Apr25

When Will Pharmaceutical Companies Embrace Behavioral Retargeting to Drive Adherence?

Shopping KeyPicture this: You visit a website, add something to your shopping cart, but abandon the transaction. Maybe you are distracted or decide to shop around to get the best deal.

The next day, you’re on a different website. Suddenly an ad pops up on your screen…for that item you had in the shopping cart the day before. In your mind you’re thinking, “Wow, maybe this ad is an omen that I should buy that item?”

You’ll be relieved to learn that the ad is not an omen. It’s just “behavioral retargeting,” one of the tools that a smart marketer is leveraging to capture your attention. They want you back at their site to complete the purchase.

Digital channels can leverage relevancy (based on action and exposure) to deliver highly motivating advertising. If it works well for consumer products, how would this work for pharmaceutical brands?

The Web as a Research Tool
The Internet is used by consumers to compare prices and features. What we find online often influences both online and offline purchasing decisions. In the early days of the Internet, consumers were leery of making significant purchases online and would compare prices on the web then go to a brick-and-mortar store to make their purchase. With improved mobile technology, consumers now see and touch products in stores, only to make the purchase online. Many consumers are now willing to make major purchases online.

The prescription drug buying process is different. Some consumers see advertising for lifestyle drugs on TV and in print, go online for additional information, and ask their doctor for a prescription. If their doctor agrees, they may receive a prescription. A pharmaceutical website for a prescription drug may play a role in initial patient-doctor discussion, but it can really play a much more significant role in influencing medication adherence.

Behavioral Retargeting to Influence Good Behavior
We see many prescription drugs with elaborate, multichannel medication adherence programs that often have minimal impact on the bottom line. The reasons for this are twofold.

  1. Programs that are dependent on patients signing up tend to have very limited reach against the patient base.
  2. They often attract patients who are adherent, so there is little opportunity to increase sales. We also see programs where enrollment is driven by activating a savings card—but too often patients are unaware they joined the program and don’t engage with the communications they receive.

What if we used behavioral retargeting to increase awareness of compliance programs? Imagine if retargeting didn’t just apply to shoes and baby clothes, but also encouraged medication adherence.

Behavioral retargeting provides the ability to extend reach and deliver highly relevant adherence messages contextually, then bring consumers back to your site for deeper content. It provides an additional channel to get key adherence messages to customers who might not sign up for a program.

Then again, even if we can do it, we may not want to deliver behavioral retargeting. After all, some patients have conditions that they’d rather keep private. They may not appreciate a reminder message from a pharma company that manifests as a banner ad on their favorite website. If this is the case, such issues can easily be addressed with a simple opt-out that prevents future retargeting from the ad server.

These days, behavioral retargeting is closely associated with advanced ecommerce websites. Looking forward, it will probably become another tool for communicating with patients and healthcare professionals. Before that happens, industry thought leaders need to think carefully about how patient health information is used and retargeted across different websites, channels, and platforms.

CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION:
Questions? Comments? You can contact the author directly at blog@ochww.com.
Please allow 24 hours for response.

Also posted in adherence, advertising, behavior change, Data, Digital, Healthcare Communications, Patient Communications, Research, Strategy | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment
Apr9

Painting by Numbers: Using Enterprise-wide Analytics to Guide Marketing Strategy

Paint Brush Man_Thumbnail

Today, analytics is playing an ever-expanding role in developing marketing strategy as clients have become aware of the importance of data in guiding campaign decisions. Like the Paint by Numbers crafts of our childhood, marketers can use stats and data points to guide the creative marketing process, resulting in a more predictable end-product.

However, according to a recent Accenture study, the same brand managers who understand the importance of analytics tend to rely on gut instinct instead of logical recommendations, preferring to paint outside the lines rather than follow the data.

The reason for this departure is that analytics is still typically brought in on a project-by-project basis.  While a team of expert analysts may provide insight on one particular channel or campaign, they do not have a panoramic view of the overarching strategy or history of the brand. The brand manager’s gut, on the other hand, has years of experience in overall performance, customer relations, and sales. This often results in a strategy that conforms to a “more of the same” mentality.

Within the Ogilvy Healthworld Marketing Analytics & Consulting team, we have found that insights and recommendations  can be more impactful when done at a portfolio or enterprise level. For example, we had been performing analytics for a particular brand, observing that over time, the paid search costs were increasing for unbranded terms. Over the next year, we grew our analytics practice across this pharma company’s entire therapeutic department. When the data started to pour in, our analysis uncovered that two brands were competing against each another for the same unbranded terms, artificially driving the costs up. By taking an above-brand look at the data, we were able to identify an issue and resolve it in a way that benefited both brands and became a best practice across the therapeutic area.

