Lessons on how to successfully merge two pharma companies

I read a great book on the [at the time] most successful merger of two pharmaceutical companies, SmithKline & French and Beecham. As I read this I saw where the egos and culture of two very different companies [SKB & GW] crushed the hopes of merging two giants into a successful merger. SmithKline Beecham and GlaxoWellcome were two very different companies in the US with VERY different cultures. SKB was a meritocracy where [for the most part] performance was rewarded with advancement. GW was a culture of managing up? When we first merged, I was surprised to see the leadership of the GW organization. The two VP of Sales were obese [not to be insensitive, but they WERE a healthcare company were they not?] - it became apparent that the culture of SKB was results and the culture of GW was to manage up and move your career forward...not results. One day a case study will be written about the most unsuccessful merger - and it will have a cast of characters...made up of leadership that allowed ego, envy, insecurity and a lack of basic business acumen to drive decisions that were so off base, even industry outsiders would scratch their heads.

 

Thus the Keystone Cops were born!

 

Interesting you mention performance, I don't remember a single disease state where skb and Glaxo competed that Glaxo didn't destroy you. Skb reps are arrogant hitches, I had one of your loser Paxil dicks approach me in a parking lot once and tell me I needed to do better with Wellbutrin so his Paxil numbers would look better when mine were pulled out, I was leading the region and top 5% in the company at the time. Screw you and your outdated philosophy of mergers, Glaxo treated its people with respect, like adults and with no games or shallow judgements based on waistline.

 

I have to disagree. True, Glaxo had good volume in their disease states...initially they had no or little competition in these disease states. Once another product entered the market place...the GW sales force couldn't compete. Valtrex had huge volume, but Famvir out performed it in growth. That was another big difference - GW paid on volume where SKB paid on market share growth. If you would like more recent proof of how ill-equipped the GW sales team was when there was competition...look at Avodart. GW did NOTHING with Avodart [tough market place with competition], it is given to an SKB sales team and the drug rockets past a billion dollars. GW was a rapport driven organization, SKB was a results driven company.

 

I'm retired now but enjoy the history review of how one sales org is better than another.

The feud between the two, Glaxo Inc and SKB goes back to the Tagamet vs Zantac days.
Business schools uses this as a classic case study of how a company completely out marketed and outsold it's competition. Zantac was the speeding bullet passing by the flat footed SK reps.

Valtrex vs Famvir. 2 good products, one with all the data and indications. Verdict: Sell off Famvir. Great move. Novartis did nothing with Famvir.

Zofran vs Kytril. Zofran 1st to market in delivery and indications. Kytril "me too" sort of. Verdict: Sell off Kytril. Good move. Roche couldn't do anything with Kytril.

Wellbutrin vs Paxil. Both so full of lawsuits and negative verdicts, hard to say it was worth having either of these products.

Avodart as mentioned previously, taking on a new life with SK side of GSK. Results show this may be true but how much was tied to a new marketing strategy vs a more aggressive sales force. Not sure but results were very good.

Bottom line, yes GW had some obese leaders and SKB had mostly chauvinistic and cheating men in leadership. Pick your poison. Two very different cultures with very different sales philosophies. In hindsight, they never should have merged but they are alive today and still in the top 5 of pharma. Not sure that could have been said if the merger never took place.

 

I love how you guys are so discriminatory as to keep throwing out obesity as an indicator of incompetence. Admittedly, I was not around then and cannot judge the specific situation, but using their obesity as descriptor of their business flaws is ridiculous. Since it will come up, yes, I am obese, something I am currently working very hard to overcome, and succeeding. However, I can tell you it has never effected my ability to perform my job at a very high level. The thing it has impacted is how people like you make quick assumptions about me, my professionalism, and my success (or perceived lack there of). Please just don't assume we are all lazy, incompetent, blind to what we look like, or that we aren't working toward a healthier weight and personal lifestyle, rather judge us on how we perform on job and our business successes and failures. I understand if you are describing someone, it is true descriptor of their appearance, therefore not something to be taking personally, but please don't phrase things or assume that physical appearance effects their drive, intelligence, ability or perform.

 

Really? This is what your going to post. Nobody cares what happened 15 years ago. Those times are long gone. You always have these old goofballs that retired or left the company come back and make posts, then answer their own posts because nobody responds. Get lost old Glaxo rep nobody cares about your time here, nobody!!!

 

I care about it. This person helped lay the foundation for the current company, just like I did.