to be much related to pharma’s direct business operations. But in many respects, the subsequent unprecedented announcement of the Maharashtra government on enacting a new law called the “Cut practices in Medical Services Act, 2017”, casts a darker shadow, not just on the doctors’ reputation, but also covers the health care industry, in general, including pharma.

Nevertheless, a commonly perceived nexus between the doctors and pharma companies, or for that matter alleged malpractices in many hospitals, also prompts a rub-off adverse perception – indirect though, on pharma’s overall reputation. Such barriers also need to be carefully navigated through.

While moving towards this direction, effective management of consumer perception is also of critical importance. For, reputation is a complex blend of both reality and perception, where perception is believed to contribute around 66 percent, and reality – about 33 percent, in various organizational efforts to gain business reputation.

Changing from a dogmatic to pragmatic approach:

The above area of adverse perceptual impact causing further dents in pharma’s reputation, is understandable, as these are beyond its control, as such. Nonetheless, what is difficult to fathom, why does pharma continue to remain so dogmatic in recreating a make-believe image, that continuously gets negated by its own actions on the ground.

To illustrate this point when I briefly look back, one of the critical themes around which, especially the research-based global drug industry has been trying to gain reputation, over a long period of time, is woven around – ‘innovation’. Concerned pharma players keep trying to gain consumers’ trust and reputation by trying to make them believe that pharma is one of the most innovative industries in the world, thus possibly trustworthy.

The same tradition continues even today. Millions of dollars are being spent through various communication and advocacy campaigns, hoping to drive home this point. Nonetheless, the current reality is that the pharma consumers hardly believe that the industry is particularly innovative today. I discussed that point in my article of July 26, 2017, appeared in this blog.

Therefore, I shall not dwell on that area again. Instead, let me try to arrive at, how is this dogmatic approach going way off the mark from consumers’ expectations, repeatedly. More importantly, why it calls for a rather pragmatic approach from pharma to gain reputation, taking well into consideration – what the patients’ or patient groups’ expectations are from the industry, based on meticulous research findings.

Patients’ recent perception on pharma reputation:

A recent report by ‘PatientView’ – a leading specialist in understanding the patient movement, and its impact on health care, captured perceptions of patient groups on the pharma industry, in this area. The report is titled, ‘Corporate Reputation of Pharma in 2016 – The Patient Perspective.’ The phrase ‘corporate reputation’, as defined in the study, is the extent to which pharma companies are meeting the expectations of patients and patient groups, and was assessed by the following three types of measures:

How pharma’s corporate reputation compares with that of seven other healthcare-industry sectors.
How pharma’s corporate reputation has changed over the past five years.
How good or bad the pharma industry is at various activities.

The results of this study are based on a survey conducted between November 2016 to early-February 2017 on 1,463 patient groups; 46+ specialties in 105 countries. 47 pharma companies were assessed on seven indicators of corporate reputation, as follows:

Patient centricity
Patient information
Patient safety
Useful products
Transparency
Integrity
Effectiveness of patient-group relationships

47 companies surveyed include names, such as AbbVie, Allergan, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Hospira, Janssen, Merck & Co, Merck KgaA, Mylan, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Takeda, Teva, UCB and Valeant.

Some of the key findings of this survey are as follows:

In 2016, just 37.9 percent of respondent patient group thought that the pharma industry had an “Excellent” or “Good” corporate reputation. Whereas 44.7 percent of patient groups had said the same in 2015.

In 2016, only 23 percent of patient groups thought that pharma’s corporate reputation had improved over the previous five years. Whereas 28 percent of patient groups had said the same in 2015.

In 2016 (as in 2015), pharma continued to be ranked 5th out of eight healthcare sectors (ahead only of generics, for-profit, and not-for-profit health insurers).

Patient groups thought that pharma’s ability to conduct activities of importance to them declined in 2016. Patient groups were more sceptical in 2016 even about pharma’s ability to innovate, which is an important patient-group measure of confidence in the industry.

Regarding the quality of pharma’s innovation across several geographic areas: patient groups in New Zealand expressed the least confidence in pharma’s ability to innovate; and those in Greece, the most.

What should pharma do?

Keeping the above findings in perspective, the consequent question that arises in this area is, what should pharma do to improve its patient centricity, and thereby to gain trust and reputation?

It is interesting to note that pharma companies should ‘consider the cost of drugs’, has featured as one of the top three, in the 14-point plan proposed by the 460+ patient groups in the above study, as follows:

Partner with patient groups
Provide more or better patient services
Consider the cost of drugs
Try to understand patients
Develop better medicines
Be transparent
Involve patient groups in the design
Look at continuity of care
Listen to patients
Help patients in a holistic way
Increase participation in clinical trials
Offer training
Concentrate on safety
Tailor services to individual patients

Conclusion:

Thus, the bottom line is, among various stakeholders, patients and patient groups, play a critical role in pharma to gain reputation. Winning their trust is widely considered as the substratum to get this process rolling, effectively. In that sense, pharma players individually, and the pharma industry collectively, need to have innovative, and game changing strategic plans to win the patients’ trust, for a long-term gain in reputation.

Repeatedly trying to communicate that life-changing medicines exist, because of pharma’s years of efforts in painstaking research and development that are hugely expensive and time-intensive, doesn’t seem to be working much, any longer. Patients are increasingly expecting improved access to drugs for various treatments, coupled with related value added services, from the drug players.

In such a scenario, many top drug companies, on the other hand, publicly express: ‘we are patient-centric’. This creates a logjam, as it were, to take pharma’s ‘patient centric’ endeavors from this point to where the patients’ expectations really are. Thus, I reckon, it’s time for pharma to deeply introspect and act on what Socrates had advised a long time ago, ‘‘The way to gain a good reputation is to endeavor to be what you desire to appear.’

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: image

2020: Learnings From A Yearlong Catastrophic Disruption And Crystal-Gazing 2021

Pharma Not To Let Go This Never Before Opportunity To Reposition Itself

Pharma’s ‘Value Delivery System’ Still Tuned To A Self-serving Mode?

‘Unbossing’ Pharma Culture For Millennials – A Sine Qua Non For Future Growth

The Importance of Managing ‘Perception’ in Pharma

Pharma ‘To Endeavor More To Be What It Desires To Appear’