Is marketing to blame?
May/25/2007 09:45 Filed in: Pharma
Business
The product environment is scattered with great products that failed. There are a number of reasons of why these products failed but one consistent theme emerges; the failure to understand how to deliver a relevant message to consumers; and that is poor marketing. It used to be that if you had a great drug with supporting clinical studies it would be successful. But then in the 90's the FDA allowed DTC advertising and with it came increased competition. But somewhere along the way something else has happened...marketing has become too involved in early drug development which may lead to clinical study data to be manipulated or withheld to get increased label indications and thus a bigger slice of a potential market.
Now I am enough of a realist to understand that all pharmaceutical companies have to recoup their investments in drug development but this path has become more cloudy. Having the best product is no longer a guarantee of success. Marketing is less about "selling" today then it is about "informing" and "educating". However, pharma still likes to push information to consumers and has not learned to listen or interact with their customers. Medical people, at times, have not pushed back to marketing people when it potentially compromises patient health and marketers have failed to be transparent to customers.
DTC advertising has done a lot, I believe, to inform and educate people about terrible diseases and possible treatment options. But the pharma industry has put profits ahead of safety and that is a concern. Vioxx and Avandia are two recent examples and an editorial in today's New York Times points this out. Who is responsible for raising a red flag during ongoing clinical studies to inform people that there maybe an issue with an approved drug? Whose job is to tell marketing and sales people to back off when a drug company is in label discussions with the FDA? It's all of us that's who.
Transparency at every level of the organization is needed, no more closed door meetings with rumors and innuendoes. We have to remember that it's better to be overcautious than under cautious because people put pharma products in their bodies. Lilly should have warned physicians who prescribe Zyprexa that some patients had reported a weight gain which has led to diabetes rather than say "there is no clinical correlation". Someone at Merck should have raised a red flag during Vioxx clinical trials when it was learned that it might cause CV issues. We can no longer hide behind data and say things like "we are looking into the issue", we have to be proactive rather than reactive.
It all rests with the CEO's of today's pharma organizations. Instead what do we see? CFO's stepping down...what does this tell people about the pharma industry and who is really to blame. Marketing can certainly take some heat but in the end pharma has to stop being a sales driven company and get back to a philosophy of making great products and delivering truthful accurate messages.
|