Aug21

Helping Clients Navigate Compliant Communications for FDA-regulated Products

Helping Clients Navigate Compliant Communications for FDA-regulated Products IMAGE_EDVANITY URLS: Google Paid Search Engine Marketing (SEM) Changes
• Redirecting ad changes effective January 12, 2016
• Prohibiting ads where vanity URLs are utilized and dramatically different from the destination URL

Google has announced significant changes in their paid search engine advertising policies with regard to pharmaceutical products. The change that we are addressing here deals with vanity URLs, and their respective redirecting ads, that will take place in January 2016. The bottom line is that Google will no longer allow vanity URLs in an effort to provide consumers with more “clarity and transparency.”

Google has a long-standing policy prohibiting any ads where the destination URL differs dramatically from the display URL. Please note, this prohibition is not exclusively for pharmaceutical products—it has been Google’s practice across the board. Up until now, the pharmaceutical industry had been the exception to the rule. The reason for the exception was because in many cases, information seekers will not know the name of a drug, but will understand and know the symptoms/disease state information.

FDA background information
Previously, the FDA never objected to marketers utilizing vanity URLs and/or redirecting ads. These URLs/ads typically do not directly promote the name of a prescription product. Instead they lend themselves more to a disease state or descriptive nature, and then redirect users to another location or URL where they will see branded information specific to the prescription drug and/or disease state. Vanity URLs/redirecting ads are not exclusive to online SEM use, and are also used in print ads, television commercials, billboards, postcards, and more.
In March 2009, the FDA sent out 14 violation letters regarding search engine marketing practices of 48 brands. Thirteen of those violations referred to SEM ads running on Google. The FDA noted four types of violations in 2009:

  1. Omission of risk information, failure to meet requirements of 21 CRF 202.1(e)(5)(ii)
  2. Inadequate communication of indication
  3. Overstatement of efficacy
  4. Failure to use the required established name

Google’s reaction—what exactly is Google implementing?
Beginning in January 2016, Google will not permit pharmaceutical advertisers to have vanity URLs (such as “TreatmentforConditionX.com”) that redirect users to a BrandName.com website.

Pharmaceutical marketers will have the following options for vanity URLs:
Option 1

ConditionSymptomsGoogle-01

Sample ad showing company name as URL

Option 2
They can add “.com” to the company name.

ConditionSymptomsGoogle-02

Sample ad showing company name plus .com as URL

Option 3a (for prescription drugs, biologics, and vaccines)
They can display the phrase “Prescription treatment website” as the display URL.

ConditionSymptomsGoogle-03

Sample ad showing prescription treatment display URL

Option 3b (for medical devices)
They can display the phrase “Prescription device website” as the display URL.

ConditionSymptomsGoogle-04

Sample ad showing device display URL

All of these ads will be able to drive to pages on the brand.com or brandhcp.com website.

At the present time, this change has been instituted by Google only, and doesn’t lend itself to print, television, or other advertising mediums.

What does this mean for our clients?
Review and reassessment of live and proposed Google SEM campaigns where clients utilize vanity URLs need to be completed as soon as possible. New campaigns need to take these new rules into consideration during the tactical planning phase. Funds can be shifted to Yahoo and Bing, however there is the possibility that they may also follow suit.

Google has indicated a willingness to work with pharmaceutical clients to minimize potential negative impact to paid search campaign performance. Testing of the new formats will determine which type of units work best with various campaigns.

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, Analytics, Apps, Brand Awareness, Branding, Clients, Content Strategy, Design, Digital, Digital Advertising, Health & Wellness, Healthcare Communications, Patient Communications, Physician Communications, SEO, Strategy, Technology, Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment
Mar11

Are You Harnessing the Power of Video in Healthcare Yet?

Young woman with gold fish tankDid you realise that the average attention span of a person has dropped to only 8 seconds? That’s one second less than a goldfish!

Video can combat this. It is a fantastic way to hook people in and capture their attention. Online video is growing so quickly that this is an opportunity that’s impossible to ignore:

  • Views on mobile devices have increased 400% in the past 2 years
  • YouTube is now the second most popular search engine behind Google, with 40% of its traffic coming from mobile
  • 80% of online visitors will watch a video all the way through, compared with 20% who will read a webpage

Patients are being diagnosed via video, surgeons are swapping clips on operation techniques, and, as everyone is rapidly becoming more and more mobile-connected, healthcare knowledge sharing will soon have no boundaries.