While this example looks at a very specific issue, enterprise analytics has a number of strategic benefits:

  • First, it sets a tone of accountability across brands, defining a standard of data quality that can be enforced in measurement and optimization. Not only does this ensure that different groups are using the same metrics to define success, but also it makes it easier to compare performance across brands and categories. Over time, this organized collection of data can serve as a starting point for performing more advanced modeling and predictive analytics.
  • Second, strategic data collection and analyses can offer dramatic cost-savings as each brand does not have to finance its own projects and can anticipate a more organized array of reporting and analysis options.
  • Third, enterprise-wide analytics enables across-the-board education in reporting and data. At this time, many brand managers are in the habit of glancing at a report for information, but not yet using it as a compass by which to navigate. With an enterprise-wide analytics presence, these brand managers are forced to embrace the numbers and start making more strategic brand recommendations. The result is a more consistent and strategic step forward in marketing growth and optimization.

Ultimately, analytics and reliance on predictive modeling are here to stay. As marketing partners, it is our responsibility to make our clients as agile as possible and ensure they have the most accurate information in their toolbox while making decisions. So the next time your clients go to the easel and begin painting their strategic plan, make sure they have numbers to guide their work of art.

CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION:
Questions? Comments? You can contact the author directly at blog@ochww.com.
Please allow 24 hours for response.

Also posted in Clients, Data, Healthcare Communications, Planning, Statistics, Strategy | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment
Mar8

SXSW 2013: Small Data in a World of Big Data

KPI-originalMore than ever, modern marketers are using data to drive decisions about strategies and tactics. Clients are asking us to back up “what we think” with real numbers about “what we know.”

The rise of “big data” is a hot topic at this year’s SXSW conference. Thought leaders are sharing their insights on how to interpret and act upon this growing pool of information. Pay attention, since this stuff matters.

But at the same time, we run the risk of ignoring “small data.” That is, if the numbers we have do not hit a certain threshold of massiveness, should we throw it away? Of course not; let’s discuss why.

Aggregate Shmaggregate

A few years ago, economist Steven D. Levitt and writer Stephen J. Dubner released an important book called Freakonomics. This book addressed some interesting ways data can lead to improper and unfortunate conclusions. Specifically, big data can make you think that 1 + 1 = 3. (Note: It doesn’t. I checked.)

Freakonomics revealed that sometimes big data, when combined with unrelated external events, can confuse even the smartest, most experienced researchers. Add to that the idea of “unintended consequences” and things can get downright confusing for people who put all of their faith in big data.

There’s nothing technically wrong with big data. I love big data. Send it over and I will have my big-data brains dissect it. Big data = good.

The problem is twofold:

1. Big data is overwhelming to many people. They draw incomplete conclusions based on their limited view of the numbers. It takes a well-trained, experienced data professional to extract smart marketing insights from gigantic data sets. When a well-intentioned but inexperienced person analyzes data, he or she can easily misinterpret the insights.

For example, if tons of people are landing on a particular page on your website and then leaving immediately, you might conclude they are “bouncing.” We hear this a lot.

But what if they simply found what they needed and left? What if this bounce was really a conversion?

This leads directly to the second problem…

2. Weak KPI mapping. Key performance indicators (KPIs) are designed to help you understand the relationship between your content and the target user. Specifically, how well your content satisfies their needs and moves them along your relationship continuum.

All the data you collect means nothing until you set KPIs and other goals. KPIs give you context to the data. Without this context, you will get data for data’s sake. And really, who wants that?

KPIs need to be an agreed-upon measurement that guides content creation, traffic drivers, and analysis. (That’s it. Please reread that sentence aloud to the whole class.)

And Now, Small Data

So, what’s the takeaway? Well, it’s about how you should be interpreting your data, both big and small. It’s a new mindset that you need to bring to your team, who are probably building a bonfire and chanting, “big data, big data, big data” the week after SXSW.

Big data matters. I completely agree. It’s just not as simple as it seems. You can’t just look at a giant bucket of data and make a snap conclusion (e.g., kittens are popular, hence we need kitties on our website to sell our product).

But small data matters too. Yes, you can learn a lot about the time of day your site is visited. And yes, it can be extremely significant to chart this over a two-year period.

Small data, however, can tell you different things about your target. It can tell you if the user is getting information that influences their decision or engages them  in your resources. Small data can tell you if your content is properly linked within your website and expanded brand footprint.

For example, a “thank you” page at the end of a transaction page may be a KPI. If you’re only looking at the big-data picture, you may not really understand what people are doing to reach this page.

