Baba Awopetu, Manager, Brand Strategy, EMEA at Stryker, believes the pharma industry‘s bad public reputation stems primarily from an identity crisis over exactly what business it’s in.
Like the tobacco and oil industries, says Awopetu, many view the pharmaceutical industry as opportunistic and profiteering. “When you think of what they do and what pharma does, it doesn’t quite make logical sense that we should have the same kind of perception with the public,” he says. “But there is a connection between the perception and the business we’re actually in, as opposed to the business we’re supposed to be in.”
Awopetu argues that pharma has, over time, become more focused on selling pills than on saving lives. And he says they are two entirely different things.
What’s your business?
To make his point, he tells an anecdote about a motorcycle maker whose chairman walked into a board meeting and asked what business the company was in. When the struggling company’s board said they were in the business of selling motorcycles, the chairman then told them they had it all wrong. “We think we’re in the motorcycle business, but actually we’re in the business of selling toys for big boys,” he said.
The chairman’s point was that instead of trying to compete with Suzuki and other motorcycle makers, his company really was an “aspiration” brand whose competitors were other upscale lifestyle “toys,” like Rolex watches and cruises around the world.
Revlon is another good example, Awopetu says. “They make cosmetics, but they sell hope,” he explains.
In the same vein, he says, a pharma company that’s selling pills is significantly different than one that’s saving lives.
“Some of the negative feedback we get comes from our orientation,” says Awopetu. “Over the past 10 years, there are a number of things that have put us more in the selling pills arena, including a parade of ‘me too’ drugs and the huge sums of money invested in the industry’s sales force. There’s an imbalance; we’re so focused on selling pills that we sometimes forget our business is about saving lives. And you can understand that if you’re just selling pills – even if they save lives – people could end up hating you.”
Awopetu admits, however, there are some tough caveats to the need to focus more on saving lives. If the industry doesn’t generate enough profit, for example, it becomes difficult to invest heavily in R&D. “That wouldn’t make the industry an attractive option for investors and that creates a dilemma,” he says. “We must be seen both as high profit and poised for future growth, but also as playing a very important social role in society.”
A pound of prevention
To begin moving the perception of the industry more toward one that saves lives, Awopetu suggests that a company with a therapeutic focus on cancer, for instance, should place itself at the forefront of cancer prevention, not just treatment. “There’s no reason why a company, or group of companies, couldn’t be running ads that talk not only about the great cancer drug they have, but also on avoiding and managing these illnesses,” he says. "People see more of a push toward ushering people with the illness to the doctor so that we can sell them more of the pills we have. But maybe while we do that, we can balance it by being seen as showing an interest in wanting to prevent some of these illnesses, even if that may appear at first glance to not be in the commercial interests of the company.”
Awopetu also suggests that companies could dedicate some portion of their R&D budgets to support wider solutions that “package” pharmaceutical products better. Some of this kind of work is already happening within pharma, he says, such as smoking cessation clinics sponsored by pharma organizations and support functions and clinics addressing erectile dysfunction. “More lateral thinking in these into these kinds of broader solutions would help ensure the focus isn’t just on selling pills at all cost,” he says.
In part, this shift in pharma’s perception will take an equal interest and desire in the “savings lives” aspect as there is in delivering shareholder value beginning with CEOs and moving down throughout organizations, Awopetu suggests. It will take, he says, a change in mindset and even in recruitment strategies.
“There needs to be a balance between recruiting people who are commercially aggressive and those who have a genuine interest in terms of trying to make a difference in the world and for patients,” he says.
Challenging the status quo
And it may be time to challenge the financial community, Awopetu says, in terms of how pharma stocks are viewed. “Even if pharma loses a little bit in profitability, perhaps we can play a little of the social card to try to be sure investments in pharma stay strong,” he says. “I think everyone would be happy to see the pharma industry thrive. The concern for the public and payers is just that we’re getting value for money. We need to take the industry from an arena of selling to one where pharma is delivering true value for innovation.”
While revenue from value-added services, such as wellness programs and clinics, may not begin to approach the profits from blockbuster drugs, Awopetu believes there could be an immeasurable reputational benefit.
“I think the industry needs to embrace the reality of where we’re at,” he stresses. “If you put the kinds of questions and ideas we’re raising here to the average pharma executive, the first thing they’ll argue is that they invest billions in R&D and have millions of people benefiting from their drugs and therefore, they’re saving lives,” he says. “And while those things are statistically very true, it’s a rose-tinted view, because when we come to talk about investment in the sales force and the number of ‘me too’ drugs in some of the areas where we’re putting our R&D investments, things start to look not so rosy.”
Awopetu believes it will take a collaborative effort, perhaps led by the various industry associations, to re-position pharma as a life saving industry. “Detractors have positioned us as a ‘selling pills’ industry – and we’ve fallen into that. And now we have to work twice as hard to try to change that perception, because once people have it in their minds, changing their view can be tricky.”
At the end of the day, he says, people know that pharma’s products help improve their lives, but pharma’s audience can’t feel like a captive one. “When you’re ill, you don’t have a choice really; you can’t go make your own pills, so you kind of need whatever’s out there,” Awopetu says. “But when you sell a product like that, you need to sell it passively and with a bit of smile. You can’t be selling it like a used car salesman and make people feel like you’re taking them to the cleaners.”
Patients and payers need to hear more about the value pharma’s adding and the joy that people that work in the industry have about that value, he says. “We need to hear testimonials from sales reps about what excites them about their work and not have it be the company car or the big bonus,” Awopetu stresses. “We need to hear that they love to get up in the morning because what they do makes a difference in patients’ lives.
“We have to create a different culture,” he says. “Many people out there now are very money oriented and motivated, and that’s a little bit ridiculous when you consider what we’re selling. Many of these people could be equally as motivated by the fact that they’re making a difference, if somebody reminded them about it or explained it to them.”
The challenge remains, Awopetu reminds us, finding a balance between pleasing the financial community, while meeting the social responsibility that the industry has. But it can be done, he points out. “Even McDonald’s has stepped up with programs to try to help people live healthier lives, and although it’s probably a bit more difficult for pharma, it’s a space the pharma industry should own,” he says.
Author: Lisa Roner, editor, eyeforpharma