It’s likely that for whatever purpose, be it for a symposium or for patient education, your video will end up online, where it will receive the majority of its views. But it’s a noisy world out there, and one rule is key: keep it short, smart, and snappy.

What kind of video content should you choose?

The great news is that there are all kinds of exciting options that won’t break the budget. Think about who the audience is and how they’ll be watching. Are they using a small screen? With or without sound? On social media? Or at a live presentation…could Dr Smith at the back please put his mobile down and watch? (Hopefully if he enjoys it he’ll search for it later online, “like” it and share with his colleagues.)

Explore the different ways to cThe Other Sideonnect with your audience. Enriched video content is great for increasing user engagement, and interactive user-defined storytelling can be a totally immersive experience. It lets you get the right messages to each individual user by letting them click on objects in the video to influence what they see. “Choose a Different Ending” is a beautiful example of a great campaign tackling knife crime that drew immediate response. And another of the best ones I’ve seen recently is The Other Side of Honda.”

Or, if you need to get more complex data across in a way that quickly informs and engages, use an animated infographic to make data come alive. These motion graphics pack a huge visual punch, are bursting with information, and are rapidly becoming key tools to promote branded messages. For a truly multi-layered, fast and constantly moving example with beautiful visual transitions, you can’t beat “STUXNET: The Virus That Almost Started WW3.”

Whatever you want to achieve, remember you’re not alone. We recommend that you use a Creative and Motion team to help you get all those questions answered on the way to making great videos.

Video is a super strategy to stand out from the competition and it’s definitely a healthcare trend that’s already here and set to keep on growing.

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, Analytics, Apps, Blogging, Branding, Data, Design, Digital, Digital Advertising, Media, Public Relations, SEO, Social Media, Strategy, Technology | Tagged | Leave a comment
Feb26

Twitter and Google Forge Deal That Reintroduces Tweets to Google Search Results

Social Search Blog Image_This article was co-authored by Buddy Scalera from Ogilvy CommonHealth – Parsippany, NJ.

Twitter announced recently that it will be providing Google with access to its microblogging service for search indexing. Although Twitter activity appears in Google’s search results now, the staggering volume, more than 6,000 tweets per minute, makes crawling and organizing the data impractical.

The new partnership between Twitter and Google will grant the market-leading search engine access to Twitter’s “firehose” of data. This data is generated from the stream of 140-character tweets produced by Twitter’s 287 million users. Google’s unique access will enable it to parse, arrange, and develop rank and relevance for the social content in real-time.

It is not clear how Google will present Twitter’s data in search engine results, but the real-time and topical nature of the social network will make it especially relevant for breaking news, cultural subject matter, and rising trends. It will also likely be aligned to searches for individuals and personalities. It seems natural to index a person’s Twitter account, recent posts, and other activity in Google’s Knowledge Graph. It is also likely that user activity provided by Twitter will help determine if Twitter data is shown at all and with what prominence.

Of course, Google and Twitter have both been smart about how to monetize their offerings. We expect them to maximize their shared advantage for advertisers on both platforms.

What does this mean for healthcare brands?

For brands that are participating on Twitter, this continues to extend the reach of those messages into keyword-oriented searches. It also gives added pause to those concerned about the impact of influencers and popular Twitter users who mention brand names and conditions. Although it is not likely that a rogue Twitter handle will appear in a product search return in the first few pages, it will be extremely relevant to the nature of searches surrounding patients, their discussion of their disease, and treatment options.

For brands not active on Twitter, there is still the need to monitor activity on social networks, especially those that are publically searchable. Users who share brand information may be competing with your brand for users’ attention. Those users may also be candidates for influencer engagement, or an opportunity to correct brand misinformation.

The new inclusion of timely social posting would work to tremendous advantage for those brands that seize conventions and meetings for social sharing and engagement. The timely nature of event hashtags and the limited shelf-life for this type of communication create an ideal pairing for topical search and brand engagement.