You may not even know how they got to your site to get to this KPI. Search? Banner? Email? Sure, you know how they got to your website, but do you know which channel delivered the user who converted? In too many cases, the answer is “no.”

Everyone from the copywriters to the designers need to know your KPIs. Your SEO team and your media-buying team, too. Everyone needs to know your KPIs, most of which are not part of your “big data.” KPIs are often part of your “small data.”

Looking forward, make this year the one that everyone is measuring data consistently. Understand and optimize your website—and every other tactic in your campaign—according to big data AND small data.

And skip the kittens.

Check out OCHWW’s other SXSW 2013 blog posts:

SXSW 2013: How Zombies Are Helping Us Get Fit

SXSW 2013: BIG Data and Personal Technology at SXSW

SXSW 2013: The Mobile Healthcare Revolution

SXSW 2013: Bad Behavior – the Saga of SXSW

SXSW 2013: Empty Information Calories

CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION:
Questions? Comments? You can contact the author directly at blog@ochww.com.
Please allow 24 hours for response.

Also posted in Content Strategy, Data, Healthcare Communications, SXSW Interactive | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Responses
Feb5

Analytics Drives the Contact Center

Call-Centers

“This call may be monitored and recorded for training purposes.”That’s a familiar refrain to all of us who’ve called into a call center in the last 15 years or so. In the past, these recordings were used for exactly what the recordings stated—company supervisors would listen to them to perform employee evaluations. Recently, however, companies are driving a change from this traditional tactical approach, moving toward a more strategic focus by mining this mostly untapped goldmine of data coming from the voices of their customers.

Most companies are now changing their focus and targeting the untapped opportunity in the recordings of their customer interactions. We need to do the same, and as we do, we are learning more and more.

Identifying opportunity in contact center communications with analytics

The call center (which should be referred to as a “contact center” because it does a lot more than just handle phone calls) is a place that more people interact with on a daily basis than see the average advertisement. It is also where customers and prospects provide priceless feedback on the products and services (including customer service) that our clients offer. The continued reduction in the cost of data, salesforce.com products, and voice-identification cloud-based software now allows us to identify important trends, opportunities and risks in the conversations our clients have with their most important constituents.

Companies should record 100% of their calls. If they do, by using call analytics, we can identify potential issues before they negatively impact the company. For example, not long ago we were able to identify a trending problem and take steps to address it before it resulted in a huge issue. The issue was with direct mail, but it was found at the contact center level with the advanced methodologies we used in our contact center analytics. Our client believed (and we validated and proved) that call analytics helped proactively save them thousands of dollars while gaining thousands of incremental Rx’s (think Rx lift).

Get rid of the contact center silo

As the new insights from customer interactions become available, the traditional silos between the contact center and other marketing areas are coming down. The untouched data mined from contact centers can be used as essential building blocks to inform multiple aspect of the business. We need to push our clients to eliminate the informational silos and share data, especially within the contact center. It can, has, and will result in tremendous new opportunities.

More than anything, gaining real-world customer feedback can help us fine-tune what and whom to target, understand how targets respond to information, and determine how they should receive information. Using the insights of this “big data,” we can transform how our customers think. Using the contact center to find and deliver what we all already know we must deliver—the right message to the right person in the right way at the right time—can help produce a guaranteed ROI.

Optimizing ROI with contact center analytics

The No. 1 thing teams, clients, us, the President, and probably God want to see from any new campaign or program is a positive return on investment (ROI). Contact center recordings and analytics will provide a measurable ROI to our clients and customers—all by using the voice of the contact center to find gaps and make needed changes as they are found.

And given the cost savings, improved efficiency, customer retention and new opportunities identified by the campaign, companies are able to see ROI timelines that are measured in weeks, not months or years.

CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION:
Questions? Comments? You can contact the author directly at blog@ochww.com.
Please allow 24 hours for response.

Also posted in Clients, Customer Relationship Marketing, Data, Healthcare Communications, Marketing, Research | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment
Oct18

Analyze This: Boosting Communication Effectiveness With Contextual Segmentation

Segmentation is well understood as a concept but its potential is grossly underutilized, especially in pharma. The data and talent now exist to generate and execute on context-specific segments. Try it and you’ll see a significant boost in your marketing effectiveness.

Segmentation, in the context of marketing effectiveness, could be described as the classification of audiences into unique addressable groups to increase the communication relevance, impact, and customer value. Contrary to what you may have been told, segmentation does not have to be complex (though as an analytics advocate, I am aware that more variables could sometimes be better).

The underlying requirements of a good segmentation scheme are that group membership must be unique (i.e., have unique attributes common to the group and different from other groups), that members respond similarly to marketing stimulus, and that segments are targetable (no need segmenting on a variable you cannot identify and communicate on). As such, segmentation could be as simple as grouping patients on demographics, attributes, behavior, motivations, value, or as complex as combining these into multidimensional segmentation schemes.

While most pharma clients have adopted segmentation and some have proceeded even to create microsegments (subsegments) from these large segmentation schemes, many are yet to maximize the significant value of segmentation. The typical implication is that programs are created around segments and left to run. Tactics are developed and mapped back to these single segmentations and never reviewed or reassessed in light of real response and post-execution behavioral data. Rather than such single set-and-run or must-adhere-to-regardless-of-tactic segmentations, a more pragmatic segmentation should reflect the specific context, program, and feedback (or should we say shout-back) data that patients and HCPs are sending back. That’s what I mean by context-based segmentation.

Context-based segmentation could change and evolve depending on the communication, tactic, and platform. I reiterate that contextual segmentation is NOT microsegmentation, the subcategorization of larger segments. Contextual segmentation refers to creation of context-specific segments, which may be totally unhinged from any macro brand segment or its derivative.  Contextual segmentation takes on more importance especially in the absence of individually identifiable information. When you segment site visitors based on content selection, navigational paths, and visit frequency, you have just conducted some contextual segmentation. When you take this a step further and adapt content or offers to their needs, you are tapping that powerful potential of contextual segmentation. When you deliver offers to physicians based on historical response to multichannel communications, that’s segmentation within the context of a multichannel communication program. The result is the guarantee of communication effectiveness given the empirical feedback-based improvement in communication to your patient or physician.

So why has such a promising concept not been pervasive in marketing? It’s partly due to history and inertia. Until recently, two important components of executing contextual segments—data access and analytics expertise—were either totally limited or unavailable. But a lot has changed over the years: data has exploded—think Big Data—and many top-tier analytics and consulting practices like those at Ogilvy CommonHealth Worldwide (yes, shameless plug, I know…but it’s true) have superb analytics talents. But the industry has lagged in identifying and adapting to the reality.

It’s a fact that pharma data does have its unique challenges with data access: no tracking of consumer script behavior, few websites require log-ins, no shopping carts, unsure whether the intended doctor saw the sample shipment—the office staff may just have put your brochure out there in the waiting room. And let’s not forget that pharmaceutical firms are behind other verticals in social media activation. But you can make your own data as well. I don’t mean “make up” data (a no-no for any analytics person)—I mean you can create surveys, conduct interviews, observe patient-doctor relationships, purchase lists, and so on. Despite these limitations, you still have a rich base of datasets that can provide amazing segmentation schemes that can increase communication effectiveness 2-5x.

At OCHWW, we’ve generated several of these dramatic results first hand. Creating contextually based communication for a multichannel program based on patients’ engagements and channel preferences. We added transaction history with just a few survey questions administered by an IVR and created addressable segments for the brand. We then delivered separate communications streams designed specific to the right customer audience, and significantly raised campaign effectiveness.

I am not advocating the elimination of organizational or brand level segmentation. Those are valuable segments in themselves for specific purposes (Did I hear you say those are relevant for their respective context?). But pharmaceutical brands should embrace context-based segmentation. The excuse around lack of data or lack of talent is no longer valid. Forcing programs into organizational segments, or worse, not conducting any segmentation at all, should no longer be tolerated. You may have been unknowingly (or now that you know, knowingly) undermining the effectiveness of your program or campaign. On your next program, demand it.

A special thank you goes out to Leslie Prives for contributing to this blog post.

CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION:
Questions? Comments? You can contact the author directly at blog@ochww.com.
Please allow 24 hours for response.

Also posted in advertising, Branding, Healthcare Communications, Marketing | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment
Sep20

The Paradox of Patient-Centric Decision-Making

Whenever someone asks me to make a decision about how to do something I’ve paid them to do, I generally wonder why they don’t just tell me what they think I should do. I have no idea whether I want traditional copper piping or the new flexible tubing for the bathroom downstairs; I couldn’t begin to tell you if I want synthetic oil in my car; the only direction I’m happy to give an expert  is how to cook my steak (medium rare, thanks.) I just don’t know what I don’t know, and I don’t have the context of living with previous similar decisions in order to ground my current one. I don’t have 500 cars, so I don’t have a large experimental set with which to work when someone asks me about the types of oil I want to use. I don’t know, I haven’t thought about it much.

My mechanic, now he’s probably thought about it—that’s why my return answer to anyone asking me to choose is usually, “Tell me the difference.” Then, if he or she is any good at upselling, they tell me why the one that makes them more money or is easier for them to do (or hey, is better for me—give people the benefit of the doubt here) is the better choice, and I say, “That one.”

