The document discusses strategies for pharmaceutical marketing teams dealing with mature brands facing patent expiration and increased generic competition. It provides several case studies of teams that were able to reduce promotional spending while maintaining or growing revenue through non-personal promotional approaches like telemarketing, digital campaigns, and sample delivery without traditional sales details. One case consolidated multiple agencies for different brands into a single agency, reducing fees by $2 million. Another analyzed patient data to refine a co-pay card program, saving $4.5 million while having no negative revenue impact. A third transitioned an entire field force to a sample delivery-only model, cutting the budget in half while exceeding sales targets.

1. Hillary M. Wilson
26 February
2013
1

2. Today’s Focus: The Mature Brand
 2012 may be have been the year that the patent cliff reached its height – with $33 billion
of sales at risk – but the impact of loss of exclusivity will continue to reverberate across
the decade, with more than $290 billion of prescription drugs sales due to be exposed to
generic competition between now and 2018.
 A series of products are near simultaneously going off patent. In years past, the rates of
erosion were substantially less.
 Sales from a single new drug are insufficient to compensate for a series of existing ones
expiring.
 No doubt, the patent cliff is reshaping the industry, but the good news is that the market
for prescription drugs will grow by 3.1 percent per year between 2011 and 2018.
 What this means for efficiency experts? …it’s time to work differently and with less.
26 February 2013 2

3. Example Opportunities to Do More With
Less in Pharmaceutical Marketing
• Established Brands Agency Consolidation
• HOW: Working with Strategic Sourcing
• My Value Card Analysis
• HOW: Data Collection & Analysis
• A Mature Brand Model
• HOW: Redesign the Process
• Leveraging Service Representatives
• HOW: Value-add Analysis
26 February 2013 3

4. 26 February 2013 4

5. Case Study
 An Established Brands (EB) team is organized so that one brand team member
handles a certain Advertising area for all the Established Brands: for example, one
person handles HCP Advertising, one person handles Consumer, one person handles
Digital, and so on. The dept. includes Brand A, Brand B and Brand C as well as other
mature brands. Since each brand had their own Advertising agency for these
services, this is a highly inefficient way to use agencies since each person handling their
area has to deal with several Agencies that support each brand.
Issues:
• Based on the size of the brands and the promotional budget there were redundancies in
Account Management and Fees that were costing a great deal of money.
• With a small team of marketers the responsibilities were siloed due to little collaboration
between Agencies of Record (AORs). This was especially true in Consumer and HCP
• The EB team needed better collaboration across channels to be as efficient and resourceful as
possible with messaging and tactics
• Established Brands needed an agency with a proven track record of working with peri/post
Loss of Exclusivity brands to support innovative non-personal selling models.
26 February 2013 5

6. Straddling Multiple Agencies for
Different Brands
• Brand A AOR#1
Marketer • Brand B AOR#1
HCP • Brand C AOR#1
• Brand A AOR#2
Established Marketer
• Brand B AOR#2
Brands Consumer
• Brand C AOR#2
Marketer • Brand A AOR#3
• Brand B AOR#3 9
Managed
Markets AORs
• Brand C AOR#3
26 February 2013 6

7. Actions Taken
• The Established Brands team put out a Request for Information (RFI) to identify
agencies that fit our criteria of being able to stretch from HCP to Managed Markets and
Consumer. If they could not “do it all” then they were asked them to define how they would
handle covering all of the business (i.e. consultants, holding company partners)
• The RFIs were evaluated and a Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued to 5 agencies.
• The RFP gave specific assignments to the agencies including Case Studies from work on
other Established Brands, how they would do internal branding of the EB team and an
innovation challenge based on having an imaginary slush fund.
• The agencies had the opportunity to come in and present to the team.
• The EB team was able to identify 1 AOR that both demonstrated a high level of
knowledge and experience with Established Brands and the ability to work across all
areas of the business.
• Within 1 month all marketing assets had been transferred to the new AOR and they had
begun handling all of our day to day business for all EB products.
26 February 2013 7

8. Results
• Established Brands was able to identify 1 AOR that both demonstrated a high
level of knowledge and experience with Established Brands and the ability to
work across all areas of the business.
• Within 1 month all assets were transferred to the new AOR and they had
begun handling all of our day to day business.
• Total agency fees were reduced by approximately $2m annually.
26 February 2013 8

9. 26 February 2013 9

10. Case Study
 Established Brands was asked to give back promotional budget in 2012. Because of this
many programs needed to be cut including the My Value Card patient savings program for
Brand A.
 At the time, the My Value Card Program was viewed by the team as a necessity to keep
the level of revenue Brand A was currently bringing in.
• Nevertheless, the brand decided to stop all dissemination of My Value Cards to the sales
force as of May 2012.
• The expectation was that the amount of activations of new cards would decrease. This
would be followed by a decrease in claims shortly thereafter.
• Instead claims continued to increase resulting in Brand A exceeding revenue targets.
New Enrollments
160,000 PTD Cumulative Claims
2,000 140,000
120,000
1,500 100,000
80,000
1,000 60,000
40,000
500 20,000
0
0
26 February 2013 10

11. Actions Taken
• Working with the co-pay card vendor and a third party analytics partner an Impact Analysis
was performed on the My Value Card Program.
• Finding: Most patients on the program were continuing patients. In addition, the continuing
patients were least impacted by the co-pay program in remaining adherent. The conclusion was
that continuing patients were “Adherent” patients already and the card was not driving
incremental revenue.
• The data showed 2 things:
• There would be minimal impact to the Brand A business by shutting down the
offering to Continuing patients
• The focus of the co-pay card program needed to be on New Patients, a smaller group
and less expensive to support with a savings card.
26 February 2013 11

12. Results
• A decision was made to continue the offer the My Value Card on-line to all patients.
On-line enrollment into the My Value Card program is low, but it still offers the
perception of affordability of the brand on a high traffic brand.com, which is especially
important for new patients.
• We changed the My Value Card offer to only be available through our Live Call
Adherence program which only reaches out to NBRx patients limiting the use of the card
to New Patients.
• To continue to build our RM database we are offering a one-time coupon through Point
of Sale programs in Pharmacy to patients that are presenting with a new Rx (defined as
not filling at that pharmacy for the past 180 days) to avoid abandonment at the Point of
Sale.
• The savings from this change in program was approximately $4.5m on a $12m budget
with no forecasted negative revenue impact.
Learning: Challenge Assumptions – Test Hypotheses – Take Risks
26 February 2013 12

13. 26 February 2013 13

14. Case Study
Brand B, a mature brand close to its patent cliff, developed investment scenarios with the following
objectives and guiding principles in mind:
Objectives Guiding Principles
 Identify options to:  Brand B, although important, is
 Determine optimal spend not a Company priority
 Optimize profitability
 Grow revenue  Unless a business case can be
made for additional
 Determine growth potential of investments, the plan is to look
the brand primarily at scale-back
scenarios
 Identify how Company should
approach the brand long-term  Options will focus only on
Brand B
26 February 2013 14

15. Brand B Investment Scenarios
No Change in Current DP or FF (Field Force through June
Base Case 2012)
Scenario 1 Remove majority of DP and all FF (October 2011)
Retain DP, Remove FF, Initiate Non-Personal Promotional
Scenario 2 Activities (January 2012)
26 February 2013 15

16. Actions Taken
Completed
internal and
Identified Defined Key external
Potential Promotional audit of “best
Scenarios categories in class” non-
personal
tactics
Identified Reviewed Gathered
appropriate promotional additional
vendors and response insights from
tactics per analogues internal
scenario with AOR teams
Analyzed and Designed
Brand B
refined promotional
Mature
targeted level mix for each
Brand Model
of “detailing” scenario
26 February 2013 16

17. Recommendation
Base Case: No • Low risk option
Change in Current • Maintain current plan
DP or FF (Field • Mix of direct field force
Force through June promotion and non-
2012)
personal selling initiatives
• High risk option
Scenario 1: Remove
majority of DP and • Success of “Walk away”
all FF (October scenario unknown
2011)
• Medium risk option
Scenario 2: Retain
• Full non-personal promotion Brand B
DP, Remove
tactics to replace direct Mature
FF, Initiate Non-
promotional efforts
Personal Brand
• Net sales close to Base Case
Promotional Model
with increased profitability
Activities (January
2012)
26 February 2013 17

18. Optimizing Efficiency Late in the Life Cycle
• First ever “Mature Brand” business model established at the Company.
• Multi-channel non-personal business model developed utilizing tele-sales, web/internet, mobile apps,
e-sampling, and direct mail to maintain prescriber awareness and loyalty without field sales representatives
• Direct to Pharmacist programs aimed at minimizing switches to generics
• Enhanced Patient and Caregiver support via website, RM, pharmacy and savings programs to foster loyalty and improve
adherence
Key Tactics
TeleSales
Non-Personal
E-Sampling
Digital
Patient HCP Non-Personal
Programs/RM Pharmacist Print
& Patient
MM Access Pharmacy
26 February 2013 18

19. Results
• Finished well over 100% of revenue target for Brand B
• Gave back almost $3m in promotional budget
26 February 2013 19

20. 26 February 2013 20

21. Case Study
• A certain therapeutic market has always been crowded and is now becoming highly
genericized. There was a massive reduction in direct promotion by most major branded
drugs in 2011. With a market that was not very sensitive to promotion the decision to pull
back on promotional spend was the right one.
• However, samples continue to be the single largest driver of business for Brand C. With
the launch of a second product in the same therapeutic space Brand C share of voice was
declining rapidly. There was still a business case to deliver samples, but detailing was not
opportunistic enough nor value-added for prescribers.
26 February 2013 21

22. Actions
• Sales force leadership still perceived value in sampling Brand C which allowed their
representatives to gain access to present the new launch product.
• Target physicians still perceived value in receiving a sample, but not a detail of a mature
product.
• In 2012, Brand C moved to a 100% Service Rep model where delivery of samples to
~40,000 targets was the only promotional activity by the field force.
26 February 2013 22

23. Results
• Brand C was well sampled in 2012
• Brand C finished at over 108% to goal with a direct promotional budget that was cut by
nearly 50% in 2011.
26 February 2013 23

24. 26 February 2013 24