Brands that have not engaged in social media marketing or listening programs are likely to be surprised by the changes in search results for their brand names, disease state terms, and other organic search results. Brands will now be competing with many more voices and another variable of timeliness. As with many of the changes Google has introduced for marketers in recent years, the changes will come quickly and with little time to react for a process-oriented industry like healthcare.

Many brands participate in social listening to understand the way patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals are discussing the health category and their brand. These brand teams are likely to be better prepared for the deluge of information to come from this announcement, and how to process it.

Both Twitter and Google are companies that are comfortable experimenting in real-time. So while these changes will probably start with search engine results pages, we expect to see a ripple effect across other properties. Google+ and YouTube channels may be the first places where we see different types of experimentation and integration. After all, these properties are all part of Google’s ecosystem of data and advertising.

Although the announcement has been made, both parties have noted that it will be several months before tweets begin appearing in users’ searches in real-time. This announcement should have tremendous impact on the Draft FDA Social Media Guidelines presented to the industry last year.

To learn more about how this announcement and other market changes may affect your brand, please contact our team here at Ogilvy CommonHealth Worldwide.

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, Analytics, Branding, Data, Design, Digital, Healthcare Communications, SEO, Social Media, Strategy, Technology | Leave a comment
Nov6

Are You Listening?

8370148From predictive sentiment analysis and word association to audience profiling and message personalization, social listening techniques are helping healthcare marketers translate everyday conversations into brand positioning strategies, outreach programs, and relevant online content.

With the exponential growth in social sharing and social media, we posed the question, “Are You Listening” to the healthcare industry during a recent panel discussion on social listening at Ogilvy CommonHealth Worldwide’s 3rd Annual Marketing Analytics & Consulting Summit. The reaction to the discussion during the summit was incredible, as attendees bombarded our panelists with questions, which made for a lively discussion.

Joining our expert panel discussion were several contributors: Ryan Alovis, InTouchMD, Karen Auteri, IMS Health, Michele Baer, Feinstein Kean Healthcare, Kim-Fredrick Schneider, Sermo, and our very own Angelo Campano, Ogilvy Healthworld.

Untitled

Attendees learned multiple perspectives from our expert panelists. First, social listening provides marketers with a reality check for what patients and physicians are discussing in terms of disease states, available drugs, and lifestyle considerations. Second, attendees learned that many of the techniques employed have been shown to help marketers manage and respond to adverse events and reposition web content to deliver more meaningful messages to audiences they are trying to reach and educate.

Our Approach

Making sense of social conversations as related to branded and unbranded messages, and disease states, is central to capturing emerging patient and physician trends around sentiment, preference, and message personalization. In the Analytics department at Ogilvy CommonHealth Worldwide, we believe social listening needs to be a dynamic discipline that is “always on” and can be configured to leverage our sophisticated network of algorithms to aggregate unstructured conversations, and glean meaningful insights related to the way patients and physicians are talking about our clients’ products.

Natural Language Processing (NPL) and text mining machine learning algorithms are used to extract dominant concepts across posts, tweets, text messages, and call center conversations. We create a dictionary of terms with the highest frequency across messages, which is also known as a term document matrix. Correlation analyses are run across the document matrix to isolate the top 100 concepts and messages. This concept investigation is done through splitting the data into a training dataset and a test dataset (usually a 70/30 split, respectively). We then apply decision trees and neural networks to learn from our sample training data on how the text in each comment is configured to help derive classification rules on sentiment (positive or negative). Once classification rules are set, our rules are then deployed for overall monthly scoring of brand sentiment.

Untitled2

We can help our clients understand questions such as:

  • What are HCP and patient sentiments about the brand?
  • What are the terms and attributes HCPs and patients are using to refer to our ailment state or specific brand?
  • What are HCPs and patients saying about competitor brands?
  • How can we proactively manage adverse events reporting?

Notable Applications

With limited social buzz, a cancer drug maker found that their brand’s category was mostly associated with terms like LDK-378, crizotinib and maintenance terms. The brand itself was strongly associated with terms like Tarceva and ALK, but social listening allowed the brand to identify opportunities within the category to purchase tertiary or long-tail terms to optimize search.

