So sad to read all the upset, frazzled and in-dismay posts. Guess it says plenty about the process being used for the cuts. Managers seem confused too! They're no source of information for the lesser in rank.... Me thinks all managers, all levels, should be called in for their opinion. But hey, I'm just a nobody in the mix but among the crowd who think some big mistakes will be made. Bite 'ya in the butt kind of mistakes.
Are you from MRL? They are the only people I know who think decisions need to constantly be made by committee. If you don't like what decisions management makes there's an easy solution. It's the one with the knob. Merck is done being run by committee - for better or worse - but the decisions are made. If you weren't consulted there's a high probability you'll be using that solution with the knob sooner or later, by choice or not. Good luck.
Seems that the wipe out will clear out a lot of good people.......those who did well during most years, but not in 2013. In pharma, we all know it's a big element of card game. Everyone has a bad hand at some time. Managed care, movement into a bad territory, key writers who switch off and pure luck drives much of what happens. The result now? It seems a lot of good, better and bests...even prize winners, will be tossed. In other cases, those skating on nothing but luck in 2013 will be staying on board. Good luck with it all....I am working on my resume.
As access declined, indirect influence was predominant in one's success. Managed care, demographics and per luck. In my old company, there was a territory in the South. Even when the territory was vacant for a 1 year, it was still in the top five. Management claimed it was due to no samples and per scripts. Sure, I am with you. Wink, wink. This created some of the decreased talent that entered into management. If you lucked out and got one of these territories, you were golden. Smile, show up on time and get promoted. Talent had very little to do with success. Life?
My only concern is that they don't approve my hand raise. Anyone know what the probability of that is?
Estimate 50-75% or more of non-hospital offices must have samples if they're available. Two products close in purpose, MOA, efficacy and MC? The toss up goes to the sample-available product...not only for the poor or elderly patient, but for the patients they want to get into treatment pronto! It and one reason why samples are so valuable to any territory. No samples, often means less access and less NRx business. A decline, not move up.
