<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" 
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
    xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd">
	<channel>
<title>World of DTC Marketing RSS</title><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/index.html</link><description>Latest Posts</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><dc:rights>Copyright 2006 Richard Meyer</dc:rights><dc:date>2006-12-30T07:48:11-08:00</dc:date><admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://www.realmacsoftware.com/" />
<admin:errorReportsTo rdf:resource="mailto:rmeyer52@mac.com" /><sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
<sy:updateBase>2000-01-01T12:00+00:00</sy:updateBase>
<lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Dec 2006 12:52:13 -0800</lastBuildDate><item><title>DTC Perspectives Excellence Awards: Let&#x27;s pat ourselves on the back again</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>Pharma Business</category><dc:date>2006-12-30T07:48:11-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/ae615293e5e82f085eb73baff6e65e78-82.html#unique-entry-id-82</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/ae615293e5e82f085eb73baff6e65e78-82.html#unique-entry-id-82</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Trade magazines can be found in every industry and some, just some, actually can be a source of great information for marketers.  DTC Perspective is not one of those magazines.  While thumbing through the latest issue they had a report on the awards that they sponsor and everyone, I mean everyone, seemed to win either a gold, silver or bronze award.  This is called good public relations so that DTC marketers sign up for future seminars held by DTC Perspectives.

Let's look at DTC Company of the year..Sepracor for their Lunesta campaign.  According to website hits (see below) Lunesta is far behind market leader Ambien and only slightly above the disastrous Rozarem.  Correct me if I am wrong but the whole purpose of a DTC campaign is to gain market share?  The Silver winner was Botox Cosmetics..I am not even going to go into why they should not be considered for DTC awards.  Ambien CR is leaving Lunesta in the dust in website hits and Rozarem doesn't

even register !

For sales over $5 billion the award went to GSK for their work on Boniva, Levitra and Avodart.  This to me makes sense.  The spots for Boniva with Sally Field are great and communicate the unique point of difference (once a month vs every week).  Levitra's campaign with the causes of ED may have hit a niche in the market.  But the Bronze award went to Amgen ?  This alone should tell you just how bad these award choices were.

These awards make marketers feel good about themselves.  They can go back to their managers and say "look, we won!"  However the problem is that management is starting to dive deeper and deeper into the marketing dollars spent on DTC.  Want $40 million for a new campaign?  Tell me what it's going to do for share and how we are going to measure it?

It's a shame that some marketers actually believe this hype and self promotion.  This author was part of the DTC team of they year a while back for Cialis and I can tell you that the award and $1.50 would get me a New York subway token.

There is a lot that is wrong with DTC today and pharma companies are not willing to fix it.  Less than 1% of media, for example, is allocated to the Internet at a time when premiere marketers like P&G are allocating more dollars to the Web and moving away from TV.  When I receive an issue of DTC Perspective I think next time it will just go into the round file where it belongs with all the other promotional materials.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>What was it like to work at Lilly?</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>Pharma Business</category><dc:date>2006-12-29T07:58:44-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/180813f39b43335b8cb83acaece056ed-81.html#unique-entry-id-81</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/180813f39b43335b8cb83acaece056ed-81.html#unique-entry-id-81</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[While employed at Lilly we were required to take quarterly compliance training.  During this class we were given instruction by our legal, medical and regulatory people on what we could do and, more importantly, could not do.  Each employee, including Directors, then had to take a test to ensure that they understood the course materials.  In addition there was a book of ethics that Lilly maintained called the Lilly Red Book.  Again we were required to read this book and take a test to ensure that we understood the materials.

When preparing marketing materials we were required to go through a MLR review (medical, legal and regulatory).  I can tell you first hand that this team tended to be very conservative in both DTC and DTP materials.  If it didn't say it on the label then we didn't say it to physicians or consumers, end of discussion.  I can't tell you how many times we argued with the MLR team but their word was final as they were the ones who had to sign off on all materials.  As a marketer I often shared with them insights that we had learned during consumer or physician research so they had a better understanding of why we were proposing certain tactics.  This led to a better session and after working with my MLR team I gained their trust but they continued to scrutinize every marketing message.

During my time with Lilly one thing always seemed to guide me.  The Director of Marketing Services told us in a group meeting once that we should do everything just as if a patient, or consumer, were sitting right by our side.  Lilly's slogan is "answers that matter" and in everything I observed and did we always tried to provide patients with the answers to questions on our products.  In the rare occasion when a brand team received a letter from the FDA the MLR team would immediately go into action to amend or suspend the materials in question.  Management told us, in so many words, that a letter from the FDA was unacceptable and that "it won't happen again".  (translation if it does there is going to be hell to pay)

I was proud to be a Lilly marketer and I am still very proud to list Lilly on my resume.  A company is only as good as the people it hires and retains.  Yes, there might have been some mistakes made by some people in the past but for the most part they were shown the exit.  Because of my time at Lilly I am a better marketer and while there I was able to convince some senior people that the Internet was a great channel for communicating with our audience and that the Web was about users, not about pushing information to visitors.

I read the NY Times everyday and for the most part I consider it a good newspaper.  They have had some major blunders of their own in recent time but I won't hold that against them.  I am extremely disappointed at the recent set of articles that ran in the Times on Zyprexa however.  It was old information and the Times never seemed to question the motives of the lawyer who released the information.  That's ashamed because there are a hell of a lot of good people at Lilly who deserve better and who are trying to make a difference in patients lives..and that is what it is all about.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Annals of Internal Medicine: Off-Label use is common among practicing physicians</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>Pharma Business</category><dc:date>2006-12-28T06:27:56-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/fb436a8dfbe31e045538ac8ad96adec9-80.html#unique-entry-id-80</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/fb436a8dfbe31e045538ac8ad96adec9-80.html#unique-entry-id-80</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[According to an article in August of 2006, the Annals of Internal Medicine stated the following:

Off-label use is the common practice of prescribing a drug for an indication other than those approved by the FDA.  The physician rationale for prescribing off-label is often based on the lack of FDA-approved effective treatments, reports of clinical effectiveness for the off-label use, or both.  A recent study confirms that off-label prescribing continues in earnest, with 21% of drugs listed in a data set being prescribed for off-label uses, most with little scientific evidence of efficacy.  Although the responsibility for seeking FDA approval for adding new uses to the product label resides solely with the manufacturer, companies are reluctant to invest the resources necessary to develop the evidence required for FDA review, particularly when the off-label uses are already profitable.  In addition another article in the Archives of Internal Medicine in May of this year found:  Off-label medication use is common in outpatient care, and most occurs without scientific support

So what does this mean?  It means that physicians are doing what they feel is in the best interests of their patients.  They don't have a lot of confidence in the FDA or pharmaceutical representatives to give them the information they need to make decisions based upon what is best for patients.  Pharma companies, for the most part, do not promote off label use of their products and anyone who engages in such behavior is subject to immediate termination.  It also means that once again a reporter did not present a balanced news story that was researched in depth.

Next time I read a story like this I am going to check my drivers license to ensure that I was not born yesterday...]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>The first shots are fired in the cholesterol war</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>Current DTC</category><dc:date>2006-12-27T17:40:22-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/ef99022ff17a9ce669ab5400409aabf9-79.html#unique-entry-id-79</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/ef99022ff17a9ce669ab5400409aabf9-79.html#unique-entry-id-79</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Merck and Schering-Plough are promoting the head to head clinical studies on their health care professional and consumer websites as well.  The key question is will it be enough for patients to ask their physician or will Vytorin become a second line statin for people whose high cholesterol doesn't respond to treatment with Lipitor?  I believe that this battle is going to be fought in the doctors office not with patients.  Pfizer has done a great job in promoting Lipitor with physicians.  Pfizer is promoting clinical studies that show that Lipitor may reduce the risk of major CV events by almost half.  In addition Pfizer is firing back with three key points; lower LDL reductions, outcomes such as stroke reduction of 48% and nonfatal MI reduction of 45%, safety and experience and finally health care access "available for 94% of patients with managed care coverage.

Will these work?  Hard to tell, Pfizer tried some of these tactics when Viagra faced competition from Cialis and Levitra and they didn't work that well but the ED market is mostly a patient/consumer driven market.  Pfizer does a great job of bundling their products to managed care plans and that might give them a slight edge but the real question is will patients ask to be switched and will physicians switch patients?  My guess is that patients currently taking Lipitor and responding to treatment will not ask to to switch to Vytorin.  Why should they?  Either way it will be interesting to see this battle unfold in the multi-billion dollar cholesterol war.  Pfizer I am sure will not allow this attack to go unchallenged.  A key message to HCP's on Lipitor

As you can see Pfizer is hitting back to Vytorin's challenge with this message on the Lipitor HCP site.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Get BC Facts.com shows how to educate and inform patients</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>Internet</category><dc:date>2006-12-27T08:32:20-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/d70ce09fdcebc442434feea51242b83b-78.html#unique-entry-id-78</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/d70ce09fdcebc442434feea51242b83b-78.html#unique-entry-id-78</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[What I really like about the getbcfacts.com website is the way the information is presented to visitors.  The site navigation is very easy and is intuitive which frankly you don't see that much in pharma websites.  Visitors can get information on a wide variety of subjects from diagnosis to treatment options.  There is even some information on clinical trials for people that maybe interested in working with a physician to test new pharmaceutical products.

Where I think the site really excels is the customization or personalization feature within the site.  Users are guided by a video to enter information about themselves and then they are presented with information relevant to their profile (obviously the folks at Astra Zenca get it).  We need more of these type of websites to educate and inform a public hungry to research health issues on the Internet.  The only issue I had with this site is that I was served the ad while surfing the Internet and I am sure that I am not in their target audience.  They maybe able to do a better job of targeting these ads online.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Product.com: DTC or Information?</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>DTC Environment</category><dc:date>2006-12-26T09:46:21-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/1fcadffb22fdaa3df469a6ada471d11f-77.html#unique-entry-id-77</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/1fcadffb22fdaa3df469a6ada471d11f-77.html#unique-entry-id-77</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[It's actually becoming more common place to include product trial offers and or rebates for new product Rx's.  But are these offers considered DTC advertising and could they persuade people to ask for specific brands?  These are issues that the FDA is going to have to address but product websites do serve a purpose.  They educate and inform a public that is hungry for information.  Pre and Post click studies show that people tend to visit a variety of sites when looking at treatment options.  Coupons may or may not work with some people but since people who use the Internet for health information tend to be better educated and have higher incomes my belief is that people will select a product based upon what they believe to best and what their physician recommends.

What will be interesting will be the FDA's approach to search engine marketing and online advertising.  Brands can purchase "keywords" from search engines like Google and MSN thus assuring that their site will rank higher in above the line searches based on these keywords.  The current guidelines for search engine marketing and pharmaceutical products is very lose to say the least.  We can't, for example, have a disease condition and brand within the same sentence without fair balance yet there are many keywords and pharma companies that don't adhere to this policy.  Online advertising is also an issue that will need to be addressed by the FDA.  There are a number of different models for online advertising from behavioral to demographic targeting.  Most online pharma ads do contain fair balance but some of these fair balance statements are hidden within Rich media ads or have to be clicked on to become visible.