In addition to finding ways to optimize search, we were able to identify three different types of back pain sufferers through social listening. From over 115,000 local EU market conversations, we were able to identify pre-concerned, seekers, and diagnosed back pain sufferers. This learning enabled our marketing plan to amplify key brand messages at the right moment, in the right space, and at the right time that was most relevant to when each audience was most likely to respond.

Offering Many Benefits

Through understanding and evaluating the reality of how patients and physicians are talking about disease states, branded or unbranded products, we’ve reshaped website content, fine-tuned campaign messages, optimized SEO, and considered new targeting pathways. Our processes will continue to evolve to help drug manufacturers become more relevant in meeting physician information and patient care needs.

If you’re not listening, our Analytics group at Ogilvy CommonHealth Worldwide can help get you started.

 

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

Also posted in Analytics, Branding, Data, Digital, Social Media, Technology | Leave a comment
Oct3

Are Infographics Right for Qualitative Insights?

BI-BlogInfographics are not doing qualitative research any favors.

Good infographics clarify and condense complex information into more easily understandable and digestible visuals—an absolute plus in a culture that wants to utilize big data, but has a short attention span. It’s little wonder why they have become so popular, and why our clients are now asking for them.

Here’s an example of a good infographic by John Nelson, in which each line represents the path and intensity of a tornado tracked in the last 56 years by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Tornado Tracks Infographic2

The data is accurate and current, the story is compelling, and the design is appealing and clear.

However, infographics are not appropriate for all types of information. Some are being made to represent material which would be better suited for a simple list or chart. Others are being made to represent qualitative insights, like the one below:

The Gender Divide Infographic2

[Source: Motivation Factor and the Boston Research Group, 2012]

It seems a little weak. But why?

Rather than focusing on “black and white” data, qualitative research wades through the complexities, observing and accounting for the “gray” areas that quantitative research cannot address, such as the “whys” of human behavior. That is not to say that the insights are more complex—in fact, despite rigorous research methods based on the theories of social science, good qualitative insights seem simple, like something you have known all along but never realized.

Qualitative insights are supported by evidence that often consists of quotes, photos, videos, and notes. For example, in an ethnographic study with spinal cord injury patients, we found that patients are often in denial about their loss of function. We demonstrated this through quotes from patients saying they have accepted it, juxtaposed with photos showing patients doing things that indicated otherwise, such as refusing to build a ramp to their front door.

Despite the fact that research insights are stronger when shown with their supporting evidence, qualitative data is not easily condensed into a format appropriate for an infographic, and unfortunately is often excluded, as in the infographic above.

When qualitative insights are stripped of their rich supporting evidence, they lose a lot of their nuance and context—often bringing the validity of the insights into question. This is the last thing that qualitative research needs, since there is already a cultural bias that quantitative data is more reliable.

So, should qualitative research jump onto the infographics bandwagon? Probably not.

That’s not to say that qualitative research can’t learn something from infographics. Most people are visual learners, and too often qualitative research reports are text-heavy—our clients get bogged down trying to take it all in. We need to lighten it up, show more and tell less—craft a story from our findings that draws them in and rely on carefully chosen examples to fill in the nuances and context, rather than more text. We also need to pay attention to the aesthetics—good insights are easily lost in ugly or confusing formatting.

If we do these things, then we may just get to a point where clients do not feel the need to ask for infographics, because the research will not only be accurate and current, as it has always been, but it will be compelling, appealing, and clear, as well.

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

Also posted in Analytics, Data, Design, Digital, Infographics, Strategy | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment
Jul30

Numbers Don’t Lie—But They Could Be Trying to Tell You More

data tabletAn advantage of analytics that is often extolled or capitalized on is the sleek, easily consumed result at the end of miles and miles of data. It is an alluring power, to be sure, and the ability to see past the noise to extract core performance metrics is certainly foundational. Practically, however, these extractions may lull one into seemingly natural simplifications of data in order to provide neat, packaged numbers.

Analytics is not merely a mass of raw data; it is the underlying story being told by the data and it is the story that is meaningful. In essence, context imbues the easy and commonplace metrics we use and rely on with impact and meaning. Merely looking at just one aspect of performance can even be detrimental, as it blinds us from other motivating factors.

In fact, in an increasingly digital HCP world where 98% of physicians use the Internet for professional purposes [1], the task of understanding and connecting with this audience has grown more and more complex.

Specifically, with regard to digital web analytics, some of the primary and day-to-day concerns revolve around site performance and content engagement. What many of these issues generally boil down to are fairly straightforward answers—number of site visits and interest in specific site content.

Volume of site traffic is, independently, a rather inert number that can be incredibly misleading. High numbers one month followed by a much lower volume the next would assert that website performance has declined in terms of site traffic—but placing these numbers in context of another metric could change the view entirely. Looking at visits in light of bounce rates could inform us that a far smaller percentage of visits bounced in the latter month. Time on site might stay the same from month to month, but if page views per visit decrease, then more time is being spent consuming content on each individual page (on average), delivering an entirely different message once a corollary metric is introduced. The goal, after all, is to deliver the right message to the right audience, at the right time. A larger audience might not necessarily be the right audience, and so the quality of a site visit or a digital imprint is affected by and affects a multitude of other elements.

The benefits of exploring the connection between metrics are the models that emerge from the analysis, which in turn allow us to make more surprising and valuable insights. A top-line glance may miss or overlook these connections in its urgency to survey surface-level movements or trends; breaking down site referrals by traffic drivers might display which sources of site visits are the most prominent, but aligning these sources with other factors could reveal that certain segments are more likely to convert (download materials, sign up for accounts, order samples, etc.) and thus lead to immediately effective and actionable conversations.

At any point in a venture where data is generated, or can be generated, analytics can explain, evaluate, and optimize. No one part of it should be taken in isolation from the others, and this is no less relevant to the practice of analytics itself.

It is imperative that analytics never be stripped down to mere metrics, but live and thrive in a much larger framework.

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

Also posted in Analytics, Content Strategy, Data, Digital, Healthcare Communications, metrics, positioning, Strategy | Leave a comment
May1

Oncologists to Initiate Discussion Around Value

money stethoscopeEarlier this month a new initiative was announced to encourage oncologists to discuss the price and relative value of cancer medicines with their patients. No, this was not driven by executive fiat as part of the ACA, nor is it the brainchild of an insurance carrier. Instead, it comes from the American Society of Clinical Oncologists, or ASCO, the professional organization for oncologists and publisher of the Journal of Clinical Oncology, among other titles.

ASCO has formed working groups that will weigh efficacy, side effects and price to help better define the value of oncology medicines. Initially these groups will look at treatments for advanced lung and prostate cancer and for multiple myeloma, said Richard Schilsky, the group’s chief medical officer.

This comes a little less than a year after Scott Ramsey from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle published a study suggesting that individuals with a cancer diagnosis were 2.5 times more likely to file for bankruptcy compared to a matched control group.

Not unlike hepatitis C, the price of therapy in oncology is a hot topic, as 11 of the 12 cancer drugs approved by the FDA in 2012 were priced at more than $100,000 per year.

To date, ASCO and another group, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), have published treatment guidelines that payers use as the basis for reimbursement coverage of cancer drugs, but these guidelines have been value-agnostic, meaning the price of the drug has had little or nothing to do with strong category recommendations. ASCO’s move could change this.

So how could this impact our clients’ business?

·         Pharma has traditionally had to defend ultra-premium pricing only to payers, who, in many cases, were/are legally obligated to cover the costs, at least for Medicare/Medicaid patients.  Broadening this conversation to include HCPs and patients could affect overall product positioning, messaging and channel strategy.

·         Manufacturers need to rethink how they approach the value section of the AMCP dossier as they submit these to payers as the way payers (public or private) are assessing value will change.  The dossier must also be consistent with value messages to non-payer audiences.

·         With compensation models for oncologists already shifting from “buy and bill” to “pay for quality,” these ASCO value ratings could further aid in the rapid adoption of biosimilars and generic targeted small molecules that will begin hitting the market in the next few years.

·         To the ire of many payers, pharma has been able to mitigate some financial barriers to obtaining therapy through the use of co-pay cards and other assistance programs. If the conversation turns from out-of-pocket costs to “costs to society,” demonstrating meaningful value will be of paramount importance to brands.

