Sales & Marketing
focuses on building relationships through
Figure 2: Advantages and disadvantages of a KAM model for pharma
understanding and addressing individual
stakeholder needs via a specialised account
Advantages Disadvantages
team supported by a comprehensive network
intelligence operation. In effect, local healthcare
Expensive to initially
set up
systems are treated as a key account.
There are a number of pharma companies
Scaling up initial pilot studies
implementing KAM on some level, such as
Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca and
Reduce costs
Complexity of internal processes
GlaxoSmithKline. This approach demands:
makes change dif_f_icult
• Sales and marketing teams working
Increase ef_f_iciencies
Lack of corporate role models to
closely together, with the key account
inspire change: no one wants
manager playing a central role in
to be the f_irst
implementing and coordinating the
Generate long-term value
account;
• An account team to incorporate new Superior method for allying
pharmaceutical companies wih
roles, such as skilled personnel to
their customers
negotiate with governments/payers;
scientific/medical liaison officers to deal
with specialist queries, and sales reps
to promote a drug; all pulled together
KAM
with an account manager who
model
coordinates the account holistically;
KAM = Key account management
• A complete map of the framework of
Source: Datamonitor
the local healthcare economies, such as
key decision-makers, influencers and
although pharma companies may be people buy from people. However, with reps
payers through network intelligence. It
expected to be hesitant in utilising such a facing ever-shorter time in front of a
is the account manager’s responsibility
service given that they would have to physician, if any at all, the use of traditional
to pull all this information together.
disclose confidential information to the CSO. detailing is in jeopardy.
Abbott set about implementing KAM
However, according to a director at one The question posed today though is whether
strategies in the UK market for a variety of
leading CSO company interviewed by the this traditional service in its current format is
reasons, including the fact that it needed to
author, this shift is already happening. still relevant. Doctors do of course need
improve its segmentation and targeting models
An important counterargument against information and assistance from pharma
to cope with expanding stakeholder diversity.
the use of CSOs is their level of brand companies regarding the drugs they offer.
While switching to the KAM model led to a
belief and loyalty. Representatives working for However, they do not need the same
reduction in the size of its sales force, new
a CSO, although very competent, will not have information to be repeated to them on a
roles were also created. Abbott’s KAM strategy
the same brand understanding and company regular basis with no added services or follow-
encompassed adapting to a changing customer
culture as an in-house rep. up. This is where eDetailing (a term used to
base – from primary care to secondary care –
describe various online physician marketing,
providing National Health Service (NHS)
promotional and communication activities)
liaison support and changing the physician
Representatives working for a
could complement the traditional detailing
product adoption process.
CSO, although very competent,
service for busy physicians who want to receive
Abbott’s KAM strategy has optimised the
drug information at a time that suits them.
will not have the same brand
company’s sales model, allowing it to focus
Internet-based resources are already
on the identification of productive understanding and company
being used, although eDetailing, in its
stakeholder targets and establishing its
culture as an in-house rep
present form, remains rather primitive.
appropriate targeting frequency. This has
eDetailing does, however, show potential to
made rep activity more efficient and
evolve into a valuable tool for
effective compared with the company’s
communicating key messages, clinical data
traditional sales model.
Another important factor is corporate and peer reviews for a drug.
identity; most customers identify a company
efficiency through outsourcing
through its sales reps, so outsourcing may
References
Pharma’s realisation that traditional
damage a relationship that a firm has striven
1. ‘Bayer to discuss latest tactics and
approaches to SFE were no longer efficient
to establish over the years. However, the
strategies to achieve sales excellence’,
or cost-effective has led to an upsurge in
advantages for the pharma industry of
2008,
www.medicalnewstoday.com.
the use of contract sales organisations
outsourcing sales functions outweigh the
(CSOs), especially in the primary care
disadvantages through cost savings alone.
2. ‘E-Detailing Navigating the Maze’ –
Mednet Media, 2002,
setting. However, CSOs are also evolving,
with many now offering a service in which
eDetailing underused
www.allaboutmedicalsales.com.
reps are dedicated to promoting one
Dissemination of product information to
particular product/service per client call. This
physicians through detailing is a fundamental
Dr Sandra Reynolds is a
reflects the growing use of KAM strategies
part of a sales rep’s role, and has been
senior pharmaceutical strategy
by pharma companies’ in-house sales teams.
shown to directly increase prescribing of a
analyst at Datamonitor.
CSOs are also offering the services of
given drug. Ideally, face-to-face detailing is
scientific/medical liaison officers in the US,
the preferred selling method – after all,
www.scripnews.com/supplements Scrip 100
31
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128