Sean has 25 years marketing experience as creative director and strategic planner for advertising agencies including BBDO and The Lowe Group in both the US and Europe. Although he has worked on hundreds of medical assignments over that time, Sean’s training was with consumer brands. With this outsider perspective, Sean explores how non-traditional marketing strategies and tactics could benefit pharma brands. A regular speaker on international brand development, Sean lectures frequently to international business groups. He has also served as keynote speaker at Jacob Fleming’s Annual Pharmaceutical Branding Conference and guest lecturer at Sweden’s Technique & Media Institute, Bergs School of Communication, and IHM Graduate School.

1. Currently, what do you see as the biggest challenges in pharma branding?
As a whole, the pharma industry has been focused on short-term sales as opposed to building enduring brands. This legacy results in both liability and opportunity for pharma companies. The liability comes from not having a corporate culture where marketing is well understood or properly resourced. In the end, these companies usually adopt a sales-centric approach to brand development that often yields poor results.  The opportunity lies in the fact that most of their competitors will be in the same boat. That means if they do get it right they can have a big impact on the markets.

2. Could you elaborate on the 7 sins of pharma branding?
The Seven Sins of Pharma Branding is based on 15 years experience building pharma and medical brands globally. Over that period we have seen patterns of behavior with many companies making the same mistakes.  The presentation is an attempt to take the seven most common mistakes and explain how they can be not only avoided, but turned into competitive advantages.

3. Which sin is the most common one you see pharma companies making? 
All the sins are related, but I think the most obvious sin we see pharma companies making is “Marketing Like a Salesperson”.  There is a lot of confusion in pharma companies over the role of Marketing specifically in contrast to Sales. Marketing is often approached as sales on a bigger scale. While this approach is intuitively pleasing to many pharma CEOs, it is a recipe for disaster. Marketing and sales are two very different functions. A sales-centric approach to marketing wastes lots of money and opportunity.

4. In your talk you identify two paradigms: a production-focused paradigm and a market-focused paradigm.  What do you mean by the production-focused paradigm?
The production paradigm has defined business since its inception. It took shape with the industrial revolution and remains with us today.  If you look at things in a supply and demand model, its focus is squarely on the supply side of that equation. It focuses on efficiencies in manufacturing and distributing products through sales channels.   It only knows push: The company pushes product out to the sales force and they push it into the market. Markets are taken for granted and investment in marketing is seen as a cost.  The focus is mostly on the company and its needs. It works well in markets where a company can easily have a monopoly in its category and the buyer has little or no access to information. Today, those markets conditions are rare.

5. And what is the marketing paradigm about?
The marketing paradigm takes all the strengths of a production company and builds on them. It does not take markets for granted. It believes that demand can be influenced and takes the proper measures to do that.  In a marketing company demand drives sales not the other way around. Sales is still vital but it is one part of a larger marketing effort that permeates every department in the company.  This paradigm does not build silos between functions like marketing, sales, R&D. It tears them down and in doing so makes it clear to everyone that marketing is not just about making glossy brochures. Marketing is about generating demand for the brand using the product, the price, the distribution and sales channels, and the promotion. So anyone who influences any one of those things (everyone on the company) is part of the marketing effort.  The focus is on the market and its needs with the belief that in the final analysis that will always provide a competitive advantage for both the company and its investors.

6. What would be the benefits of this changing mindset?
The production-paradigm is out of step with the times. But the nature of paradigms is that people don’t know they are in them. So most companies plod along accepting the friction caused by the mismatch as a fact of life. The benefit of switching is a much more sustainable business model that will help you compete more effectively as a company. But it won’t happen in the marketing department. This type of change has to start with the CEO.

7. Do you think sales would also be more efficient with dominant marketing approach?
Yes.  With the marketing-focused paradigm sales people are no less important, but their role is better defined. They have more support behind them and their function shifts from persuasion to facilitation.  Who would you rather visit you: someone trying to persuade you or someone focused on facilitating your needs?

8. What is the best way to help doctors and patients to get our messages?
Stop communicating with them as if they were idiots. Really. Most medical advertising is banal and lifeless. I understand the regulatory environment imposes restrictions, but most pharma companies and their ad agencies seem to interpret those restrictions as a license to bore.  It doesn’t have to be that way.  There are lots of engaging stories that can be told within regulatory restrictions. It just means applying some creativity and talent. The companies who figure that out get a lot more bang for their promotional buck.

9. What are the current trends in e-Branding?
Social media will redefine the marketing landscape over the next five years. Already we can target and engage customers in ways that were impossible or cost prohibitive just two years ago. Hot topics in this arena include analytics and buzz monitoring to help us quantify results, micro-targeting to help us zero in on exactly the people we need to talk to, and viral tactics to use the market to spread our message. It’s early days now, but the companies who start learning how to best use the web as a marketing tool will have a significant lead once the rest of the pack jumps in later.  This is a topic I address frequently in my blog: www.brandrants.com.

10. What were the outcomes of the interactive working group session led by you?
Most people in the room identified their company as being in the product-focused paradigm.  That wasn’t really a surprise. But the high level of marketing competence among the participants and their willingness to change surprised me.  These people have the knowledge to make their companies more competitive.  What they seem to lack is a supportive environment where marketing’s function is understood and where their ideas are prioritized and properly resourced.

11. Do you see pharma companies heading toward marketing paradigm? 
Yes, we’re certainly helping our clients do that. But as an industry I think the transition is happening much more slowly in pharma than in other types of businesses. But it will get there. As time goes on pharma companies won’t have a choice. The market will force them to adapt or exit.  The real opportunity will belong to those companies that commit to making the change. It’s already happening in some smaller companies that we work with and among some brand teams in big pharma. But I can’t think of any large pharma companies who have taken it to heart across the whole organization.

12. What were the key messages of the event for you?
There are changes happening in the market that pose real challenges for the pharma industry. But at the same time there are many new opportunities for market-focused companies to compete more effectively.  I also realized that there is a new breed of market-savvy professionals who are beginning to populate the marketing departments of pharma companies today. That is very encouraging. 

13. How did you like the conference?
I found the conference very stimulating. This was the second time I spoke at this event. The first time was in Amsterdam in 2005. On both occasions I have learned a lot from the speakers. I have also been impressed with the openness of the participants and the amount of discussion that happens both during the sessions and after.  In addition, the even itself was very well organized. I hope there are many more.