Stewart McCure

Writer, performer, management consultant

An Australian living in London.  A self-employed training consultant to the global health care industry.  A producer, director and performer of improv comedy.  A trustee of an adult education charity in West London.  A writer and occaisional blogger

 

 

Interlinked levels of branding

When a pharmaceutical salesperson sits in front of a prescriber there are three interlinked 'branding' interactions in play: -

  1. Corporate: doctor's opinion of the pharma company
  2. Product: doctor's opinion of the product
  3. Personal: doctor's opinion of the individual representative
Product is by far the most important of the three; the doctor's main priority is to his patient so this is where he focuses her attention.  As most doctors will tell you: -
What makes a good drug rep?  A good drug
No rep ever wants to hear this.  She wants to believe (must believe) that her specific input makes a difference.  How the hell do you get about of bed every morning otherwise?  The thing that every experienced salesperson cherishes most and discusses least is her credibility, aka her personal brand.

The very embodiment of 'passive aggression' is a roomful of salespeople, arms folded, listening to a marketer some outline some brilliant new 'brand building' initiative.  The lens through which they view everything the marketer asks of them is this: -

If I undertake this activity will my personal credibility (brand) be enhanced or diminished?
Any product manager who treats a sales team as merely an especially expensive comms channel is a fool. If the team fails to execute the clever, agency-wrought strategy it's not because they didn't understand it but rather they didn't bother executing it at all.  Marketing activity must enhance the credibility of the individual salesperson or it's a waste of time and money.

What of corporate branding?  Would a doctor shy away from trying Horizant (a new GlaxoSmithKline treatment for restless leg syndrome) because of concerns over Avandia (its diabetes drug linked to increases in heart attacks and subject to $6 billion in law suits)?  Not if Horizant is as good as the data seems.

But will the GSK rep selling Horizant have to work that bit harder to establish her own credibility in the face of all the negative Avandia headlines?  Almost certainly.

In a perfect world these three branding level complement each other; a credible salesperson selling a valuable drug made by a respected company.  That alignment happens regularly.  Even so the salesperson has to earn that credibility just as the company has to earn that respect.

That begins and ends with honest, straightforward conversations about a new, needed therapy drug that does some genuine good.