This is the paradox of consumer-centric decision-making—consumers have to live with choices, so they should be empowered to make them and not abdicate or have them taken away by the professional provider; but consumers generally have far less of an idea of what they’re choosing than does the professional who is going to deliver the service, and almost certainly don’t understand the full potential scope of ramifications of one choice over another. In the worst of cases, theory works out in practice to mean that the consumer (me) has the right to make a poorly informed decision (who knew that plastic tubing is easier to install, but that my water would taste like plastic when I went for the flexible tubing? Sucks to be me…).

Apply the consumer-centric philosophy to our world, and you have patient-centric decision-making. Patient-centric decision-making is the laudable philosophy based in the premise that patients know what they want out of life, and since it’s their life to boot, they should be making their own healthcare decisions. We know this won’t just happen—since patients traditionally haven’t had to make these decisions, we need to empower them, as well. This is a far cry from, and improvement over, the days when doctors made decisions for patients, even life and death decisions (apocryphal stories from the turn of the last century abound, including euthanasia, administration of therapy without consent, and other more gruesome stories I’ve heard told to me that I’ll tell you over a beer some time.)

The problem, and there is a problem, is that patients generally don’t know the full scope of their options nor do they know the possible ramifications of their choices, and so are making decisions with less-than-perfect information on which to base them. They could turn to the Internet and post their question in a chatroom, or they could ask a stranger they meet on the subway (it’s sort of the same thing), but most likely, they’ll ask their doctor. Which in turn leaves the doctor with the quandary, how do I provide unbiased opinions relating to a choice about which I actually have an opinion? If I think oral anti-diabetic pill A is better than pill B, I may frame your choices “fairly” but with clear leading intent: “Option A is a good one for someone in your case. Option B generally works for people much sicker/older/younger/whatever than you…”

This is the fundamental challenge of patient-centric decision-making, that at the end of the day, most of the information patients really need to make an informed, rational decision should probably be coming from their healthcare provider, who in turn is put into a fairly strong position to influence the decision itself. It’s a paradox, or even a catch-22, like, “How do I get job experience so that I can get a job without having a job to give me experience?” or, “How do I know I’ll hate flexible tubing until I live with it for a month?” Clearly we need to help patients become educated so that their decision is truly informed; it’s not clear how much education is enough, nor where the best source of that information can be found.

One possible solution is experience by proxy, which the Internet is actually quite good at. If you want to know what it’s like to live with one choice or another, Internet communities are surprisingly good sources for finding out, not necessarily what you should do, but rather what it’s like living with choice A or choice B. It’s not perfect, and you have no idea if the people you’re getting your information from are really unbiased (or even sane.) But at least you can get a feel for life after your choices, which is what really matters, and you can have some sense of the issues you’ll deal with given one choice over another, from people who have had to live with those choices.

Experience by proxy isn’t perfect, but it is definitely a good way to learn something the slightly easier way than learning it for yourself. For example, if you choose flexible tubing over metal piping, let the water run for a minute before drinking it—that works pretty well.

Also posted in behavior change, Healthcare Communications, Marketing, Patient Communications | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment
Sep4

Does the Bell Toll for Traditional Siloed Promotional Activities in a Leaner Compliance-Driven Pharma World?

Our clients are saying that the role of Medical Education will grow in years to come…potentially biting into other traditional areas of the marketing mix. Does this spell disaster for advertising or PR?

Ogilvy Healthworld Medical Education recently surveyed its clients to assess what the future would hold for Med Ed, and the results were both thought-provoking and intriguing. The clients we involved spanned marketing and medical affairs disciplines, in global, national and EMEA roles across a range of small, medium and large pharma companies.

Looking at how agencies would need to respond to changes and turbulence in the pharma environment, five key trends emerged:

  1. We are part of a shifting landscape: attitudes, budgets and people are moving away from Sales and Marketing to Medical Affairs and Market Access. This parallels an increase in educational activities and the slow erosion of PR and promotional activities or their metamorphosis into more educational content. Our clients are telling us: “Clinical data will increasingly be at the heart of educational tools and messages ….medical education will drive a more clinically focused brand strategy and what promotional work that remains will be subject to stricter and stricter regulations.”
  2. Our pharma clients are increasingly concerned about the risk of non-compliance and, in particular, inadvertent off- license promotion. As well as a sharper delineation between promotional versus non-promotional activities, there will be a drive to improve transparency between pharma companies, healthcare practitioners, payers and patients.
  3. The hands-off approach to pharma-sponsored Continuing Medical Education (CME) is becoming a double-edged sword: although companies have reduced regulatory control, they are under increased pressure—and face stiff penalties—if content is non-compliant.
  4. As healthcare professionals communicate increasingly in the virtual space, there will be less reliance solely on face-to-face communication. Digital communications will rise to deliver more cost-effective, innovative  solutions to more targeted audiences and enhance the value of face-to-face communications.
  5. As client teams continue to downsize, there will be a growing need for strategic communications planning expertise within agencies. Potentially, those with the greatest capability to become long-term strategic partners will increasingly be seconded in as interim managers: “As pharma becomes more risk averse and cost conscious, clients will need agencies who can lighten their load, in the new leaner, compliance-driven pharma world.”