·         Dialogue studies in this category suggest sometimes broken dialogue between HCPs, cancer patients, and their caregivers. Layering on a discussion about the value of a drug could add to the confusion. As oncologists experiment with this new value lexicon, it could create an opportunity for brands to take a leadership role in framing the value discussion.

Historically in the US, positioning a drug on “value” has been akin to admitting your brand does not offer a meaningful advantage over existing therapy options. Will this nascent movement result in opportunities for value-based oncology brands? Only time will tell, but in the meantime rethinking how we articulate value is more important than ever.

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

Also posted in Data, Healthcare Communications, Medicine, Pharmaceutical, positioning, Research | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment
Apr29

Are Banner Ads Banner Advertising?

doc writing“Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don’t know which half” – John Wanamaker[1]

John Wanamaker was a successful U.S. Postmaster General, as well as an effective merchant who owned many retail stores throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s. Wanamaker died in 1922, over 90 years ago.[2]

The question that plagued Wanamaker almost 100 years ago still afflicts many marketers today. Some progress has been made as current technology and data platforms, such as Site Catalyst and Google Analytics, help marketers understand who is receiving non-personal promotions (NPP) like email or direct mail. These platforms even help marketers understand who is clicking to a particular website through emails, and further actions taken after clicking through. However, these platforms cannot aid marketers in understanding the reach and actions from all different kinds of channels.

Tactics such as direct mail, email, fax, postcards, etc., are all targeted tactics. A company can deploy all of these tactics to reach a specified audience of physicians through knowing the HCP’s email, address, and name. This same company deploying these tactics may even divide their target audience into different groups through segmentation of a specialty, age, geographic region, past behavior, number of field rep visits, etc. This company can then understand which tactics are most effective for each segment. For example, direct mail can include a vanity URL, which hematologists may take the most action on. Likewise, pulmonologists may have the most website downloads after clicking through an email. These realizations can help a company specify future marketing communication so that HCPs are individually receiving the NPP that is most appropriate for them.

Targeted tactics can help us understand a lot about an audience, but how does a marketer understand promotions such as banners? Or actions taken on a website if the website does not require registration? How does a marketer attribute these non-targeted tactics back to specific physicians in their target audience? Most healthcare brands cannot currently attribute the money spent on banners and website content to specific HCPs. Companies can engage in cookies or fingerprinting software tracking, but this tracking technology can prove costly and comes with a privacy controversy.[3]

While most healthcare brands are not at an advanced tracking level, marketers can estimate which HCPs in their target audience are viewing which banners. This means we can estimate who these banners are reaching, and who is taking further action on these banners.

We can estimate the effects that banner clicks are having on total response rate, and even the effect of banners on script writing.

We calculate this estimated reach attribution through first breaking up the United States into 212 different designated marketing areas (DMAs). With simple banner tracking, we can then look at which DMAs are receiving the highest number of impressions, and which are receiving the lowest. Then, we can look at each DMA at the HCP level. As long as we understand who exists in a brand’s target audience, we will have each HCP’s address, and can then tell which DMA an HCP lives/works in.

Next, we develop a reach threshold to begin to estimate who each non-targeted tactic is reaching. We take the average number of impressions per HCP in a DMA to develop the reach threshold. If the number of impressions in a DMA were over a predetermined amount, then we would assume that all of the physicians in that DMA have seen the banner. Likewise, if the number of impressions in a DMA were below a certain amount, we would estimate that none of the targeted physicians in that particular DMA have seen the banner.

While our understanding of non-targeted tactic reach is only at the estimation level, this can help us increase our understanding of total reached HCPs, and what channels have reached these HCPs. One healthcare drug in particular, before this estimated reach was analyzed, showed a 93.9% reach certainty through targeted tactics. With the estimated reach analysis added, the brand saw that banner impressions increased their overall reach to 99.7%, and 95.6% of HCPs were estimated to have been touched with banner impressions. This brand had invested a big portion of their budget in banner impressions, and they were ecstatic to find out that banners had reached over 95% of their targeted audience.

This idea of estimated reach could be rolled out to several industries beyond healthcare as a way to fully understand the impact of all tactics without extensive tracking methods. After all, the most important thing that marketers want to know is which half of their advertising budget is money well spent.

Also posted in advertising, Analytics, Data, Digital, Healthcare Communications, Media, Media Placement | Tagged , , , , | 1 Response
Jan21

Marketing Performance Mis-measurement: Mistaking Strategy for Objective

graph io blogIf you ever wondered why your monthly campaign tracker or reports show stellar results but your brand is underperforming in the marketplace, you may be measuring (and celebrating) the wrong leading metrics. You may be mistaking strategy for outcomes, thus celebrating the wrong “successes.” This piece elaborates on this measurement error and provides suggestions for setting things right.

Strategy is not objective

A common trap analysts, marketers, and advertisers fall into is mistaking strategy for outcome. Strategy is a means to an end, the selection of options intended to ensure the achievement of specific goals or objectives. With regard to marketing, this implies the focus on specific targets, and selection of channels, tactics, and messages intended to enhance the likelihood of achieving some desired outcomes. The effectiveness of a strategy is therefore not in the execution, but how well it delivers on the outcome. In other words, a good strategy (or execution) is deemed successful, not because it is implemented, but because it delivers on the objectives and goals.

With few exceptions, most marketers, planners, and strategists understand the difference between objectives, strategy, and plan. But when it comes to measurement, this understanding seems to blur, disappear or become less important. Just to be clear, you should measure strategy, but do so in order to understand how you have executed the strategy. This should not be mistaken as an indication of marketing success.

For instance, a common objective for launch brands is to achieve a certain level of awareness among HCPs and convince them to try the product. A decent strategy could be a multichannel marketing approach that combines digital and a few offline tactics with a specific message, cadence, and level of investment against a target HCP specialty. Going by this illustration, if the execution of the strategy is flawless, the measures will show timely delivery of the messages, exposure of audience to the message, and good interactions with the respective channels. This is a successful execution of the intended strategy.

But, this same successful strategy could result in 35% awareness compared to the targeted awareness and preference of 60%. In other words, the strategy was well executed but failed to deliver the desired business outcome. It’s no surprise when marketers’ dashboards show very impressive movements in engagements and interactions, while their brands are getting clobbered in the market.

Measure strategy, but know what you are measuring is executional accountability

Executional accountability is measuring how well you are executing your strategy so that insights form the basis for adjusting strategy and evaluating the quality of execution. This is also the primary role of the execution team—clients that have tried to separate executional accountability in the spirit of fox and chick coop concerns are making a mistake. Executional evaluation must be quickly available to the execution team, to ensure a seamless understanding and feedback loop. This feedback is important to both marketers and their agency/consultants; it is in the best interest of the advertiser to understand how well the strategy is being executed. This proximity provides an immediate feedback loop for learning and improvement. Even better, incorporating leading indicators of desired outcomes makes a highly responsive and rapid cycle optimization. That way, consultants also understand what strategy works when they take on a different client engagement. That is the concept of data-driven or data-integrated marketing.

Outcomes, on the other hand, are usually empirical measures and difficult to fudge—eg, sales, market share, awareness. Unlike campaign tracking, these outcomes metrics are fine to assign to independent parties for measurement

Consultants and execution teams who take accountability seriously must track strategy as well as leading indicators of success (outcomes). These help evaluate quality of execution (strategy tracking) as well as quality of the strategy (leading indicators of objectives).

Below are examples of the difference between strategy metrics and outcomes. Specifics will depend on your marketing or campaign objectives.

untitled

At Ogilvy, our proprietary Fusion methodology, the rigorous methodical approach for communications strategy development and evaluation, also provides the basis for identifying the right execution as well as outcomes metrics. The Scorecard from Fusion empowers the integrated team of strategists, planners, accounts, creative, and analyst with clarity of metrics that help evaluate strategy and outcomes.