DDMAC is already understaffed for the scope of their current work.  If the FDA is going to address DTC it is going to need a lot of help, especially for issuing DTC guidelines on the Internet.  It will be interesting to see how the FDA's new leadership addresses these issues but one thing is for sure, they can't continue to operate in the same manner when DTC marketing is increasing year after year.  Consumer generated media is evolving as the Internet evolves and it won't be long before pharma marketers come to understand that CGM can be a powerful channel for reaching consumers and patients.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Why DTC marketing is important</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>DTC Environment</category><dc:date>2006-12-23T07:50:50-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/a0dff8071e666e0cc3f8b85f7599a2ba-76.html#unique-entry-id-76</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/a0dff8071e666e0cc3f8b85f7599a2ba-76.html#unique-entry-id-76</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[I love the challenge of DTC marketing in an era when more and more boomers are reaching ages when they are going to require more Rx's to help them maintain a better quality of life.  Even when I was marketing Cialis I believe, as I still do, that it's the best treatment for ED on the market.  Although lifestyle drugs have gotten somewhat a bad rap in the press they play a role in bringing people closer together.  I remember ,during some qualitative research with women (partners of ED suffers), how one person in particular made me realize the importance of what we do.  Her husband had ED due to diabetes and they had not had intimate relations for over a year.  After dealing with some internal issues (i.e. "it's my fault") she finally talked him into going to see their doctor and ask for Viagra.  She planned a special weekend away and rented a cabin in the woods and had arranged for relatives to take care of their children.  When her husband came back from the doctor he came back empty handed because he was too embarrassed to ask their physician for an Rx for Viagra.  When she told this story there was pain in her voice and you could clearly see that the lack of intimacy was having an effect on her and their marriage.  That is when I learned that ED is not just a mans condition but a couples condition and I wanted to do as much as possible to reach these people to try and communicate this along with steps they could take to address this issue together.

DTC marketing at its best can provide answers to both the physical and emotional aspects of health problems.  At its worst it can be intrusive and overly promotional but I believe that most DTC marketers can find that balance.  DTC marketers have to believe in what they do and what they are selling.  You can't take someone who used to work for Coke and put them in a DTC marketing position and expect them to excel, at least that is what I believe.  When you ask yourself "what am I selling?"  the answer should always be "hope and health".  We're not selling purple pills or blue tablets..we're selling a better quality of life and that is what America's pharmaceutical companies need to communicate to the public.

There will be no doubt that changes are in store for DTC as we approach another year.  We have a new head of the FDA who must take an agency under siege and prioritize issues facing the public with a newly elected skeptical Congress and House.  Vioxx litigation continues in the news and the recent series of story on Lilly's Zyprexa are all sure to keep the media spotlight on the pharmaceutical industry.  Maybe I am an idealist but I will continue to believe that DTC marketing is an essential strategy for reaching consumers.  I will continue to develop DTC programs that provides answers and as I develop and implement these program I will do so just as if my patients were looking over my shoulder because in the end it's all about them not us..]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Responding to an attack in the Times: What I would do if I were Lilly</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>Pharma Business</category><dc:date>2006-12-21T08:14:20-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/7874dca6d41e7292360d94e1a0d59c1e-75.html#unique-entry-id-75</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/7874dca6d41e7292360d94e1a0d59c1e-75.html#unique-entry-id-75</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Here is an action plan that I would put in place if I were in Lilly's shoes:

1.  Invite the reporter who wrote these articles, along with his editor, to Indianapolis for a meeting.  At this meeting I would address each "allegation" one-on-one with open honest responses.  For example, Lilly might to point out that some people from the Zyprexa team were terminated for actions that Lilly felt "were not keeping in traditions with our compliance policy".

2.  I would then invite the reporter to one of Lilly's compliance training programs which are held quarterly.

3.  I would then ask the reporter to interview some family members of patients who are currently on Zyprexa so that they can asses the impact this medication has had on a patients quality of life.

4.  Finally; I would let the reporter meet with current members of the Zyprexa team and interview them one on one if necessary.

Are these risky?  Yes they might be but in this age of media spotlights and 24/7 information Lilly can't afford to hide behind statements like "no comment" and "we don't comment on pending litigation".  That went out the door when the attorney in Alaska released this confidential information.  Unless America's pharmaceutical companies take the offensive once in a while they are going to continue to get kicked around like an old shoe.  Time for the industry to speak up and talk about all the positive things we do.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Will DTC spending overtake DTP spending?</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>The future of DTC</category><dc:date>2006-12-19T07:19:08-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/e897832d183202dd5cd7015ee6829248-74.html#unique-entry-id-74</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/e897832d183202dd5cd7015ee6829248-74.html#unique-entry-id-74</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[I believe that some drugs may launch with huge DTC budgets of $100 million or more but that will be an exception rather than a standard.  There is just too much inefficiency in mass media to justify those types of budgets.  TV costs are increasing at a time when marketers are questioning its effectiveness in driving brand objectives.  Just look what happened in the ED wars.  There was a time when Cialis, Levitra and Viagra commercials were all over TV, now they are far and few between.  Other brands like Enbrel, and their horrible DTC spot with lethal side effects, don't have the dollars to sustain a heavy DTC media plan.

Why is this happening?  Because in the phrama matrix business environment every dollar that you want has to be justified with an ROI model.  It's getting tougher for marketers to justify huge budgets when share stays flat or only rises a couple of points.  In addition there is ongoing research that shows that patients still rely on their physicians recommendations for medications.  I think that we will also see a shift in media spending to more efficient channels like the Internet.  The Web can reach more people at a better cost effective model and it's easy to measure the impact of the dollars spent.

DTP spending growth will level out in the near future for several reasons.  First, pharmaceutical companies are reducing the size of their sales force.  They have come to realize that they can't have 3 reps calling on the same doctor.  Physicians are also too busy to see sales reps these days.  The average time with a pharmaceutical sales rep continues to decline and more and more physicians are using eCME or eDetailing to get information on new pharmaceutical products.  Finally the pharma industry is going to have to think about the reps that they recruit.  Most are right out of college and go through training that teaches them the best way to "pitch" the product.  If a HCP wants to talk to someone in depth about the compound he or she usually has to find a medical liaison person who more often than not does not have the information the HCP wants.

DTC advertising will continue to play an important role in the brand mix but marketers are going to have to learn to do more with less.  Today's time pressed consumers just don't have the time to sit through your message anymore and it's going to get harder to cut through the clutter with relevant messages.  Still there are some marketers that will continue to think in "old school" marketing and request a huge media budget to launch new products but when the numbers roll in share had better be tied to the dollars that were spent.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>NY Times Continues it&#x27;s attack on Lilly with dated information</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>Pharma Business</category><dc:date>2006-12-18T17:21:07-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/c4bbe86d09031eee4d3c2fdc00193f1d-73.html#unique-entry-id-73</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/c4bbe86d09031eee4d3c2fdc00193f1d-73.html#unique-entry-id-73</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[I really don't understand how a national newspaper as respected as the NY Times could be so one-sided in reporting a story.  The information that they are reporting was again given to them by a attorney in Alaska who is no doubt trying to cash in by forcing Lilly into a settlement.  Lilly already settled most of the lawsuits with a $700 million payment but there are still some lawyers who want their big payday from the pharmaceutical company based in Indiana.  What these legal people don't understand is that Zyprexa may have helped millions of mentally ill people lead better lives.  It may have eased the burden on society for some people that otherwise might have to be institutionalized.  These so called legal people reach out to patients but it is they who will reap the majority of the rewards not patients.

If the reporting in the Times is accurate than in fact several people did use extremely bad judgement in the marketing of the product.  A lot of the Zyprexa team people were shown the door and Lilly cleaned house in the brand team a while back.  I don't know where theses marketers wound up but I can assure you being fired from a pharmaceutical company is not something you want on your resume.

There are always two sides to every story and instead of the Times sitting down with Lilly with the documents they had in their possession the Times chose to run this story on the front page.  So much for balanced reporting.  They did contact Lilly and asked them to "comment" but what's the use when you know the outcome is going to be negative.  I have a relative who is on Zyprexa and he is doing very well and working full time because of this medication.  That is a blessing to family members because the stress of caring for him has affected their well being as well.  He has not gained weight and has not had issues with his A1C but you won't hear about that you'll only hear about the people who gained weight and may have become diabetic as a result.

The media reporting in this country has really gone down hill.  They seek headlines rather than fact....they don't research stories and the news is more about sensationalism than facts.  That's a shame because as a former Lilly employee I was always were told to put patients first and I observed this in the development of a lot of our marketing materials.  Like one Director of Lilly taught me "always work like patients are looking over your shoulder".  There are a lot of good people at Eli Lilly and they deserve a better more balanced story than the one running in the Times.  It's a shame that one of the best newspapers in the world has had to stoop this type of journalism but then again it's about selling papers isn't it?]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Zyprexa Story in today&#x27;s NY Times: Good reporting or well placed leak?</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>Pharma Business</category><dc:date>2006-12-17T07:37:07-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/02ee83b9fb4bedf40b3693612b584af8-72.html#unique-entry-id-72</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/02ee83b9fb4bedf40b3693612b584af8-72.html#unique-entry-id-72</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[According to the article in todays Times; The documents, given to The Times by a lawyer representing mentally ill patients, show that Lilly executives kept important information from doctors about Zyprexa&rsquo;s links to obesity and its tendency to raise blood sugar &mdash; both known risk factors for diabetes.  Lilly&rsquo;s own published data, which it told its sales representatives to play down in conversations with doctors, has shown that 30 percent of patients taking Zyprexa gain 22 pounds or more after a year on the drug, and some patients have reported gaining 100 pounds or more.  But Lilly was concerned that Zyprexa&rsquo;s sales would be hurt if the company was more forthright about the fact that the drug might cause unmanageable weight gain or diabetes, according to the documents, which cover the period 1995 to 2004.  But as early as 1999, the documents show that Lilly worried that side effects from Zyprexa, whose chemical name is olanzapine, would hurt sales.  &ldquo;Olanzapine-associated weight gain and possible hyperglycemia is a major threat to the long-term success of this critically important molecule,&rdquo; Dr. Alan Breier wrote in a November 1999 e-mail message to two-dozen Lilly employees that announced the formation of an &ldquo;executive steering committee for olanzapine-associated weight changes and hyperglycemia.&rdquo;  Hyperglycemia is high blood sugar.  A couple of things about this story seem fishy to me.  First, The Zyprexa documents were provided to the Times by James B.  Gottstein, a lawyer who represents mentally ill patients and has sued the state of Alaska over its efforts to force patients to take psychiatric medicines against their will.  Mr. Gottstein said the information in the documents raised public health issues.  Second, the release of these documents maybe illegal given the pending litigation of continued Zyprexa lawsuits.  This, to me, seems like a well placed story by a savvy attorney who wants to pressure Lilly into a settlement that will, in all likelihood, support a win and of course monetary collection of fees.  As I see it there are a couple of issues here:

1.  Did Lilly try and hide Zyprexa's side effects (weight gain) from health care professionals because they didn't want to hurt sales ?

2.  Are health care professionals responsible to monitor patients for possible side effects when they start them on new medications?

This author worked for lilly for almost 5 years and during that time, as an employee, I was required to attend quarterly compliance training to ensure that I was aware of marketing compliance guidelines for both health care professionals and patients.  I believe that these documents are being taken out of context.  Zyprexa may have helped thousands of mentally ill patients lead better lives and be more productive to society.  In addition isn't it the obligation of a prescribing physician to monitor patients while they are on prescription medications?  The biggest pharmaceutical product in the world, Lipitor, for example requires that physicians monitor patients while on the medication to ensure that liver damage does not occur.

If anything maybe Lilly should have included a stronger warning to health care professionals about the weight gain issue and to monitor patients weight while on the compound.  I just don't believe that in an age where every marketing message is archived that Lilly would have tried to hide anything or risk patients health for sales dollars.

Of course decisions like these are made ordinary business and medical people and sometimes they can chose the wrong path despite the efforts to keep patients best interests at heart.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>GAO Report: DTC getting off easy</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>DTC Environment</category><dc:date>2006-12-14T05:42:15-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/9fdb2369a72bf284999951f6b713baca-71.html#unique-entry-id-71</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/9fdb2369a72bf284999951f6b713baca-71.html#unique-entry-id-71</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[From 2002 through 2005, it took the Food and Drug Administration four months on average to draft, approve and send warning letters and other correspondence to companies that were in violation of the rules, government auditors said.  Between 1997 and 2001, before FDA lawyers began reviewing the letters as a matter of policy, it took two weeks on average to issue the letters.  The number of letters fell off by about half between the two time periods.