In the relentless drive to rationalize healthcare spend and tailor therapies to meet unmet needs in increasingly segmented patient groups, new drugs will hit increasing scrutiny.   In this new world, data will be king—and Med Ed is ideally and uniquely equipped to use this information to justify premium pricing over cheaper, established medicines. Ultimately, pharma’s quest for improved transparency, trust and reputation must be underpinned by programs that lead to enduring change, but which are compliant in the stringent regulatory environment in which we operate. Medical education is not just about knowledge acquisition anymore. It must facilitate and drive behavioral change, among a range a stakeholder groups operating under strict regulatory compliance. While behavioral change is most effectively achieved when all communications disciplines are harnessed, including PR, advertising and market access, it will increasingly be underpinned by robust Med Ed.

Does the bell toll for traditional siloed promotional activities in a leaner compliance-driven pharma world?

 

Also posted in Access, behavior change, Marketing, medical affairs, Medical Education | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment
Jul10

The Rise of Transaction Medicine

Today someone sent me a video link about new technologies that will change the way medicine is practiced, today, tomorrow, forever. All of these gadgets utilized smart mobile technology to monitor some aspect of physical health, including the “do it yourself ECG” app and the “monitor patients in the ICU” app. This link came on the heels of a number of similar videos I’ve been sent that look deep into the near future, where Bones McCoy’s tricorder is a reality and parents diagnose their children by pointing a tiny box at them. The wow factor is undeniable, the value and precision unprecedented; and yet, I find myself wondering, where’s the doctor? In over 15 years of studying medical interactions, I have seen a dramatic shift in the nature of the patient-provider relationship (it was already well under way in 1996, when I started my first hospital-based fieldwork), and the shift is unidirectional: doctors and patients know less about each other, and have a harder time connecting with each other, with each passing year.

As part of the field research division of a company that specializes in positive behavior change in the healthcare arena (for providers and patients alike), I have the privilege of a bird’s-eye view on various aspects of healthcare, from lots of points of view. The great thing about fieldwork is that it is the ultimate backstage pass. With this perspective, there are a number of things that appear to be driving the change from relational to transactional medicine, including the changing nature of the healthcare system, the growing number of therapeutic options and diagnostic markers that need to be discussed in an ever-shorter patient visit, and the rise of the purely slam-bam-vaccine-you-ma’am-walk-in-clinic, but one big, undeniable driver is the rise and ubiquity of medical technology.

The influx of medical technology is itself part of the larger trend of smart machines filling in everywhere for arguably less smart humans in jobs that apparently didn’t need people: ATMs have replaced bank tellers, surveillance equipment has replaced security guards, and there is now a whole generation of people who not only don’t understand what a telephone operator was, they can’t conceive of why we’d need one in the first place (“You see, there used to be these wires connecting the telephones, and someone would have to plug the wires in to the right… yes, wires, connecting telephones… wires… you’d tell someone who you were calling… I saw it in movies… Lilly Tomlin did this “ringy dingy” thing, it was funny… no, you couldn’t download Angry Birds…”). With all the focus on technology, on tracking and monitoring and testing and recording, it’s getting harder and harder to find people just talking (and if you’ve ever had a doctor speak with you while simultaneously filling in an EMR, you’ll know that technology is definitely becoming a barrier to human interaction). This absence of connectivity, or at least, the environmental pressures that are working against human connection, are detrimental—to medicine and to medical care, to patients, and to providers themselves, who can find themselves profoundly alienated from the people they treat.

I’m not in any way opposed to technological progress, and lord knows we need systems in place to track prescriptions, help patients engage, empower, self-monitor and stay compliant, and to aid general diagnostic precision. I do believe, however, that nothing will ever replace the doctor-patient relationship. We may not have one now, but we miss it. When all was said and done, the great thing about Bones’ tricorder is that it didn’t prevent him from talking to people, it freed him up to talk more. I just hope, in the next 15 years, we let the technology do the tracking, and the sensing, and the cross-referencing, but we let the people do the talking.

Also posted in Healthcare Communications, Patient Communications, Physician Communications, Strategy, Technology | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment
Jul5

Will Health Plans Of The Future Take Care Of Widows And Orphans?

“Widows and orphans” is a long-established phrase that connotes one of the neediest segments of societies. Throughout time, communities have been asked (or commanded, as in the Bible) to support them in some way. One modern-day version of this support takes the form of estate planning. In the 20th century, stocks that provided a relatively high degree of safety (from declines in price) and steady dividends were nicknamed “widows and orphans” because they were good to have in the portfolio and provided relatively steady income. Prevalent among this type of stock were utilities. Utilities offered consistent returns because state or federal governments had established these companies as monopolies. In return for their monopoly status, governments regulated (or seen another way, guaranteed) a specific level of profits after fixed and variable costs were covered.

In 2012, a new group of companies that may fulfill the role of utilities is health plans. The Affordable Care Act fixes the medical loss ratio (MLR) of health plans at 80%, or 85% for large health plans. Here, the medical loss ratio is a metric that means 85% of health plan revenues must be spent on patient care. You don’t need to be a mathematician to figure out that 15% of revenues is left for overhead expenses and profits. So, the level of profits is regulated, just like those of utilities.

The business leaders of health plans are not settling for lower profits, which are estimated to fall from the 7-8% range to 3-5%. Health plans are already diversifying and are either acquiring or developing higher margin businesses. Here are a few examples:

Information technology (IT) or information management (IM) is a popular area. The thought here is: instead of assuming the financial risk of insuring patients, acquire the financial and actuarial know-how to do so, and sell that expertise to others who will assume the risks (and the lower profit levels). The Wall Street Journal says that managed care plans have made about 20% of their merger-and-acquisition deals with IT firms since 2010, up from about 7% in 2007. They’ve reduced their M&A of other insurers from 39% to 27% in the same period.

  • Aetna purchased Medicity in 2011, a company that sells software that transmits health care data across the different systems in different provider offices
  • Aetna also purchased Prodigy Health Holdings, which will allow midsize companies the financial and information knowledge to offer self-insurance options

Other insurers are purchasing physician practices. Humana purchased Concentra, which runs urgent- and occupational-care clinics. The thinking here is to exert more control over physicians and other providers, optimize their approach to patient care, and lower costs (and fatten profits).

Some insurers are expanding internationally, where legal and regulatory (and profit) constraints may be less onerous. Cigna has entered India in the form of a joint venture with TTK.

And recently, WellPoint acquired a contact lens company. Simply, the margins in vision companies are higher, and this is also an opportunity for health plans to cement relationships with consumers without the “middle men” of physicians or external opticians.

What does this mean for marketing communications?

Payer marketers traditionally target 3 audience levels: the payer level, the provider level, and the patient level. While these audiences will remain in the evolving health care landscape, they may need to be approached differently:

  • At the payer level: analytics groups may possess powerful data that show differences in cost or performance for specific drug therapies. Can marketers acquire and leverage these data to reinforce the value of our drugs or other therapies? Conversely, if sophisticated IT systems detect physician deviations from practice protocols sooner, traditional formulary controls such as prior authorizations or step edits may be enhanced and present bigger obstacles to prescriptions
  • At the physician level: if physicians work directly for health plans, their flexibility to practice or prescribe will be constrained more than if they worked on their own. Will drug marketing messages that only contain safety, efficacy, and effectiveness be enough, or will additional message components be needed? How will sales force pull-through campaigns need to be engineered if a greater degree of control binds both formularies and prescribers?
  • At the patient level: cost pressures may make insurance plans a bit more rigid. Out-of-network (or non-formulary) options may be sparse and much more expensive. What value proposition will convince the member/patient to pay for the appropriate therapy?

No one knows what the future will bring. Even if health plans do transform themselves in the 21st century and “take care” of widows and orphans in a hypothetical role as “utilities,” we can probably guess that many payer audiences will still be eager for high-quality information that demonstrates value for each health care intervention. Most likely, health care marketing communications will have challenges and goals that are similar to those of today, yet slightly more difficult.

Readers, will heath plans’ transformations affect drug and device marketing significantly?

 

 

Sources:

  1. King James Bible (James 1:27).
  2. Do “widow and orphan” stocks still exist? Investopedia.com. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/analyst/121802.asp#axzz1x7O6I4Dw. Accessed June 5, 2012.
  3. Reforms prod insurers to diversify. The Wall Street Journal. May 12, 2011. http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703643104576291022457851278.html. Accessed June 5, 2012.
  4. To find new revenue streams, insurers are branching out into nontraditional areas. From Health Plan Week. http://www.henryloubet.com/news030512.htm. Accessed June 5, 2012.
  5. WellPoint to buy 1-800-contacts. The Wall Street Journal. June 4, 2012. http://professional.wsj.com/article/TPBWR0000020120604e8640002u.html. Accessed June 4, 2012.

 

Also posted in Access, Clients, Customer Relationship Marketing, Global Marketing, Health & Wellness, Healthcare Communications, Managed Care, Marketing, Patient Communications, Physician Communications, Research, Statistics, Strategy, Technology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment
May16

The Art of the Acronym: CRM Isn’t Just CRM When It’s MCM

Customer Relationship Marketing, Non-Personal Promotion, and Direct-to-Consumer are all concepts in marketing that aim to create the most important communication with your target. Whether the communication happens on the phone, on the Internet or in the form of direct mail and/or email, the interaction with your target or prospect should be informed by customer intelligence. The practice of building customer acumen into every interaction, and listening to the response so the next communication can keep getting better, isn’t at the core of intelligent Multi-Channel Marketing—it is Multi-Channel Marketing (MCM).

We talk about “discovery,” or new response channels that can be stored on our database to help our clients understand not only what the value of their targets is, but also what part of the target lifecycle , and what that target’s significance is to the client business as well. These bits of found knowledge are important insights that can be made useable by Marketing Analytics, and they really do accrue value over time. Building a roadmap for including analytics is a step-by-step process.

Analytics Creates the Multi-Channel Roadmap

1.  Building Informational Assets With Strategic Discovery

Often the first engagement with new clients is to develop some customer-focused and market-focused analytical benchmarks that can be used to help make decisions about new marketing campaigns and, more often than not, help forecast ROI for each campaign. Many of our clients don’t have the time to look or simply don’t want to find insights that can come from a 360° view of their customers. We are looking for uniqueness such as target lifecycle stages and target value or segment.  This Strategic Discovery Process begins to answer questions about customers that can drive our Multi-Channel campaign design and how we measure the success of it.

2.  Segmentation—Giving Your Targets the Attention They Need

Normally, a segmentation system is designed to be helpful in driving messaging tone and focus while identifying the proper message to deliver. Segments should have the correct classification by one or more characteristics in order to realize which of your targets will need what type of attention. The perfect segment should meet specific standards:

  • It’s internally harmonized
  • It’s externally harmonized
  • The target responded similarly
  • It can be reached uniformly (through all the MCM channels)

3.  Campaign Targeting, Testing and Analysis

Each campaign plan team needs to establish a clear method for campaign targeting and testing for maximizing results. We need to have a mandate to check the boxes on each of these components:

  • The campaign design should include a consistent “test and learn” approach that can be carried out from one campaign to the next with new learning goals building upon findings from previous campaigns. Add to this a method for building a business case for each campaign to predict ROI and help with prioritization of the campaign changes.
  • When the targeting and testing method for each campaign is recognized, make sure to carefully document this process for potential reproduction.
  • Develop a protocol for predictive analytics for each campaign—whether models will be created for the pilot phase, or be built on results for future stages of campaign development.
  • Of course each campaign needs an established methodology for back-end campaign analysis—which will be documented for future use and roll out.
  • Establish best practices of reporting on campaigns—different types of reports for different levels of management are usually required, and this practice would be established early on in the campaign design process.

4.  Integrate Analytics for Response Management

As marketers seek to embrace target engagement, their presence takes on singular importance. Multi-Channel marketers need to examine how to bring direct marketing and web activity more closely together for:

  • Fulfilling targets’ needs by providing immediate messages relevant to them on a personal level.
  • Measuring directly ascribes and personally identifiable conversion results from campaigns that cannot be easily achieved through traditional methods, such as Non-Personal Promotion (NPP) or Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) advertisements.

5.  Identify Opportunities for Impactful Insights

We normally use survey methods both to collect critical data needed to drive Multi-Channel Marketing programs/campaigns and to build predictive analytics.

  • Evaluate whether there is data you wished you had for campaigns, but that is not available from any source
  • Behavioral surveys with compound analyses are highly useful for identifying the feature and proper mix for plans as well as prices that consumers are willing to pay for those features.
  • Determine if there is a proof of concept for the use of primary research to devise targeting strategies and campaign design.

By creating a checklist of these five stops on your Analytics Road Map, you can incorporate your target intelligence into Multi-Channel Campaigns and deliver greater relevance, better results, and promise a constant ROI…without hesitation.

Also posted in advertising, Customer Relationship Marketing, Direct-to-Consumer, Great Ideas, Marketing, Multi Channel Marketing, Non-personal Promotion, Statistics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment