The industry

If you will look at todays hedlines, you will note Novartis cutting it's sales force, King cutting 20% of employees, Pfizer pulling Exubera and the list goes on.

A smart "Pharmacy Industry Support Services" Company would look at this, develop strategies for the decrease of the sales representative force and offer it to clients. The question is: Does Advogent still have th ebrain power to do this or have they terminated all of the Pharma savvy people and they will be doing this for others?

We know that Yeager and DeSimone are not in tune with this business, but do we have anyone else that does or can we call in consultants (read former employees who know this business and will make twice as much as "consultants") to help out?

 

I could name a half dozen former employees who could come back and be consultants to guide us through this mess. The question is if Yeager and deSimone are to proud to ask for help.

 

I think it is more like too stupid or egotistical to ask for help and understand that they need business consultants in order to come up with strategies for our company.

 

Before the beer belching morons start complaining about this thread, it is like the Sanofi-Aventis thread ........ about the core issues in Advogent, AHM and others.

The Drug Reps are finding the doctor's offices door being slammed in their faces more and more. They haven't the training or medical knowledge to answer real "detailed" questions, and doctors have no longer any incentives to give them the time of day. Their numbers will fall dramatically over the next year or so.

The dinner meetings are proving a waste of time and money, and will be consolidated into some more efficient format in the next year or so. There are several pharma broadcast networks in development, including Pharma TV, in Europe and the USA, and Pharma Radio. The top Doctors will be able to speak directly and brief other doctors and nurses without them leaving their desks, even during the their commute.

With current Dinner meetings the knee jerk reaction is to create a Call Center to do the same, more quickly, and cheaper for the imploding pharmaceutical companies. The travel industry tried this with travel agents and failed, then died. The advocates of Call centers came over to the meeting planning companies, Advogent and AHM, and are trying again. They will fail again.

In 18 months the chances are that some form of Universal Healthcare will become policy. Then the Feds/States will begin controlling the sales and price of drugs, along with companies with a vision of the future like WalMart, selling prescription at $4. This will not support a salesforce of 90-100,000 Drug reps with their only useful function of dropping off samples, pens and notepads. Their role has no place in a cost conscious system that controls the buying price of pharma products, with alternative products, in many cases.

I doubt if the current collection of misfits at Advogent could even envisage the new model let alone execute the moves needed to develop a viable business plan. But with a Wall Street rating of "Negative" on Big Pharma, maybe those who control the purse strings may realize the potential and jettison the dead wood in favor of potential huge profits if they can pull in the expertise to claw back the list of clients posted elsewhere on this site.

 

Wow...an intelligent poster on the Advogent board! You must be one of the half dozen that the other poster mentioned as there is no way that you are currently with Advogent. I believe you are right on target with your analysis.
Can you come back as our new CEO?

 

With all of this said, where is a good place to be in healthcare sales? Pharmaceuticals is certainly not the place to sell these days for reasons described above. Do device sales and capital equipment have a better future than pharma? Thanks.

 

Device and capital equipment sales are very competitive. As an example, there are situations with device sales for artificial hips and knees where a competitor would go into a hospital, buy your inventory and ship it to Mexico or another country just to get theirs in. With large capital equipment, you could be working on selling a MRI or CAT scan machine for 6 months before the sale is approved and most of your salary is by commission.
Right now in pharmaceuticals, the best place to be is with oncology drugs or in "speciality"/biotech sales (although Amgen has fallen on hard times recently). The only other area that is fairly close to what we do which is very hot is being involved with clinical trials for Pharmas and biotechs. There are thousands of clinical trials (Phase I-IV) going on and they need people to help. Good luck whatever you decide to do.

 

So is that where Jack and Blake are focusing our strategic efforts?

 

No, first of all they can't spell clinical trials. Secondly they don't have a clue what it is. Thirdly, we do not have the expertise, business savvy, people or infastructure to do any of this. There are about 50 companies doing it already.

 

Obviously that poster no longer works there. Smart people make more money than stupid people. And they laid off all the people who made a lot of money back in Feb. (me included). And they have the 2 stupidest running the show!!!


No wonder why Pfizer pulled out this summer, and more to follow!!! Great work you MORONS!!!

 

Advogent still has intelligent employees, just not in management positions.

 

The Drug Reps are finding the doctor's offices door being slammed in their faces more and more. They haven't the training or medical knowledge to answer real "detailed" questions, and doctors have no longer any incentives to give them the time of day. Their numbers will fall dramatically over the next year or so.

The dinner meetings are proving a waste of time and money, and will be consolidated into some more efficient format in the next year or so. There are several pharma broadcast networks in development, including Pharma TV, in Europe and the USA, and Pharma Radio. The top Doctors will be able to speak directly and brief other doctors and nurses without them leaving their desks, even during the their commute.

With current Dinner meetings the knee jerk reaction is to create a Call Center to do the same, more quickly, and cheaper for the imploding pharmaceutical companies. The travel industry tried this with travel agents and failed, then died. The advocates of Call centers came over to the meeting planning companies, Advogent and AHM, and are trying again. They will fail again.
[/QUOTE]

The goal is still to deliver product messages to an ever more inaccessible customer. The original model for meetings was to promote brand in a credible format. Peers would be asked to comment on their experiences with products over a conference table a decent meal, without the company rep hanging on every word and later challenging such honest conversation between peers. As the model changed to 1) only certain docs selected by reps, 2) then reps attend to meet and greet, 3) then reps sit at the table next to customers, 4) then reps select their favorite venues. Along the way with all this rep involvement, the PI must be distributed. Then the critics rightly said it was promotion and subject to full disclosure. There is no difference in a meal provided by the reps in the office suite and the after hours meeting with rep in attendance and even participating. There is a world of difference between the original concept and the evolved event being pitched by Advogent, AHP, Apex, etc. Pharma will always eat its children, trying to improve a good thing while destroying it. Originally Phil Curcura and Jack Serra who started it all in 1982, told pharma clients, there will be no reps, by invitation only, no spouses, their venues, their menus, conducted by trained moderators who obtain participation and encourage positive comments and handle negatives properly. Full disclosure was provided. The concept worked, still works, but is a far cry from what is done today. IMO the down slide began when vendors no longer stood their ground on the involvement by reps. Invited to criticize, reps can provide a product manager with enough reason to switch vendors that he/she will do it, to save their job if nothing else. There, I've said it.
The need still exists: product message to customer with only so much time to absorb it. How about an HDTV channel for medical topics. Don't have HDTV? Well, let's see. Video conferencing for medical controversey and debate. Debates on health care financing issues. I'm tired now. Here comes my nurse.

 

There are two Pharma TV projects out there (1) A British Pharmaceutical TV plan to bring DTC advertising, and get round the EU laws. (2) A US plan to develop a closed circuit interactive network that delivers what you suggest.

There is also a feasibility study to do the same with audio, Pharma Radio.

Either will significantly impact the current Drug Rep, and may increase not decrease booking of venues for meetings.

 

Pharma Radio- there once was a PRN Radio, a closed channel FM with the receiver supplied by pharma company, Roche was once involved. Not a winning item. The content, the venue or channel, the degree of participation if any, are all aspects and variables. If one focuses on the goal of how to get the message through, the available time to interface no matter how good or innovative and the pitfalls of past pharma attempts such as reps getting involved and in the way, I am sure new technology can be useful.

 

The ComLinks Pharma TV and Pharma Radio projects are more like digital cable "On Demand" channels and an interactive videoconferencing network than PRN Radio, a pure broadcast medium. Nationwide meetings are part of the proposed mix, especially to launch new products.

There is resistance to the concept because (1) they will "star" the very best speakers, backed by professional production, then tens of millions of dollars can't be given as bribes to useless speakers as in the current model. (2) The media editorial plan is independent of Big Pharma and many control freaks demand that PhRMA controls every word, even if they are blatant lies. No opportunity ever is to be allowed for doctors to report early negative aspects of drug trials, or experiences to a mass audience, even if it saves lives.

One way or another someone will launch a multimedia Pharma channel to pull together electronic marketing and evaluation of procedures, pharmaceuticals and healthcare, with or without Big Pharma. A pro-Hilary network backed by liberal dollars could be the worst case scenario for them if they neglect current pro-pharma proposals.

Consider the income from booking thousands of interactive groups to watch the "Specials" without the hassle of speakers, their travel, and their egos.

 

I was just looking at the court transcripts from the cases of P-D, Pfizer, Merck. The affidavits by docs paid as speakers, the business plans from Pfizer's 'CBUs' showing the thread of intentional off-label promotion is amazing. Pharma will eat its young, for sure. They should want a 3rd party to buffer them. If the topic is exciting enough, the events you describe could be a real boon to the meetings business. The control by pharma comes from inbred management, IMO.

 

My God...get a life!

 

Maybe that is his life...... A lawyer!

Someone has to look at the BIG PICTURE and not just worry about Jack's choice of paint.

As far as a TV Network, imagine these doctors becoming "Emerils" on a Pharma Channel and getting their stories replayed on CNN, and the Today Show. Imagine the Drug Reps fighting each other to be Anchors!

Oh No! Will Jack make a pitch for the Vitamin franchise?