The Government Accountability Office also said the FDA lacks an effective way to screen, review and track the more than 10,000 ads and Web sites brought to the agency's attention each year.  The amount has doubled in four years.

The Health and Human Services Department, the FDA's parent agency, acknowledges that the FDA's six reviewers can't scrutinize everything so they focus on those ads with the greatest potential to affect public health.  The department said the lengthy legal reviews give the FDA more teeth because the letters that are sent rest on a more solid legal foundation.  "As a result, companies take our letters more seriously and quickly react to the problems identified therein," the department said in written comments to the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress.

Will this lead to more reviewers?  Probably not but you can be sure that when Democrats take control of both houses that this report will be used against the FDA.  The new head of the FDA is sure to be called in front of Congress to explain the the FDA's lack of oversight of DTC ads and websites.  Changes are in store but for now the direction and scope of those changes are anybody's guess.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Lilly&#x27;s Strategy : The long tail?</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>Pharma Business</category><dc:date>2006-12-13T06:25:10-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/76411c1566eba49ac93c3030034feefc-70.html#unique-entry-id-70</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/76411c1566eba49ac93c3030034feefc-70.html#unique-entry-id-70</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Cymbalta has had a tough time achieving the blockbuster sales status of Prozac.  It seems, in order to cut costs, research is being circulated that shows that Cymbalta may not be any better at treating depression than of Fluoxetine ( generic Prozac) which is a lot less expensive.  Zyprexa is also under attack with similar research studies and it's feasible to think this trend will continue as insurers look to cut the costs of prescription drugs.  When I was prescribes Celebrex, for example, for my shoulder my health provider sent me a letter stating that OTV Ibuprofen was just as effective as Celebrex and a lot less expensive.

The new drugs in Lilly's pipeline do look promising but as Pfizer learned the hard way there is always some risk in the development of new drugs.  One of the new drugs in development at Lilly is Prasugrel, a blood thinner which Lilly hopes can rival popular Plavix.  This product does have risks and let's hope that Lilly is not too dependent on the success of Prasugre.  According to today's WSJ:

The drug appears to create a greater risk than Plavix of causing bleeding in patients, a potential side effect since blood thinners inhibit clotting.  The drug faces greater scrutiny and a tougher environment for clinical trials in light of recent disappointments from Nuvelo and Bayer AG, whose jointly developed blood thinner failed to meet targets in late-stage tests, and Pfizer's decision to stop developing the good-cholesterol drug torcetrapib.  Lilly also will have to split prasugrel profits with Japanese partner Daiichi Sankyo, making the drug even "less of a long-term earnings driver for Lilly.

The analysis of the Lilly in today's WSJ is good but it's not a thorough analysis which is what I have come to expect from newspapers.  In addition to the drugs in the pipeline you also need to take a look at the people who will market these products.  Lilly has never been known as a marketing powerhouse and they are going to need marketers with a lot of skill to market products in this era of increases scrutiny and consumer power.  One thing is for sure there is a lot of uncertainty at Lilly and in the whole pharmaceutical industry.  Lilly will survive and may even prosper but they may have hit a ceiling in overall sales growth.  For a while they may just be a $10-$12 billion profitable pharma company with a diversified portfolio and that is fine in the new economy where blockbusters may be few and far between.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Gardasil launches DTC with little fanfare</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>Current DTC</category><dc:date>2006-12-12T06:17:20-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/15e6d2566a9493770f8bcabea7d0e11e-69.html#unique-entry-id-69</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/15e6d2566a9493770f8bcabea7d0e11e-69.html#unique-entry-id-69</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Recent research suggests that for some pharma products DTC does drive new Rx's but for others it raises awareness so that patients ask their physicians about treatment options.  Merck has the only vaccine on the market to protect women from cervical cancer but in order to ensure that women take advantage of this new treatment they need to do more.  The one less campaign is a great start but how about showing some statistics on how many women are diagnosed and die from cervical cancer as well?  All too often when we talk about this deadly disease with the thought that "it could never happen to me".  A vaccine that can protect women is truly a breakthrough and Merck should be using every DTC channel available to reach women in their target audience.

I hope that this drug does become a blockbuster because that should mean a substantial decline in the number of women who are diagnosed and die from cervical cancer.  This is a great first step in a product that can prevent this deadly disease but if I were Merck I would be using every method I could to reach consumers to truly tell them they could be "one less" and that the power of prevention is in their hands.  Isn't that what DTC is all about?]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>A tail of sex&#x2c; gifts&#x2c; and culture clashes leads to another fallen star</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>The agency side</category><dc:date>2006-12-10T07:42:12-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/4ce14da3bee3bb25653189d22f72766f-68.html#unique-entry-id-68</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/4ce14da3bee3bb25653189d22f72766f-68.html#unique-entry-id-68</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Julie Roehm was hired by Wal*Mart with a lot of fanfare from the press.  She was the marketing executive who was responsible for such racy ads as the "lingerie bowl".  She is the type of person who covets the spotlight and wants to be in charge of everything.  It was surprising therefor for Wal*Mart to recruit her for a Senior VP's position.

After arriving at Wal-Mart, Ms. Roehm referred to herself as a &ldquo;change agent,&rdquo; and set about turning the company&rsquo;s annual shareholder meeting &mdash; a traditionally PowerPoint and numbers-heavy affair &mdash; into a three-hour musical.  Ms. Roehm, in an interview, said she believed that her job at Wal-Mart was to buck convention.  &ldquo;I had to assume they felt I brought the right skill set in this quest for transformation".  The meeting raised the eyebrows of several Wal*Mart executives who questioned her judgement of conducting a shareholders meeting in this fashion.

Then several weeks ago, Ms. Roehm courted controversy again when she oversaw production of a holiday TV ad, known inside the company as &ldquo;Sexy,&rdquo; that portrayed a husband and wife discussing racy lingerie in front of their extended family.  The ad drew customer complaints and was immediately taken off the air, a person involved in the matter said.  Anyone who knows Wal*Mart's positioning knows that an ad is way off base for Wal*Mart's core audience and never should have been developed.

Ms. Roehm then put Wal*Mart's $580 million advertising account up for review.  In the process of meeting with agencies she was seen riding with agency people in their Bentley's and high end BMW's.  She also accepted an invitation to one of the most expensive restaurants in New York, Nobu, in which generous portions of Kobe beef and lobster were served.  Now some people might say "so what's the big deal?"  Well this is as opposite of Wal*Mart culture as you can get.  Those of us who have called on Wal*mart, including this author, know that you are not even allowed to buy soft drinks for employees.  Taking ANY Wal*Mart person to dinner is strictly forbidden.

In addition to these mistakes by Ms Roehm there is an allegation that she had an affair with a subordinate of hers who accompanied her on the agency review trips.  Ms Roehm, who is married, denies the affair.

So what really happened here?  Well to me it's a simple case of really bad judgement as well as trying to revolutionize a culture that was resistant to change.  Change is evolutionary not revolutionary and Ms Roehm as a seasoned executive should have seen this could not see this.  A good executive has to learn about he company he, or she, works for before implementing change.  A good executive does not continually desire the spotlight in a culture where there are no stars.  Ms Roehm wanted to excel but more importantly she wanted to continue to be in control.  As one executive said "Julie is the type of person who sucks all the life out of a room.  When she enters a meeting, it's her meeting and nobody had better try and get control away from her."

There is a lot to learn here for everyone.  Talent alone is not a guarantee of success in any industry.  I am sure Ms Roehm will find a new position with some company but her star is now tarnished and it's going to be interesting to see what organization might want to take a chance on someone who is "all about me".]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Musical Chairs for ad agencies ?</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>The agency side</category><dc:date>2006-12-08T07:34:48-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/95f64d2847370d4452aa1747fba9586b-67.html#unique-entry-id-67</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/95f64d2847370d4452aa1747fba9586b-67.html#unique-entry-id-67</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Last month it was announced that Pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline had moved the professional advertising accounts for six brands to Interpublic Group of Cos.'  FCB Healthcare and Torre Lazur McCann.  WPP Group's Grey Healthcare lost the Advair account, valued at $100 million, as part of this consolidation.  In October Novartis is moved the ad account for its high-blood-pressure medication Diovan from Interpublic Group of Cos.'  Deutsch to sibling Hill, Holliday, Connors, Cosmopulos, according to multiple executives.  It's happening in the consumer products area as well.  This week Wal*Mart fired a Senior VP who lead a review for a new agency and promptly announced that they were reopening the account review of their $580 million business.  While no reason was given for the termination of the executive the ad world is abuzz with speculation.

The old model of doing business was simple for agencies; their job was to develop ad campaigns, get them approved by the client and then bill for their time.  That was then..this is now.  Marketers now want agencies who are strategic partners and can be held accountable for their recommendations and work.  Spend $100 million on a campaign and share doesn't move then someone has to answer "why?"  Agencies are in a tough position because they often do not get to implement their recommendations.  They enter the dark world of the pharmaceutical company matrix and often come out with changes to creative that are in direct conflict to what they recommended.  On the other side of the street however we also find some agencies that deliver creative that is way off the mark because they are led by a DTC team with little experience in consumer marketing (see my post on Rozarem as an example).

Some ad executives, with vision, have been calling for change for a long time but nobody wants to be the first to step forward with a new business model and admit that consumers now have lot more power.  The old business models and heavy up media plans just don't provide the same ROI's anymore.  Marketers have to justify every dollar they spend and it's getting harder to justify mega-million dollar ad budgets today when share remains flat.  Some agencies have decided to fire the first shot and fire clients (long overdue) because clients would not allow them to become strategic partners with the brand.

With all the changes on the horizon for DTC and the increased earnings pressures on pharmaceutical companies it's easy to see why every dollar and relationship is being scrutinized.  I believe that a lot more shifting of business is going to happen in the near future as more companies hold agencies accountable for their work.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Does behaviorial targeting work?</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>Internet</category><dc:date>2006-12-07T17:35:35-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/c0bb2a6eb23a06a2f39116d35ed6da0e-66.html#unique-entry-id-66</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/c0bb2a6eb23a06a2f39116d35ed6da0e-66.html#unique-entry-id-66</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Behavioral targeting (BT) is an advertising methodology in which an advertiser&rsquo;s creative is shown to users based on the sites they visit and/or what the user does on those sites.  The network or publisher creates behavioral segments based on where the user has gone and/or what they have done on various web pages.  These are typically broad based descriptions like &ldquo;Travel Shoppers&rdquo; or &ldquo;Auto Enthusiasts&rdquo;, but they can also be very specific to an advertiser like &ldquo;Users who put items in their shopping cart, but did not check out&rdquo;.  Another example is a segment based on users who have searched for an advertiser&rsquo;s company name or product name.

Ads targeted by user behavior drove 73 percent greater brand favorability and 29 percent more purchase intent when compared to ads placed in content areas, a Dynamic Logic study of a Snapple campaign on iVillage found.  It can also work for pharmaceutical products provided you have psychographics information to go along with demographics.  More important, however, than implementing BT is to quantify the results.  First you need to identify the pages on your website which are more likely to drive action (ask their physician for an Rx or download a coupon).  Once you have these pages identified then you need to metatag them with your online agency so that your web measurement software can measure the impact of the BT campaign.  The goal here is not to just get clicks to the home-page but to get customers to those pages which are more likely to drive the desired behavior.

Now, should pharma companies be worried about privacy concerns?  Not really.  Most BT is done with only aggregate date not personally identifiable data..."we know where you go and what you do on the Web but we don't know who you are".  I have noticed that more banner ads are being served up based upon where I go on the Web and frankly research has shown that consumers would rather be served ads in things they are looking for rather than just random ads.

A lot of big Fortune 500 companies understand the value of BT but like always most pharma companies do not (what else is new?).  A colleague at an online ad agency told me the story of how she finally talked a pharmaceutical company to use BT for a million dollar campaign.  When the campaign had finished running they tried to collect the data to determine the cost per qualified lead but could not because they hadn't meta-tagged the ads and didn't have a dedicated analytics person to analyze the data.  You have to like the way big pharma embraces new technology ha?]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Which road should the FDA take?</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>Pharma Business</category><dc:date>2006-12-07T06:28:50-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/8e51a96e4b39025ede720c284718d3f7-65.html#unique-entry-id-65</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/8e51a96e4b39025ede720c284718d3f7-65.html#unique-entry-id-65</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[.

Both the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the Institute of Food Technologists want the FDA to rewrite regulations to more clearly describe "novel" combinations of food and supplements, but the two groups disagree on what the agency should do or what foods should be impacted.  Barbara Peterson of the Institute for Food Technologists told the FDA that the agency's current regulatory scheme does a disservice to consumers by leaving them with less, not more, information.  The institute wants the FDA to ease the way marketers make claims about products' functions.  The institute's plan calls on companies to form independent scientific panels to verify accuracy, and after approval from those panels, marketers could then use their claims in advertising.  Ms. Peterson said such a move would "encourage public confidence and be the best use of government resources."

As a prime example of needed regulation are those annoying Enzyte commercials in cable TV for "natural male enhancement".  How many unsuspecting men have fallen for that scam?  A recent article by the Mayo Clinic sums it up best;

These come-ons are based on several stereotypes about men's insecurities.  The "male enhancement" industry assumes that every man:  &bull;  Is afraid he has a small penis  &bull;  Believes he'd be a better lover if he had a bigger penis  &bull;

Is looking for a way to safely and effectively increase his penis size Don't fall for it.  No scientific research supports the use of any nonsurgical method to enlarge the penis, and no reputable medical society endorses penis-enlargement surgery performed for purely cosmetic reasons.  Because many of these techniques can damage your penis and even cause impotence, think twice before trying any of them.

What does this all mean for the FDA?  It means that the new head of the FDA has to sit down and assign priorities for the agency.  If he needs more help then he has to step forward and ask Congress for a bigger budget including more personnel.  The key challenge is going to be ensure that the agency remains responsive to industry needs and does not become another big bloated government agency.  That is easier said than done but this is why the agency should look to private industry for help.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>A prime example of when NOT to use TV</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>Current DTC</category><dc:date>2006-12-06T05:56:23-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/4b6dcf0de5c1e0199eb5ec5d32b6e94b-64.html#unique-entry-id-64</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/4b6dcf0de5c1e0199eb5ec5d32b6e94b-64.html#unique-entry-id-64</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[According to the FDA people do pay attention to the fair balance in TV commercials.  It has been my experience, when testing DTC ads, that in fact people do pick up on some key phrases in the fair balance.  To use TV to reach this small an audience (rheumatoid arthritis) is, in my opinion, a really bad choice considering the side effects of Enbrel and other drugs within this class.  (Humira).  However it seems that Humira has chosen to more specifically target their audience with print ads rather than use mass market TV.  This is a smart choice because the folks at Abbott probably realize than any benefits of TV maybe outweighed by the fair balance.

Comparing the two websites, Enbrel.com vs. Humira.com, also provides some insight into how Amgen and Abbott communicate with patients.  The Enbrel site is in black and white, with little color, and looks like it was developed without thinking about customers or patients.  The Humira site, in contrast, is full of color images and warm colors that make people feel better about the the drug.  The fair balance is about the same on both sites but is presented a hell of a lot better on the Humira site.

When seeking treatment patients and physicians have to weigh the benefits with the risks.  That is especially true for all drugs within this class that all have very similar warnings.  However when trying to reach a small market DTC marketers can surely do a better job in targeting than to use TV.  Amgen has done some great DTC work with their "I'm ready" cancer campaign but this is a really bad use of TV and it might be one reason why Enbrel is losing share to Humira.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Is big pharma addicted to &#x22;blockbuster&#x22; drugs?</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>Pharma Business</category><dc:date>2006-12-05T06:30:19-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/55093e5686617fb2ae3674975cc88156-63.html#unique-entry-id-63</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/55093e5686617fb2ae3674975cc88156-63.html#unique-entry-id-63</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The reported from Fortune hits the nail right on the head when it comes to Pfizer and most pharmaceutical companies..over promising to keep Wall Street happy and pharmaceutical companies have become too big and bloated to be able to react to market forces with speed and a sense of urgency.  If fact when I was at Lilly and tried to take to heart Sidney Taurels book on leadership I ran into a wall of resistance.  The articles continues with;

The events at Pfizer over the last five days bring into focus two major problems the company (and many of its competitors) face: First, Pfizer has become trapped in a cycle of making big promises to investors regarding experimental drugs deeper and deeper in its pipeline.  Inevitably, it's over-promising and under-delivering.  Hoping to impress investors last Thursday, the company was more open than ever before about its pipeline of future medicines.  Pfizer executives and scientists entertained Wall Streeters with tales of its 242 research programs underway in 11 therapeutic areas like obesity, Alzheimer's, cancer, diabetes and HIV. "We have momentum, very aggressive targets and breakthrough science virtually across the board," said John LaMattina, president of Pfizer Global Research and Development.

A decade ago, unveiling one's pipeline to this degree of detail was considered suicide among Big Pharma CEOs.  But over the last decade, as companies began churning out fewer drugs, they felt compelled to reveal more of their secret projects in order to whet investors' appetites for potential growth.  The problem with showing off all the whiz-bang lab work?  Even with an annual research budget of $7.5 billion and an army of 13,000 scientists, the failure rate of experimental drug-making at Pfizer has always been incredibly high.

Pfizer's biggest problem is that it's too big.  In most other businesses, a $400 million-a-year product with 80 percent margins is a welcome addition to a company's bottom line.  But for most Big Pharma companies, medicines don't really matter unless they have the potential to be blockbusters - generating annual revenues in the range of $1 to $2 billion.  When you're a $52 billion (revenue) company like Pfizer, blockbusters are the only products that move the needle and demonstrate growth.  The need for blockbuster drugs is especially pronounced when other big sellers are losing patent protection.  By the end of 2007, Pfizer will have endured three years of patent-protection losses on major drugs including blood pressure pill, Norvasc, antibiotic Zithromax, and anti-depressant Zoloft.  That's another $14 billion in annual sales - gone.

That Pfizer has so much riding on torcetripib - a single drug whose sales could have outstripped the GDP of small countries like Iceland and Togo - underscores what ails the drug business.  Instead of buying innovative research, Pfizer and other big drug-makers need to pare down, balance their portfolios with small, medium and large-selling drugs, and find ways of replicating smaller, creative lab environments.  Until then, we're in for a lot more financial disappointments like Pfizer just experienced.

Can big pharma make Wall Street happy while delivering breakthrough health care solutions?  Is a $200 million drug that may help a few thousand people worth an investment compared to a potential blockbuster?  These are questions that big pharma CEO's are going to need to answer but more importantly they are going to need to provide the leadership to ensure that pharmaceutical companies continue to deliver products than enhance our lives while keeping MBA analysts on Wall Street happy.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>&#x24;800 million does not guarantee success</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>Pharma Business</category><dc:date>2006-12-03T07:51:23-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/41f0404f2cac453bb814f20658a7c84b-62.html#unique-entry-id-62</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/41f0404f2cac453bb814f20658a7c84b-62.html#unique-entry-id-62</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The company said an independent safety board recommended it end a clinical trial called "Illuminate" because of "an imbalance of mortality and cardiovascular events."  Pfizer immediately terminated the trial and ended the entire development program for the drug.  The product, which raises levels of "good" HDL cholesterol, was expected to be a major growth driver for Pfizer as its other top medicines begin to face generic competition in the next few years.  Over the last couple of months news began to surface that torcetrapib was causing the blood pressure of some patients to increase.  Just two days earlier, new Pfizer Chief Executive Jeffrey Kindler told hundreds of analysts at a research meeting that the drugmaker could seek approval for the medicine as early as next year if clinical data supported it.

I am sure that on Monday when the stock market opens Pfizer stock will take a major hit but what short sighted analysts don't understand is that there is a lot of risk in developing new pharmaceutical products.  Like I have said before here on this BLOG only a small percentage of drugs in clinical trials actually make it to market and when asked to explain their marketing practices to a skeptical public or to Congress Pfizer should use torcetrapib as an example of why costs continue to remain high.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>A pharma CEO talks to the Wall Street Journal about issues facing the pharma industry</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>Pharma Business</category><dc:date>2006-12-02T09:47:38-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/4d1129642b2724fb769e95dc004bd181-61.html#unique-entry-id-61</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/4d1129642b2724fb769e95dc004bd181-61.html#unique-entry-id-61</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Mr Taurell's key point, I believe, is that the pharmaceutical industry in the US should remain market driven and if it's not then there is a substantial risk of lower investment in R&D spending in the future which could move the industry away from being a world leader.  While I agree with his position the pharma industry needs to do a hell of a lot better job in communicating with the public and legislators.  During the interview the reported asked the following of Mr Taurell:

And what about the common charge that the industry spends more on advertisement than it does on R&D?  That's based on a "misunderstanding," he says.  "People equate marketing expenditures with direct-to-consumer advertising and direct-to-consumer is a very small part of the total and much, much, much smaller than R&D expenditures."  He says the industry spends about $3 billion on consumer advertising and about 10 times as much on R&D.  He adds that the marketing expenditures reflect a "very competitive marketplace."

OK..and what has the industry done to communicate this to the public?  It costs between $500 to $800 million to bring a drug to market and only a very small percentage of drugs in trials make it to market.  How many people are aware of this?  It's easy for the media to point fingers with their shallow reporting and lack of research because the media wants to sensationalize every story they can.  The recent elections were an indication that the American public is angry and wants change.  What better target to channel that anger than the pharmaceutical industry?

The truth is that the pharmaceutical industry has done a terrible job of communicating the challenges they face to consumers.  Together they could unite to develop a DTC campaign that informs and enlightens the public but unfortunately a campaign such as this would provide an impact to the bottom line.  Can you imagine if America's pharmaceutical companies all banded together to launch a $200 million advertising campaign?  That may sound like a lot of money but in fact if all companies contributed it would be just a drop in the bucket.  The payoff in public perceptions of the pharmaceutical industry could be enormous if a program is done right with messages that are tested to ensure they are effective.

The pharma industry has been a soccer ball for quite a while and all they seem to want to do is to increase funds to lobbyists.  The industry needs to come together to deliver pertinent messages to a public that is angry and skeptical.  It can be done but only if they are willing to tackle the causes rather than complain about the outcomes.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Wanted: CEO: Must be a leader and visionary</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>HCP Marketing</category><dc:date>2006-12-01T05:51:49-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/923218201ff8dcbfea6645ee18e07b19-60.html#unique-entry-id-60</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/923218201ff8dcbfea6645ee18e07b19-60.html#unique-entry-id-60</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[This week the new CEO of Pfizer announced a 20% reduction in the size of the sales force or about 2,000 people.  Pfizer is one of the few pharma companies that extensively trains there salespeople in a variety of subjects to ensure that they can communicate effectively with physicians.  Other companies however take people straight out of college and teach them to use and present messages on detail aids.  Hmmm...let's see a physician spends what 10 years in school and residency to become a doctor and pharma companies expect people, some fresh out of college, to be able to engage physicians in a meaningful way?  What's wrong with this picture?

Manhattan Research continually reports that growth in the market for electronic Continuing Medical Education(eCME) has been slow but steady over the past few years.  In fact the latest data shows that 76% of physicians have used eCME over the past 12 months, up from 73% the previous year and from 71% in 2003.  The reason for this is simple; the web allows physicians to participate in CME when THEY have the time.  I expect this trend to continue as more web savvy doctors enter practice.

The business model for doctors today is quite complicated.  They have a lot of paperwork that they have to complete for reimbursement and as one doctor told me "I have to see as many patients as possible during the day and frankly I don't have time to listen to a sales pitch from a rep just to get samples".  My father in law who has been a pharmacist for over 40 years told me that he remembers a time when pharmaceutical reps were all highly trained pharmacists, pharm-d's even physicians.  They could intelligently talk to doctors about new treatment options and even discuss the competition pros and cons.  For some reason big pharma moved away from this model (let me guess...might it have been to lower costs?)  and now more pharma companies are expected to follow Pfizer's lead and reduce the size of their sales force.

What's missing from today's pharmaceutical companies is a visionary leader.  Where is the Steve Jobs of the pharmaceutical industry?  Pharma desperately needs a leader who realizes that existing business models are broken and has the courage to implement new strategies that can be quickly adapted to meet changing business environments.  This leader knows that speed is a competitive advantage and that there will be bumps along the way but that trial and error are essential business building tools that in the long run will provide a stronger more profitable company.  The problem is will Wall Street allow a leader to emerge to tackle these issues or keep current CEO's focused on short term financial indicators to keep investors happy.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Wall Street Journal Article on Rozarem a huge miss</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>Current DTC</category><dc:date>2006-11-29T06:03:59-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/86a1feab9f8355925888d794f47d6a66-59.html#unique-entry-id-59</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/86a1feab9f8355925888d794f47d6a66-59.html#unique-entry-id-59</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[As you compare the website traffic for prescription sleep aids, Ambien CR, Lunesta, and Rozarem, you can see clearly see that Ambien CR is still clearly in first place followed by Lunesta.  The traffic to Rozarem.com is so low that it barely registers website traffic at all.

The WSJ state that to make sure its ad got attention, Takeda wanted to try something that broke from convention, says Chris Benecchi, Takeda's senior product manager for neuroscience marketing.  Most other ads for sleep medication feature prominent shots of people sleeping soundly or waking up from a restful night.  Takeda and its ad agency, Cramer-Krasselt, an independent Chicago firm, decided those spots looked too much alike."We decided collectively that taking this brand down the typical route was going to actually hurt its chances for success," says Marshall Ross, chief creative officer for Cramer-Krasselt.

Still, Takeda acknowledges that its own research shows that consumers needed to see the ad six to nine times "to fully digest" the spot and what is taking place in it.  What makes Takeda think that viewers who have a short attention span are going to sit through this spot six to nine times and think about it?  Note to Takeda: consumers are time pressed and have better things to do than to think about a TV sot !

Also according the Journal "So far, there is evidence the ad is working.  Rozerem's monthly sales have increased to $10.5 million in October from $6.31 million in July, when the ad went on the air, according to Wolters Kluwer Heal".  Ummmm..excuse me but I think that when you look at the life-cycle of most pharma products you'll see that there is a growth curve shortly after launch and that this growth is a normal part of the product life-cycle.

We'll see where Rozarem winds up 12-18 months from now but my guess is that the clear winner of the "sleep wars" is going to continue to be Ambien with Lunesta a distant second.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>The FDA: No matter where you go...there you are</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>DTC Environment</category><dc:date>2006-11-28T13:01:00-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/189252fd9913f65caeb94e6c7b8770df-58.html#unique-entry-id-58</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/189252fd9913f65caeb94e6c7b8770df-58.html#unique-entry-id-58</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[There are so many issues that the FDA has to tackle that it's difficult to know where to start.  Everything from drug importation to review of DTC ads to ongoing clinical trials of drugs are hot issues.  Cancer advocacy groups are screaming for faster approval of cancer drugs while legislators want the FDA to get more involved in drug safety before and after approval.  These are very complex issues that cross social and business barriers and there are no simple answers but one thing is for sure: The FDA is in dire need of strong (very strong) leadership right now.

The head of the FDA has to be an excellent politician and physician and have a very good understanding of the health issues facing an aging American public.  He also needs to understand the business models of America's pharmaceutical companies.  As drug costs rise pharma companies are either going to have to generate more revenue by raising prices or devote less dollars to R&D.  Make no mistake about some drugs will not make it into clinical trials because the risk gets greater as costs increase.  Pharma companies are public companies and have a responsibility to shareholders to get them a good return on their investments.  Pfizer for example recently spent over $800 million on a possible replacement for their blockbuster lipitor only to find out in late clinical trials that the medication might raise blood pressure in some patients making it prohibitive in a lot of doctors views.

What does all this mean for DTC marketers?  Well for one thing there is going to be a lot more scrutiny of ALL DTC material including those on the Internet.  I believe that the FDA might require a moratorium on some DTC advertising for drugs that have a higher incidence of side effects or are in a new class of medications.  Ongoing clinical studies is going to be required but the real challenge is going to be the enforcement of these trials and reporting the results to the FDA and patients.  A moratorium on DTC s not all that bad.  Novartis was able to make Diovan a blockbuster with sales over $1 billion and may now be getting ready to launch DTC two years plus after approval.

The problem with issuing guidelines on DTC is that for a lot of products it doesn't make sense.  If for example, a new Rx allergy medication is approved should the developer have to wait two year to start DTC when an aggressive DTC program may generate some ROI for all the development costs?  Of course these kind of questions may not come up because a lot of politicians are going to want to make names for themselves once the torch is passed in Congress and the House and that is why the FDA is going to need a strong leader who can answer the questions rather than give them answers they want to hear.

It will take time but I think the FDA could be on the right track if a someone can install the kind of direction this agency has been lacking for such a long time.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Chemocoach.com putting business interests ahead of patient needs</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>Current DTC</category><dc:date>2006-11-28T06:26:36-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/a8310a87a1a6c7ab48f428b72e95feb8-57.html#unique-entry-id-57</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/a8310a87a1a6c7ab48f428b72e95feb8-57.html#unique-entry-id-57</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[A diagnosis of cancer can be devastating for a patient and their family.  Going to the Internet to sort through all the information can be time consuming and an exercise in frustration.  The thought of being able to talk to someone one on one about what to expect and what your feeling while undergoing treatment is a good program.  Turning that program into a marketing tactic is not.  The goal here is to help patients who are in real need not to recruit people for market research and to let them know that they could be receiving marketing materials via the mail.  This is just a horrible case of taking good intentions and turning it around to satisfy the people who want an ROI on everything they do.  These type of programs are what gives pharmaceutical companies a really bad image for not being consumer focused.

The idea of giving support to someone undergoing chemotherapy is a great idea but it shouldn't have strings attached.  Trying to talk to patients about other medications when they are fighting cancer is intrusive to say the least.  The Internet would be a great channel to form a community so that people who have undergone chemotherapy can talk to people who are currently or about to undergo treatment.  Sense of community is one of the strengths of the Internet and bringing people together to talk can be a powerful tool and provide help and relief for those most in need.

Biotech companies have never been known as top DTC marketers and with programs like these it's easy to see why.  By providing a helping hand to patients in their hour of need they can provide a valuable service.  In this case they seem to want to launch programs like these for the sole purpose of satisfying people in marketing under the guise of helping patients.  That's too bad because a program such as this could have done a lot to show how Americas pharmaceutical companies are putting patients interests ahead of ROI models.

In order to get help everyone has to fill out this "opt-in" form.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Pfizer listens to patients and may get a blockbuster as a result</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>Current DTC</category><dc:date>2006-11-22T05:57:44-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/b6dcd65c578641f65ba43da6f7a3a0cb-56.html#unique-entry-id-56</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/b6dcd65c578641f65ba43da6f7a3a0cb-56.html#unique-entry-id-56</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Pfizer realized that a lot of insurance companies may not reimburse patients for Chantix and priced the medication so that everyone could afford the out of pocket expense...win number one.  Then they took the marketing to a whole new level.  On the product website patients who are taking the medication can get personalized information and even talk to a counselor one on one to get advice on how to permanently stop smoking.  This is marketing for the new consumers by a pharma company that understands that consumers have changed.  Pfizer also offers online support and phone help for another one of it's medications, Sutent, which is for kidney cancer and Rebif for multiple sclerosis.  Can you imagine a pharma company that actually provides patients with online and live one on one resources?  Maybe there is hope for pharma after all

Doctors who prescribe Chantix can give smokers a Pfizer card with a toll-free telephone number and the address of a Web site they can join to guide them through quitting.  The help ranges from automated reminder calls and daily emails to counselors who will talk to people struggling not to light up.  Doctors say the biggest barrier for Chantix with patients isn't a lack of counseling but the lack of insurance coverage for it.  Viewing smoking as a lifestyle choice or an addiction so tough to shake that it's not worth the cost of supporting unsuccessful attempts, few insurers cover treatment.  More than a third of Chantix sales since it was launched in July have been paid for out of pocket, according to data through the end of October from Wolters Kluwer Health Inc. Pfizer was careful "to make sure that the price of Chantix was not a barrier," says Marie-Caroline Sainpy, senior vice president for marketing.

This shows what a great marketing program can do if it's centered around patients needs.  Pfizer did the right thing here..they listened to the needs of the market and responded.  What a novel idea....]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>FDA agrees to speed DTC ads..for a fee</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>DTC Environment</category><dc:date>2006-11-21T05:27:00-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/95bbc2c26e291eb73a166af264d6de52-55.html#unique-entry-id-55</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/95bbc2c26e291eb73a166af264d6de52-55.html#unique-entry-id-55</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The fees from the proposed agreement would help pay for new staff to be hired by the FDA to review the industry's TV ads, people familiar with the deal said.  Many drug makers are voluntarily submitting ads to be reviewed by the FDA.The agreement would be proposed in tandem with a separate, five-year pact setting new user fees to be paid by drug makers to the FDA when the agency reviews their applications to market new medicines.  That agreement is expected to require the industry to pay substantially more money to the FDA, with a large chunk going to fund drug-safety initiatives, said people familiar with the matter.

The deals aren't final because the FDA's parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, hasn't yet signed off on them.  In addition, they must be approved by Congress to take effect.  Both would begin in the government's fiscal 2008, which starts on Oct. 1, 2007.  The tentative agreements emerged from months of negotiations between the agency and two trade organizations that represent the drug industry, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the Biotechnology Industry Organization.  The drug-industry fees make up a substantial portion of the FDA's drug-regulation budget.

The proposed agreements reflect the pressure on both the drug industry and the FDA to show that they are taking steps to address critics' concerns about drug safety and pharmaceutical promotions.  The Bush administration and the drug makers hope industry concessions in the agreements will help persuade Congress to approve the deals without attaching many conditions for broader, systemic changes.  But with Democrats set to take control of Congress next year, the proposed agreements are likely to be a first step in what will be a far broader debate over whether, and how, to reform the FDA.

The FDA is expected to get more than $300 million in user fees in fiscal 2007, the last year of the current arrangement.  The figure would increase by about one-third in fiscal 2008 under the proposed agreement, said people familiar with the matter.  About $30 million of the increase would fund safety-related activities, with the focus on how the FDA determines the side-effect profiles of drugs after they go on the market.  Details of the drug-review agreement were previously reported in the trade publication BioCentury.

For its part, the FDA agreed that it would give drug makers a projected time line to review new-drug applications about 2&frac12; months after receiving the applications, said people with knowledge of the matter.  The agency would aim to adhere to its self-set deadlines and would report on its results.The industry has long sought to smooth the drug-review process, specifically by securing more time for companies to consider the FDA's proposals on new-drug labels and other conditions, such as conducting studies after a drug goes on the market.Spokesmen for PhRMA and BIO declined to comment.  An FDA spokeswoman also declined to comment.

The proposed agreement on TV advertising fees would involve a complicated arrangement under which companies would pay about $40,000 to $50,000 at the beginning of each year for each television ad campaign they planned to air that year, said people familiar with the deal.  The amount could be higher if few companies sign up and the FDA faces a shortfall against its annual target of about $6 million in total collected fees.  Companies would pay more -- double the normal fee -- in the first year to create a reserve fund.  In return, the agency would phase in a requirement that any TV ads must be reviewed within 45 days.

The FDA would also get additional money under the new-drug review fee deal for other purposes, including bolstering staff for its traditional drug-review process, developing new guidelines to smooth the drug-development process, improving its information-technology systems and helping pay for the agency's move to a new office building in White Oak, Md., said people familiar with the deal.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>It&#x27;s time to get digital and add capabilities</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>Internet</category><dc:date>2006-11-17T06:28:48-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/6a7ec7d1b43605be086e1daba0590d11-53.html#unique-entry-id-53</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/6a7ec7d1b43605be086e1daba0590d11-53.html#unique-entry-id-53</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Why is this happening?  Pharma does not yet understand how to engage customers online.  They prefer to push information to them with informational websites based on Web 1.0.  Pharma also has a love affair with TV yet offline media like TV is providing diminished returns.  Over the last couple of years the way in which brands measure online interventions has improved with the introduction of new tools such as behavioral marketing targeting.

Brands that are successful in building an online presence have two things in common.  First, they have upper managements commitment to the Internet as a strategic business resource.  Second, they have dedicated eMarketing people who understand the dynamics of this channel.  It's not surprising that a recent survey found that organizations, like pharma, that are considered &ldquo;Internet laggards&rdquo; are so because of institutional issues not strategic issues.  (Managers who rather allocate dollars to TV)

I am amazed that most pharma marketers continually don't get it, although some brands are starting to come around.  When faced with declining dollars they opt to go for TV even though this channel has increased costs and very poor ROI&rsquo;s.  Marketers get around this by manipulating data to show that TV provides great ROI&rsquo;s when they know it&rsquo;s not true.  Online marketing is a growth catalyst and a good eMarketer can:

-identify their contributions to revenue growth and define the ROI&rsquo;s.

-use standardized tools to learn more about their target audience(s) and use this information to improve interactions with the brand.

-be proactive, not reactive in providing consumers with information that can lead to a conversion.  -can show the lift in intent to convert to an Rx because of online initiatives

What makes a good eMarketing person?  There are a lot of skills that are required to be a successful eMarketing person.  He, or she, has to be able to &ldquo;sell&rdquo; the web as a strategic channel to management.  The Web is evolving and the eMarketing person has to communicate these trends to management along with implications for the brand/company.  The eMarketing person also needs an excellent understanding of how their target audience is using the web so that intuitive navigations can be used to answer patients questions and lead to a higher conversion rate.  Finally the eMarketing person needs to be a champion of change and be willing to experiment with new tools to meet audience needs while working within a regulated industry.  But most importantly of all...an emarketing person needs to have a manger who is willing to listen and try new things to provide better ROI's even if it means closing the door on their traditional ad agency.  That doesn't happen too much because more times than not the people in upper management don't have marketing backgrounds and are easily fooled by data that shows high a ROI for TV.  That's too bad because customers are getting frustrated in searching for health information online and pharma does not seem to care.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Go ahead..continue to ignore the Web</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>Internet</category><dc:date>2006-11-16T05:40:51-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/bf98e86214ec70cc95cfa977c10b0699-52.html#unique-entry-id-52</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/bf98e86214ec70cc95cfa977c10b0699-52.html#unique-entry-id-52</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[In order to capture a portrait of a typical health search, PEW Research asked respondents to think about the last time they went online for health or medical information.  They found that:

-66% of health seekers began their last online health inquiry at a search engine; 27% began at a health-related website.

-72% of health seekers visited two or more sites during their last health information session.

-48% of health seekers say their quest for information was undertaken on behalf of someone else, not themselves.  An additional 8% of health seekers say the search was on behalf of someone else and to answer their own health questions.  Thirty-six percent of health seekers say their last search was in relation to their own health or medical situation.

-53% of health seekers report that most recent health information session had some kind of impact on how they take care of themselves or care for someone else: 42% described it as a minor impact and 11% described it as a major impact.

The impact was most deeply felt by internet users who had received a serious diagnosis or experienced a health crisis in the past year, either their own or that of someone close to them.  Fourteen percent of these hard-hit health seekers say their last search had a major impact, compared with 7% of health seekers who had not received a diagnosis or dealt with a health crisis in the past year.

The typical health information session starts at a search engine, includes multiple sites, and is undertaken on behalf of someone other than the person doing the search.

Yet pharma, to a big extent, continues to ignore the value of the Internet.  Yes there are product websites but most are Web 1.0 type Web sites, they simply push information rather than engage visitors.  In addition very few pharma websites are updated on a regular basis, some go months or years with only slight modifications of content.  This is inexcusable and, to me, is clearly indicative of the lack of talent in DTC marketing today.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Nice Try....</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>Current DTC</category><dc:date>2006-11-14T05:48:06-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/84ed7be63bc2f170a2b407145a9e3908-51.html#unique-entry-id-51</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/84ed7be63bc2f170a2b407145a9e3908-51.html#unique-entry-id-51</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[For those of you who may not know, a sock puppet is someone who disguises his or her identity while posting on a BLOG.  There has been a lot of this going on and in fact a conservative columnist was nailed a while back for sock puppeting his own site.

Is there anyone in the DTC industry who believes that the Rozarem ads are good?  Is there anyone who can make the connection between Abe Lincoln and honesty?  Is there anyone who can make the connection between the beaver and hard work?  Again I will go on record as saying that I feel these ads are terrible; no wait that would be giving them praise..they are beyond terrible.  AT, the agency that developed the ads, should be ashamed to be associated with such bad ads and the manager who approved the creative needs to go back to school and learn marketing 101.

The traffic on the sleep Rx websites indicates that Ambien is the clear leader and has nothing to worry about.  According to market share numbers Ambien is the frontrunner followed by a distant Lunesta with Rozarem scraping up the bottom of the barrel.  I don't think this is going to change anytime soon, Ambien is entrenched in the number one position and I surely don't see Rozarem taking any major share away from them.

There is good DTC (Crestor, Nexium) and then their is bad DTC (Rozarem).  At the end of the Rozarem campaign the only ones who are going to be happy are the people from the agency as they get their invoices paid.  The brand team is going to be stuck with a problem of how to increase share in a very competitive market and frankly Abe Lincoln and a beaver are not the answer.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Agencies and consulants are going to have to work harder to get the business</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>Pharma Business</category><dc:date>2006-11-10T11:22:24-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/40859535857f83ba7b0f8f7d9222596b-50.html#unique-entry-id-50</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/40859535857f83ba7b0f8f7d9222596b-50.html#unique-entry-id-50</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[DTC budgets are going to be getting a hell of a lot tighter when the new Congress takes aim at big pharma.  Of course the other downside to this is the fact that a lot of agencies and consultants are going to lost business.  Why purchase research on DTC when you don't have a budget for advertising?  Why keep an agency on retainer if you have no intention of developing any campaigns?

Is the news all bad?  No it just means that agencies and services are going to have to get a lot more resourceful to win business.  Here are some of the things they can do:

-When making a contact with me make sure you know about my company and it's business.  (Don't ask me what do you sell)

-When submitting a proposal tell me how you are going to help me increase my business, what measurements you are going to use and how you intent to integrate with my team.

-Don't send me a generic PowerPoint presentation that is not relevant to my business or what I do.

-If I say we are looking at your proposal don't keep calling but feel free to send me information that can help my business.  If you make me look good you will get the business.

Some who read these might say DUH, but you would be surprised how many vendors come unprepared.  We recently were looking at vendors to report on what our customers were saying in chat rooms and BLOG's.  One agency submitted a report, in both PowerPoint and PDF, on what OUR customers were saying about us along with action items and recommendations.  And it was up to date !  Needless to say they have the best shot at getting the business.  Another colleague of mine was interviewing agencies to develop a HCP site for a pre-launch drug.  One of the agencies that presented came in with information they obtained by doing market research on their own.  They got the business a very nice payoff that is going to generate a nice check to their form.

The business is still there for the agencies/vendors who are willing to put the time and homework into their proposals and presentations.  For those that feel a generic presentation of capabilities is enough they may soon find that their pharma clients have gone into hiatus.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Changes in store for DTC with Democratic Congress?</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>DTC Environment</category><dc:date>2006-11-10T07:17:07-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/2824e2281e68f920c18afc2d6a3f98d8-49.html#unique-entry-id-49</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/2824e2281e68f920c18afc2d6a3f98d8-49.html#unique-entry-id-49</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Rep. John Dingell

In the House, the changes chairmanships can bring became apparent today when Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., outlined some issues he would push as incoming chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.  Mr. Dingell highlighted privacy issues and prescription-drug ads.  He added that he takes a pretty dim view of some of the Federal Communications Commission's easing of media ownership rules and also requested that approval of AT&T's deal for Bell South be held off until the acquisition can be reviewed by his panel.  Too much bowing to industry

He charged the FCC "has been very responsive to industry desires to reduce or eliminate controls on [media] ownership and [not] to maintain the diversity and localism."  The FCC "has not completed all the outrages they are going to do under existing law.  We are going to have to take a careful look and see whether [media-ownership changes are] justified and whether we are still having local service or not," he said.  Three other key House changes: U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., becomes chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee's telecom panel; U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., becomes chairman of the House Government Reform Committee; and U.S. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., becomes chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.  Warnings from ad groups

There were warnings today from ad groups on the potential impacts of the congressional changes.  Adonis Hoffman, senior VP-general counsel for the American Association of Advertising Agencies, said he expected that Congress would impose greater oversight and that Messrs.  Dingell and Waxman could look more closely at prescription-drug ads.  He said other media issues could surface too, noting children's media.

"All in all, with the first open presidential election in years looming in 2008, Democratic control of either house will be characterized by high-level debates on popular issues.  In the advertising, marketing and communications category, that leaves a lot of room for grandstanding," he said.  Dan Jaffe, exec VP of the Association of National Advertisers, warned that along with DTC ads, food advertising and privacy, Democratic promises to cut the deficit could renew congressional debate over advertising taxes.

Of course a moratorium on DTC does not necessarily mean that a brand cannot succeed.  Diovan launched without DTC and has quietly become a $1 billion brand.  Still there are other categories that would benefit from DTC advertising.  There are, for example, a lot of people who have high cholesterol but have not sought treatment.  DTC can continue to point out the increased danger of high cholesterol and drive people to their HCP so that they "know their number".

The Democrats are going to be under a lot of pressure to show results in the next 24 months and it's quite easy to target DTC advertising and the pharmaceutical companies.  My guess is that you will see a lot of innuendoes and mud being slung at big pharma for a while.  Wall Street agreed as most pharma stocks took a nose dive after the elections.  If the pharmaceutical really believes in DTC then they have to be prepared to fight for the right to advertise to consumers rather than just stand by as an idle spectator.  :)]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Viagra one of the most searched words on the Web</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>Internet</category><dc:date>2006-11-09T05:18:05-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/302b2b4ed5b805e5339d66f2845b44ff-48.html#unique-entry-id-48</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/302b2b4ed5b805e5339d66f2845b44ff-48.html#unique-entry-id-48</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Well it tells me that probably a lot of people want to purchase Viagra on the Internet and that a lot of these people are recreational users.  It's estimated that between 20-30 million men have some type of ED but it seems that only 10-20% of these men are in the market (actively taking Rx's as prescribes by their HCP).  I think that there are a lot of men who are recreational users (don't have ED in medical terms) and the rest are men who may suffer from ED once in a while but may need help every so often.  Here in LA there are lots of stories about the "club crowd" who pop Viagra at clubs late at night in anticipation of hooking up with one of the LA hotties.  Problem is that most of these guys are in their 20's and shouldn't need Viagra but they feel it can transform them into "super stud".

I am sure that the makers of Viagra, Levitra and Cialis are aware of the potential for recreational use but should they do more to get the message out?  On all 3 product websites there are messages about seeing your doctor and how to determine if you have ED but information about recreational use is nonexistent.  Levitra does have a statement saying that it may be for men who have trouble once in a while but Viagra and Cialis don't have such claims.

If the FDA is serious about the misuse of ED drugs than then they need to inform the makers that they need to add disclaimers and warnings to their websites about recreational use.  Cialis and Levitra already have warnings about purchasing their products on the Internet but they need to go a step further.  For those men who maybe ordering online because of embarrassment they need to provide information about what to expect when asking for the product and what type of questions the doctor may ask.  This information needs to be interactive not just text as men scan rather than read information on the Web.  Cialis does have a video of a patient with a physician but how can most men relate to this guy when he looks like someone in his 70's ?  Men see themselves as 10-15 years younger than they actually are and seeing this older person I am sure is a major turn off to them.

Pfizer will remain number one in the ED wars until their product comes off patent.  They have a stronger brand and even now their brand is in the top 10 search words on the Web.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Search Engine Marketing: THINK before wasting your money</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>Media</category><dc:date>2006-11-08T06:22:13-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/317e65af354eaf11f406f00c5e89a4f8-47.html#unique-entry-id-47</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/317e65af354eaf11f406f00c5e89a4f8-47.html#unique-entry-id-47</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Search engine marketing can be a valuable tactic to draw visitors to your site but before you do this take the time to think about your brand objectives and awareness of the medical condition and your brand.  There are two types of search: organic, known as below the line, and paid search, knows as above the line.  You have the option of purchasing key words for you product so that if someone searched by that keyword your site will come out on the top.  But remember, if someone types in Viagra, Ambien or Lipitor your site will be listed first below the line.  Now if you think that consumers are too stupid to know the difference recent research as suggested otherwise.  Consumers want better search results and don't like to be misled by paid placements (duh!).  By the way when you purchase a keyword the price you pay is determined by the market.  If a lot of companies want the keyword you are going to be paying big bucks for its use and by the way Google can sell your brand as a keyword to anyone who wants it.  (Think you control your brand?)

There are a lot of pharma companies who spend well into the six figures for search engine marketing and don't measure the results other than click throughs.  I am puzzled by this because in order to get the money for search engine marketing most pharma marketers have to make a case with management.  Click throughs don't give you an accurate picture of the return on your investment.  You need to measure cost per targeted action as well as cost per targeted segment.  When I recently talked to an eMarketing pharma colleague she had informed me that her brand had spent well over $750K this year on search marketing.  When I asked about the ROI, especially cost per targeted action and per targeted customer, there was silence on the phone for a couple of seconds then she asked "we can measure that?".

It's no wonder that Google has as much money in the bank as they do.  Marketers are not thinking about how to maximize their online budgets.  They just assume that they need to do search engine marketing and that's too bad because a lot of dollars are wasted.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Will marketers ever learn ?</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>Media</category><dc:date>2006-11-07T06:19:40-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/dec2830bd66f75b08413beb3e055299b-46.html#unique-entry-id-46</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/dec2830bd66f75b08413beb3e055299b-46.html#unique-entry-id-46</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[If the projections pan out, broadband users can expect to see many more commercial breaks in online video, particularly with content from advertiser-trusted sources like TV networks.  And these won't simply be ads tacked on to the beginning or end of programs, as is the case on video sites such as Revver and Time Warner's AOL.  Advertisers will also be clamoring for space within video streams, preventing users from easily ignoring pitches.  Video ads will increasingly be embedded within Web pages and online articles as well.  "More video advertising is going to be attached to professionally produced content online," says report author David Hallerman, eMarketer senior analyst.

If in fact the content is professionally produced and is specific to the web audience then it might succeed but my guess is that we will see the same old same old on the web.  Look at Rozarem..they are so proud of their really bad commercial that you have to sit through it again when you go to their website.  Marketers just don't understand that consumer now have the power.  Agencies still want to use old methods that don't work anymore to interrupt us. Will they ever learn?  My guess is this is the beginning of the end for the big agencies and that new smaller more creative shops will start to get more business.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>What is Icos really worth?</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>Pharma Business</category><dc:date>2006-11-06T06:10:47-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/aa234a45c2695cd29a7388cb63ad07b2-45.html#unique-entry-id-45</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/aa234a45c2695cd29a7388cb63ad07b2-45.html#unique-entry-id-45</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[There are two sides to every story and I am not sure who is making the better case here.  Icos has only one product right now and that is Cialis which is comarketed with Lilly.  It's other products, from what I have read, are not doing so well in clinical trials and may not make it to market.  Usually when one company purchases another they do so at a premium over the current stock price.  There is no doubt that Lilly is getting a bargain here since they are only offering a 15% premium over the current price of the stock but will Icos increase in value?  I don't think so..pharma companies are being hit hard and Lilly's own stock is in the high $50's.

This all comes down to greed.  The investors in Icos want a bigger payday than Lilly is offering because they want a bigger return.  If Lilly were to walk away from this deal it could hurt the Icos stock and investors would be left holding the bag.  Of course another pharma company could come in and challenge Lilly but I am sure the legal arrangement for the comarketing of Cialis would make that a difficult proposition.  In the end Lilly will probably pay a little more for Icos and investors will walk away with more cash in their wallets.  As Gordon Geko said in he movie Wall Street..business is business.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Most Ad Agencies refuse to accept the fact that consumers have the power</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>The agency side</category><dc:date>2006-11-03T16:58:53-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/d8822a8381e4916c19bddf3d57efd753-44.html#unique-entry-id-44</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/d8822a8381e4916c19bddf3d57efd753-44.html#unique-entry-id-44</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[His first piece of advice: Stop worrying about the 30-second TV commercial.  The death of the TV ad is highly overrated, he maintained, and "to talk about it is to miss the point.  Our industry is the best in the world at short-form content.  We should think of ourselves as creators of short-form content, not 30-second ads."  Admitting to a bit of shameless promotion for his agency, he showed "Waterboy," an animated commercial that runs for more than two minutes, created and produced by Euro's Paris office.  "'Waterboy' took on a life of its own" after it was aired, said Mr. Jones.  The ad's soundtrack, which featured a cover of Queen's rock anthem "We Will Rock You" sung by a French schoolboy, was a spectacular success in France, where it was released as an album.  The album went gold and the single reached platinum.

He then criticized a popular trend in advertising today: the use consumer-generated content.  "We've got to stop thinking that consumer-generated content is an idea," he said.  "It isn't.  It is a phenomenon."  The problem with relying on communications created by regular Joes, he said, is that they "rarely create content with your brand strategy in their pocket."  Uhhhh attention Mr Jones: marketers are no longer in charge of their brands consumers are.  Leave to someone trying to save his ass to talk so much crap and ignore the trends in media.  Mr. Jones would might want to take a look at the latest activity around the Dove brand generated by a viral video on YouTube.com.

With not a penny of paid media and in less than a month, "Dove Evolution," a 75-second viral film for the brand has reaped more than 1.7 million views on YouTube and has gotten significant play on TV talk shows "Ellen" and "The View" as well as on "Entertainment Tonight."  It's also brought the biggest-ever traffic spike for CampaignForRealBeauty.com, three times more than Dove's Super Bowl ad and resulting publicity last year, according to Alexa.com.  By those measures, "Evolution" is the biggest online-buzz generator in the U.S. personal-care and beauty industries.

Mr Jones is a symptom of what is wrong with ad agencies today.  They can't accept the fact that consumers are now in control of brands and that most advertising has become irrelevant.  It's no wonder that at this time agency fee's are increasing at a time when they are providing less and less value for marketers.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Ambien CR.com  the clear winner in the sleep wars on the Web</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>Current DTC</category><dc:date>2006-11-03T06:30:03-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/09962b7431e997d19cd5272bb214ac9a-43.html#unique-entry-id-43</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/09962b7431e997d19cd5272bb214ac9a-43.html#unique-entry-id-43</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[People just don't have the luxury of time to translate the Rozarem TV spots and could care less as indicated by the website traffic comparisons.  What is more troubling is that obviously an executive at AT thought that the DTC campaign would translate into awareness or website traffic.  When a new product is approved by the FDA you can bet that the product.com website is going to get traffic as early adopters and HCP's go to the website .  The problem of course is to maintain the momentum so that the product can enter the growth stage of the life-cycle.  The people at Takeda pharmaceuticals had better believe in the Long Tail because there is no way that Rozarem is going to come close to overtaking either Ambien or Lunesta.

As you can see from the website traffic analysis of Rozarem, Lunesta and AmbienCR.com Rozarem does not even show up on the map.  Granted this traffic analysis is from Sept 2005 through Sept 2006 but let's look at a comparison to the numbers for September 2006:

Rozarem.com had 59,391 website visitors for September 2006 with an average of 3 page visits and an average stay of 4:28.

Now let's look at Ambien CR; 419,068 website visitors (that is good) but only 2 pages per visitor and an average stay that is only 2:34.  However we need to look beyond the numbers; Ambien is a well known brand and one of the top 10 for DTC and they have been promoting Ambien CR as of late (time release).  One would therefore expect the page views and average stay to be less than a newbee to the block.

With Lunesta.com (above) we see that they are solidly in 2nd place in website traffic for the month of Sept 06 and have had 3.5 pages per average visitor with an average stay of over 5:00 minutes.

So what does this all mean?  Well if you look at the new Rx's for the same time period you will find that indeed Rozarem is in third place far behind Lunesta and AmbienCR.  This web snapshot in time is a pretty good barometer of of market share and should have sounded alarms at both Takeda and AT.  But at the end of the day AT will still invoice Takeda for their work regardless of whether or not their DTC program helped the brand reach its objectives and that is why the current model is broken.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>What happens when you invest &#x24;800 million in a new drug only to find it has issues?</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>Pharma Business</category><dc:date>2006-11-02T05:54:07-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/de03aa92814782d63728fc51cb508141-42.html#unique-entry-id-42</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/de03aa92814782d63728fc51cb508141-42.html#unique-entry-id-42</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Recently, Pfizer -- which has made an unprecedented investment in torcetrapib and staked much of the future of the company on improved treatments for cholesterol and cardiovascular disease -- has softened its message on torcetrapib's chances for early and resounding success.  Chief Executive Jeffrey Kindler told analysts during a conference call two weeks ago that "we do have backup compounds" to the drug, calling it part of a "franchise."

It was already known that torcetrapib can increase blood pressure.  The worry is over how much.  Pfizer said yesterday that torcetrapib raised systolic blood pressure an average of three to four millimeters of mercury, according to a new analysis.  Earlier Pfizer studies indicated an average increase of two to three millimeters.  Systolic pressure is the first of the two numbers to describe blood pressure.  Normal systolic pressure is 120 millimeters of mercury.  Because increased blood pressure raises risks for heart attacks and strokes, this side effect is particularly worrisome for a drug that aims to help people avoid cardiovascular illness.  Pfizer says the recent analysis represents less than 25% of the data the company has collected about torcetrapib so far.

Doctors are already split about the products benefits vs. side effects.  Steven Nissen, chairman of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic and lead investigator of the closely watched ultrasound imaging study of coronary arteries of nearly 1,200 patients, said of yesterday's report, "This level of blood-pressure increase is clearly a cause for concern."  He added, "What we now have to determine is whether the very large increase in HDL along with the modest decrease in LDL provides benefits that exceed the risks associated with a blood-pressure increase."  Alan Tall, a Columbia University professor and pioneer in research on good cholesterol who consults with Pfizer, agreed that the blood-pressure increase is a point of concern, but said it is "likely to be far outweighed" by the drug's positive effects.

It will be interesting to watch this battle unfold.  An $800 million investment is hard to walk away from but the positioning may have already started in HCP's minds and Pfizer can do little to change that at this stage of the drugs development.  Part of this article was from yesterdays Wall Street Journal Online]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Diovan getting ready for DTC launch?</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>Pharma Business</category><dc:date>2006-11-01T06:01:00-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/01249cf9fc0935ab891fa4a8bb20c9fa-41.html#unique-entry-id-41</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/01249cf9fc0935ab891fa4a8bb20c9fa-41.html#unique-entry-id-41</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The Diovan brand has had no consumer ad spending in the last two years but instead has been part of the pharmaceutical company's "BP Success Zone," a direct-to-physician program that replaced its earlier "Take Action for Healthy BP" initiative.  Overall, Novartis has spent $245 million in measured media this year, according to TNS Media Intelligence.  Would this model work across all pharmaceutical products?  Probably not but there is a good argument here to launch a drug without DTC support while concentrating your messaging on the health care professional market.  I don't know how big a role DTC can play on blood pressure medications but with more and more people becoming hypertensive the timing for a DTC launch might be perfect.

$1 billion dollars in sales without DTC?  This is proof that it's possible but without good execution a strategy is only a plan or intention.  The road to hell and failure is paved with good strategy that was never executed correctly.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Viagra online ads get it right</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>Current DTC</category><dc:date>2006-10-30T17:38:08-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/b9bd080248fa5676198aeb19a05a9985-40.html#unique-entry-id-40</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/b9bd080248fa5676198aeb19a05a9985-40.html#unique-entry-id-40</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[What is so great about these ads?  They engage the audience and invite them to roll over the ad to learn more.  Then they ask "What are you waiting for?".  Any ad that can may you think (in this case think about sex) are great.  Well done to the Pfizer people it's easy to see why Levitra and Cialis have an uphill battle against on the best known brands in the world.  Cialis and Levitra will continue to battle each other for the number two and three spot in the ED market and Viagra will remain the market leader until it comes off patent.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>&#x22;We wanted an ad that people talked about&#x22;  That is pure BS &#x21;</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>Current DTC</category><dc:date>2006-10-29T05:36:22-08:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/95203f9a5535506426d871a650deae68-39.html#unique-entry-id-39</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/95203f9a5535506426d871a650deae68-39.html#unique-entry-id-39</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[A brand is a persons gut feeling about a product..it's not what the company says it is but rather what the consumer perceives it is.  I truly believe that pharmaceutical brands have different attributes than other consumer brands.  People don't want an emotional attachment to their Lipitor or Viagra.  Sure there are some branding attributes which go in a sub-conscience level but for the most part people take pharmaceutical products to help them live better.  In a world where there are lots of competitors and one (Ambien) has a clear lead you need more than differentiation.  Using the likeness of Abe Lincoln and a Beaver is not the way to cut through the clutter.  All brand decisions should emanate from a trueline.  A trueline is the one statement you can make about your brand that can't be reduced, refuted or dismissed.  It needs to be upfront in TV ads because after the first three seconds you lost your customers attention.

I have worked with, and still work, a lot of agency people.  For the most part their work is good but not great.  I can't tell you the number of times that creative people have shown my teams concepts that had us shaking our heads.  That's why I laugh when I read in the trade magazines that ad agencies current models are broken and in need of repair to me that is the biggest DUH in the industry.  It's quite simple actually..DTC ads have to raise awareness but more importantly that awareness has to translate into new Rx's.  Brands like Rozerem, and Cialis, are going to learn the hard way that an increase in awareness does not necessarily translate into sales.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>The Rozerem DTC ads have a lot in common with a Hoover</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>Current DTC</category><dc:date>2006-10-28T07:20:20-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/ff2dcdd0304a27905c9799ad50f9ea17-38.html#unique-entry-id-38</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/ff2dcdd0304a27905c9799ad50f9ea17-38.html#unique-entry-id-38</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[I'm not going to go on about how bad I believe these ads are, in fact they are really bad and the worse DTC I have ever seen.  How someone is supposed to make the connection of "honest Abe" and that the beaver represents "hard work" is beyond me.  To make matters worse someone at Takeda has decided to integrate Honest Abe and the primary character from the commercial into the website.  Integration of all DTC is essential but before you do this you have to know when enough is enough.  When I click on a pharma product website I don't want to see a page loading delay because someone at Takeda has decided to run the TV spot again and I don't want to see Abe Lincoln's character on secondary pages.

I need to find out who the agency is that is responsible for this debacle because I want to ensure that I NEVER use them or that their name ever comes up when I am consulting with companies on agencies to help them with their DTC.  Rozerem will pick up share as part of the life-cycle but Ambien and Lunesta have nothing to worry about with the lack of DTC marketing talent at Takeda and their agency.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>ImClone vs. Carl Icahn&#x27;s ego</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>Pharma Business</category><dc:date>2006-10-27T06:54:34-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/7f4c6cc5f57e8335b2225d93d484c60b-37.html#unique-entry-id-37</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/7f4c6cc5f57e8335b2225d93d484c60b-37.html#unique-entry-id-37</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[ImClone's sole product at the moment is Erbitux, a treatment for head and neck cancer and colon cancer that it sells jointly with BMS-- a relationship that Mr. Icahn termed "somewhat dysfunctional" and said he is determined to improve.  In the interview, Mr. Icahn expressed frustration that ImClone management didn't act more aggressively to test and seek regulatory approval for Erbitux to be used as a so-called first-line treatment, rather than as a backup when other drugs fail to work.

"The saga continues," said HSBC Securities analyst Gene Mack.  "It looks like they want to appeal to Bristol-Myers and get them more engaged in the process."  But Bristol-Myers executives "have their own problems," he noted, since former chief Peter Dolan was ousted last month and has yet to be replaced.In New York, Bristol-Myers said: "We have made and continue to make significant investments in the commercialization and development of Erbitux.  We look forward to data from pivotal studies of colorectal cancer, pancreatic cancer and lung cancer."

There are hundreds of ongoing Erbitux trials, but the key study of Erbitux is being run by the government, Mr. Icahn has complained.  Meantime, Amgen has received approval for its own cancer treatment, Vectibix, which is expected to be a tough competitor for Erbitux.  And ImClone is behind Amgen in its research efforts.  "The sort of trials that are needed to compete with Amgen's development program sometimes take years to plan and enroll," said Jim Reddoch, a biotech analyst at Friedman Billings Ramsey.

This is what happens when someone's ego gets the best of them.  I believe that Amgen has a better product in all areas and that ImClone is too late to the party.  Couple that with the fact that Mr Icahn has no biotech experience and you can clearly see that you are headed for trouble.  Good luck and try an keep your ego in check...]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Dr Mom</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>Internet</category><dc:date>2006-10-24T18:32:02-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/bc1da280959ec5ca8c7a3012cf277b72-36.html#unique-entry-id-36</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/bc1da280959ec5ca8c7a3012cf277b72-36.html#unique-entry-id-36</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[One thing I learned about men when I worked on Cialis..men will only go to the doctor when their arms are falling off !  Men don't like going to the doctor for preventative check ups and according to Nielsen's research don't spend as much time online looking for health information as women.  Of course there is a way to get mens attention online and that is taking the message to them where they are online.  I did this with Cialis by using Rich media banners that communicated the key brand messages to our target audience (without them having to click through to the website).

When I was working on the online ad campaign I first looked at our customer touch-points on the web.  It seems that a lot of people surf the web at work couple that with the fact that very few people today have private offices and it made sense to deliver a brand message online that did not require our target to click through to the website.  Can you imagine the embarrassment of being caught surfing an ED website?

When looking at behavior online you also need to look at the time of day people are interacting with your online ads.  With so much web surfing going on at work the last thing a lot of people want to do when they come home is go back on the web.  I actually found that a majority of online ad interactions were on Monday's and Thursday's between the hours of 8 and 6PM so I optimized the online media to run heavier during those times.

If DTC marketers start with the customer and think the way the customer thinks (pull vs. push) they can make better use of their online ad budgets.  But before they even do that they need an understanding of how their target audience uses the Internet.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Halloween DTC Horror Stories</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>DTC Environment</category><dc:date>2006-10-23T19:05:24-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/30d7b0f0b162cc12cfc374ff0fed571d-35.html#unique-entry-id-35</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/30d7b0f0b162cc12cfc374ff0fed571d-35.html#unique-entry-id-35</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[One woman wrote me as follows: Traffic my branded site has fallen off considerably since we stopped doing online advertising.  In order for me to get additional dollars to do some online ads my manager requested that I do a study of all past performance of online ads.  My predecessor had done a lot of this for me but she wanted me to once again analyze the traffic in relation to online ad programs and determine a metric for driving new Rx's.  I worked with my agency for over 4 months to come up with a persuasive argument to get money and finally my manager agreed that we needed to reboot the online ad campaign.  We worked on a media plan for over two months refining the plan to provide maximum ROI for the brand as just before we were ready to commit my manager informed me that the incremental dollars were being pulled to support more TV ads and that we now didn't have the money for online ads.  Six months of preparation and analysis wasted not to mention the hours my agency people put in preparing the plan.

Still someone else wrote: We hired a celebrity as a spokesperson for our brand and in focus group the spokesperson tested extremely well.  When I contacted our PR agency to get some photos of the celebrity for the website I was told "we can't do that".  When I asked why I was told that the celebrity has not been signed to do anything on a branded site including images.  How can you launch a multi-million dollar campaign without web integration?

And this from someone else: We wanted to test the effective of our web ads so we decided to do a test.  We would compare traffic on the website when online ads were running vs. blackout dates.  The test was set and at the last minute my supervisor told me that "ohhh.by the way we're also gonna run some TV as well".  I knew what was coming after that.  The traffic on my website increased and I had traffic numbers from Doubleclick to show that the increases in traffic were coming from our online ads but when I presented to my supervisor she said "of course the traffic increased the TV ads were running".  When I pointed out that the traffic was due to the ads she responded "that's because the TV ads increased awareness".  After the TV ads ran their course the traffic on my site was still strong because we were still running the online media but my supervisor refused to accept this and she only presented the success of the TV ads and did not mention the online ads at all when she presented at our staff meeting.

Finally....I can relate to your stories on Internet marketing.  My brand is a top brand within the category and my website has not been updated in over a year.  When my agency gave me a plan to upgrade the site with new tools and content my boss said that I had to do a cost-benefit analysis before I could get any money.  When I sat with her over coffee and she outlined what she was looking for I realized that this analysis would take the better part of 4 months and that she was not interested in anything I had to say.

Is it any wonder that DTC is in trouble?  There are just too many "old style" marketing people in these roles who just don't get it.  They push advertising to people rather than starting with the customer and asking "where would they go first" and "how can we engage them?".  Speed is a competitive advantage and if these DTC managers were on the Titanic they would have to do an an analysis of why the shop was sinking and the implications before they could make a decision to get into the life boats.

To those of you who sent in the stories I promise I will get to them.  There are some brands that do get it but as time moves forward those brands are far and few between.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Greed is good...?</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>Unless your the lead dog the view never changes</category><dc:date>2006-10-21T14:41:58-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/d5ead2bda107a7e25e46855b17b34751-34.html#unique-entry-id-34</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/d5ead2bda107a7e25e46855b17b34751-34.html#unique-entry-id-34</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[There is no doubt that being a CEO today is risky with the instant gratification crowd on Wall Street but who among us wouldn't want a shot at the top spot and would be willing to take a lot less money than predecessors.  What is so troubling about CEO salaries is that they get these golden parachutes even if they fail miserably at their jobs.  When I was at Lilly the CEO announced that he was going to take a salary of $1.00 for one year because of the situation with the loss of patent on Prozac.  Of course anyone could live off a salary of $1.00 if their bonus for the year was in the 6 figure range and you receive a ton of stock grants and options.

Chief executive pay in this country is way out of control and as long as shareholders are making money nobody seems to care.  The pharma industry likes to talk about the $5 billion of prescription drugs they are are giving away to people who can't afford to pay themselves but how do CEO's continue to justify this kind of money?  Easy, just look at the latest earnings reports.  Maybe Gordon Gecko, from the movie Wall Street was right, "greed is good".  Meanwhile middle managers get their 2-4% pay raises and bonuses that are just enough to keep them quiet no matter how good they, individually, perform.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Pharma waiting for the trail to be blazed....</title><dc:creator>rmeyer52@mac.com</dc:creator><category>DTC Environment</category><dc:date>2006-10-21T06:45:21-07:00</dc:date><link>http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/aadfd086809099e3812cdf8bf6219b61-33.html#unique-entry-id-33</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com/files/aadfd086809099e3812cdf8bf6