1
Evaluating Sales Force Structures and Other Key Drivers of Success Affecting Promotional Effectiveness in Oncology Over the past few years there has been an influx of new drugs to treat various forms of cancer and many existing brands have gained new indications. Industry representatives wishing to engage in discussions on their new brands/indications have the challenge of obtaining “face time” with physicians, followed by delivering messages with the greatest impact on brand choice, that also meet key quality metrics used to help evaluate sales force effectiveness. To meet this challenge, biopharmaceutical companies in the oncology arena have developed different strategies for sales force deployment. There have been various sales force structures (see Figure 1 below) implemented and they continue to evolve, although they tend to fall within two main approaches: (1) brand-focused, and (2) indication-focused. DATA STRUCTURE: Point-of-Promotion & Point-of-Care Data ANALYSIS FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS For this presentation, promotion response models were developed based on point-of-promotion data linked to point-of-care information on treatment choice by brand. This data was obtained from a consistent longitudinal panel of oncologists, which is diverse and representative in terms of geography and practice setting. The data set we used is unique in the oncology and non-oncology space within its complete competitive context. This data is collected in real-time daily and covers all products in terms of: Promotion data by indication Treatment data by bio-markers, line-of-therapy and indication All data time-stamped and connected at a patient by physician level allowing for the establishment of causality between promotion and treatment choice Not only does the IFMB sales force structure have a greater impact on driving a brand’s own choice but it is also more effective at driving choice away from competitors. Note that it is important to consider competitive effects as a brand’s effectiveness is influenced by its own details and by competitor details. Analysis suggests that products promoted by an IFMB sales force have a greater impact on prescribing than a MBMI sales force. A company’s prior experience in oncology appears to positively impact a brand’s detail effectiveness; however having the most experience does not necessarily translate into the greatest impact. In addition, products that are paradigm-changing tend to show stronger impacts. Aside from sales force structure several other factors may influence promotional effectiveness; experience and innovation. AlphaImpactRx’s proprietary longitudinal physician panels capture unique promotion and response metrics from the same physicians… ...fueling best-in-class promotional effectiveness solutions. point-of-promotion/care insight captured from >400 key oncologists through our proprietary research app A detail is multidimensional and the data fueling promotion response analytics must reflect those multiple dimensions CONCLUSIONS: Products promoted by an Indication-Focused Multiple Brand (IFMB) sales force have a higher magnitude of incremental impact on prescribing than a Multiple Brand Multiple-Indication (MBMI) sales force. A company’s prior experience in oncology appears to positively impact a brand’s detail effectiveness; however, having the most experience does not necessarily translate into the greatest impact. Products that are paradigm-changing tend to show stronger impacts as these products demonstrate efficacy in areas of unmet need. RECOMMENDATIONS: This, and other research, underscore the importance of enabling sales representatives to tailor a relevant conversation to their customers' patient population. An “indication focused” sales force allows sales representatives to focus on physicians' patients, as opposed to a brand's specific agenda. Therefore, sales and marketing organizations should continue to develop strategies for sales representatives to optimize patient/indication centric discussions. While existing relationships can assist in effective details, the power of the product itself has an even greater impact. This highlights the importance of having effective tactics and messages for non- paradigm shifting brands. Therefore, brand teams should engage in research to determine specific messages and tactics that will optimize their detailing efforts within a competitive context. Details ~34,000 Oncology Details Annually Treatments ~560,000 Oncology Treatments Annually Us Them Real-time capture Complete competitive context Tx & promotion linked at physician level Robust set of patient-specific metrics Choice modeling takes into account physican perceptions of detailing efforts while controlling for patient factors, managed care influence and key marketing events “Ad stocking” retains time-ordering of promotion and brand choice required for causal modeling and incorporates historical context of promotion Transaction-level discrete choice modeling Competitive detailing is explicitly controlled for to overcome major limitations of the current literature analyzing physician prescription behavior (Dong, Manchanda, Chintagunta, Journal of Marketing Research, April 2009) The use of discrete choice models at their most granular (physician-patient level of transaction) level Varying levels of retention (ad-stocking) to differentiate direct vs. cross detail effects Deriving normative benchmarks to assess category level promotional impacts Triangulating results through multiple techniques including discrete-choice, time series, PCR and PLSR, and Latent Class as appropriate MODEL STRUCTURE AND ESTIMATION We have identified five sales force structures that fall within two overarching categories, (1) brand-focused, and (2) indication-focused, that increase in complexity as one moves from a single brand model to those involving multiple brands with multiple indications and structures that focus on a particular group of malignancies (e.g., solid tumors or liquid tumors), as depicted in Figure 1. We have selected two structures to evaluate: Multiple Brands with Multiple Indications (MBMI) and Indication-Focused Multi-Brand (IFMB). These sales force structures and their effectiveness were evaluated using markets that had new brand entrants within the past 3 to 4 years and had sales force structures in place for a minimum of 6 months, supplemented by in-depth data on ad-stocked detail frequency metrics. The study evaluated the Lung, Breast and Melanoma markets during the January 2015 – August 2015 time frame. For longitudinal promotional data ad-stocking is the best way to ensure we capture short-term and long-term impacts of self and competitive promotion. Additional advanced modeling features and characteristics designed to maximize the power of our unique data include: MODEL CONTROLS: The length of time each company has been competing in the oncology category. The perceived value of key brands in the company’s portfolio (i.e., whether a brand is truly innovative and whether it has had a dramatic impact on market dynamics and patient outcomes for one or more indications). Single Product Sales Force Brand-Focused Multi-Indication Multiple Brands with Multiple Indications (MBMI) Indication-Focused Multi-Brand (IFMB) Analysis Focus Solid Tumor vs. Liquid Tumor A single sales team promotes one product One or more brands covering multiple indications promoted by a single sales team Sales team promote two or more products with disparate indications A single sales team promotes two or more brands with the same indication A single sales team promotes one or more brands (either solid or liquid tumor only) SALES FORCE STRUCTURES EVALUATED (FIGURE 1) Darrell Philpot Senior Vice President and Chief Methodologist Stacy Mecham Senior Vice President, Oncology Franchise Melissa Dale Senior Engagement Manager Gordon Gochenauer Account Director, Oncology Franchise Wireless Transmission Continuous collection supports monthly, quarterly, even weekly, reporting MBMI - Multiple Brands with Multiple Indications IFMB - Indication-Focused Multi-Brand SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: Products promoted by an Indication-Focused Multiple Brand (IFMB) sales structure have a higher magnitude of incremental impact on prescribing than a Multiple Brand Multiple-Indication (MBMI) sales force. A company’s prior experience in oncology appears to positively impact a brand’s detail effectiveness; however, having the most experience does not necessarily translate into the greatest impact. Products that are paradigm-changing tend to show stronger impacts as these products demonstrate efficacy in areas of unmet need. KEY QUESTIONS ADDRESSED: Is an indication-focused sales force structure more effective for companies with multiple brands in its product portfolio, especially those that are indicated for multiple tumor types? How is an oncology sales force’s effectiveness enhanced in relation to the length of time it has been competing in this therapeutic category? What impact does a highly innovative brand have on a sales organization’s effectiveness? This study evaluates examples from the Multiple Brands with Multiple Indications (MBMI) and the Indication-Focused Multi-Brand (IFMB) structures using sophisticated modeling techniques to provide in-depth insights into the relative impact of each structure, along with recommendations.