In summary

  • Measure objectives as the ultimate measures of success, not the attainment of strategy
  • Measure strategy and tactics, but understand these are strategy measures. You may be successful with your strategy execution but fail to deliver the expected outcomes
  • Execution teams should be responsible for, or have almost seamless access to, execution trackers, as this prevents the teams from “flying blind”
  • Execution teams should ensure they include leading indicators in their tracking and analysis efforts, as this helps evaluate strategy’s effectiveness in delivering outcomes
  • Get third parties to evaluate outcomes. Typically, these skillsets rarely reside with execution partners and the measures are hard to fudge. Rx trends, awareness penetration, market share, revenue, patients base, formulary preference—are all key outcomes measures that are difficult to fudge

Happy data-driven marketing in 2014! May your strategy deliver on the intended.

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

Also posted in Analytics, Data, Healthcare Communications, Research, Strategy | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment
Nov14

Fax: The Forgotten Tactic

fax machineYou may be missing the proverbial marketing boat by not including fax in your marketing mix when communicating to healthcare professionals and their office staff. Faxing still works, and your audience wants them.

Why do we select the tactics we do?

Historical performance, logic, and strategic context go into creating campaigns for clients. Consideration for the audience, message and product are well thought out when determining the number of responses expected to be generated by a call to action (CTA). The pool of standard non-personal promotion tactics very often includes direct mail (DM), email (EM), outbound telemarketing (OBTM), and Web. Each of these is expected to deliver a benchmark response, which answers the question of why we select the tactics we select.

What’s up with the fax?

One tactic that is very often overlooked or forgotten when defining the tactic mix by strategists and account teams alike is fax. Yes, I said fax.

Patented in 1843 and mainstreamed when machine prices dropped in the 1980s, fax was once a powerful office tool allowing users to exchange information and documents instantly.* (*OK, maybe not instantly, but definitely faster than by using snail-mail). Its popularity over time has faded with increased competition from Internet-based alternatives. Fax machines, however, still retain some advantages, particularly when transmitting sensitive material which, if sent over the Internet unencrypted, may be subject to interception. Additionally, because electronic signatures on contracts are not always recognized by law, and faxed contracts with copies of signatures are, fax machines continue to be supported in business.

Now, let’s consider one of our audiences—healthcare professionals (HCPs). HCPs are a prime audience for communicating with via fax since their offices continue to exchange sensitive patient information. According to the 2012 National Physicians Survey (NPS), of the 1,190 U.S. practitioners representing more than 75 medical specialties,1 nearly 63% said faxing remains a popular method of peer-to-peer communication, second only to the telephone at 95%.  “Knowing is half the battle,” right? So, if we know this audience’s preference, wouldn’t it make sense to “fish where the fish are”?

Sure, we can fax it to you

The Marketing Analytics & Consulting team at Ogilvy Healthworld has put fax communication to the test as a communication tactic for several of our clients’ campaigns and have garnered significant results. One campaign we developed and implemented a few years ago included all of the tactics mentioned above (DM, EM, OBTM, Web and fax) designed with calls to the HCP office as the main driver of the campaign. During conversations between the outbound contact center and the HCP office staff, the top request we heard was, “Do you have information you can fax me?” or “Can you fax something to me I can share with the doctor?” With a target list of approximately 22,000 HCPs, fax was requested by the HCP office staff and sent over approximately 250,000 times over the life of the campaign.

Other than the sheer quantity of faxes that may be requested and sent throughout the course of a campaign, what response rates can be expected from a faxed communication? Responses and results of a fax tactic will vary, but the message and CTA included in the fax is what will help lead to greater responses. A current pilot being executed by our team includes a targeted list of only 2,000 HCPs. The fax designed for this campaign includes pertinent information about the program that is being introduced, such as the 800 number to reach a program representative for questions or follow-up, and the program URL. It also contains the CTA, which is the same CTA contained in the DM, EM and Web experience. Results show that the CTA responses are fulfilled via fax 62% of the time, followed by Web (24%), DM (13%) and EM (1%).

In short, if your target audience includes healthcare professionals and/or their offices, and you’re interested in getting a boost out of your campaign, your team should consider including a simple fax into the communication mix. Creating and deploying faxes is relatively inexpensive and can deliver better results than you may expect when administered properly.

1. 2012 National Physicians Survey, Sharecare and the little blue book, July 2012. http://www.sharecare.com/static/national_physicians_survey

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, Analytics, Data, Marketing, Physician Communications, Technology | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment