WSJ article, reps are replaceable

Discussion in 'MyPharma' started by Anonymous, May 10, 2011 at 1:05 AM.

Tags: Add Tags
  1. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Response to article, thoughts?



    I have been a pharmaceutical rep for almost 10 years. What you have written is subjective. There is no way a GOOD rep can be digitally replaced. I am not writing to be combative. I am writing because it seems that market research and drug company executives are trying to justify the removal of the "sales" aspect of pharmaceutical sales and lower costs by eliminating or minimizing reps. It's not going to happen unless they pay the docs to seek their information.

    Yes, the pharmaceutical sell is different than a tangible, no consequences, sell. A good rep knows how to do the right thing and "sell" their drug keeping the best interest of the patient as a priority. Access can be difficult, but over time a skilled motivated rep can get the time they need in front of enough influential physicians. A computer will never be able to do this. Sure, there is a small percentage of docs that love the technology and control and will seek out information online, but most will never do that without compensation. If a login is required to get samples, they'll have one of their staff do it for them. The docs are so overworked and under-reimbursed, they are not going to deal with that kind of crap!

    Many pharmaceutical companies force their reps to register docs for live or taped webcasts and teleconferences. We do it because we have to. 75% of the registered attendees don't even listen, they just agree to let it play in the background while they grab a bite to eat and take a well deserved break during their workday. We know that registering the docs implies that we are replaceable, but we have no choice. This data, and much of the marketing data collected regarding the impact of pharmaceutical reps is inaccurate. Somehow it has been decided that it is not okay that reps influence prescribing habits of docs. Why is this not okay? Would it be better if docs blindly keep prescribing the meds they learned about in med school even though there are newer, better meds available for their patients? Are docs really not smart enough to decide for themselves what meds are best for their patients? Did they go through 12 years of training to treat their patients based on what a rep tells them to do? Why do patients think that docs are rewarded for prescribing more expensive medications?

    Yes, there are many self serving reps out there who give bad or irrelevant information to the docs. These reps are what has caused the access issue. Also, pharmaceutical companies train their reps to use a script or algorithm to sell their meds to the docs. This tactic is a joke but we all keep doing it so we don't get fired. The docs can't stand the scripted "rep speak" "dog and pony show", but they have a heart so most of them just suck it up and go along with it. Others ban managers from their offices so they aren't tortured by the "performance". Honestly I don't know why any doc lets managers come into THEIR office. Why does the public have no idea how much the pharm. companies spend on free samples? Why does the media portray this as a tactic to get docs to choose more expensive meds? Does the fda approve more expensive meds for the heck of it? Why would a doc prescribe a more expensive med if they didn't think it was better for their patient? Cmon now!

    I have no idea what your thoughts are or if you even care about this information but thanks for reading. I wish there was MORE clarity about this info. Don't get me started, PHrma is a darn joke and is not in the public's best interest, yet they have no idea.

    Have you ever spent some time on the job with a pharmaceutical rep?
     

  2. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Good post. Another point about access is if you have fewer reps with bigger territories and more products access will be better because there won't be 5 reps selling the same 2 drugs to the same 100 docs. Real sales jobs the reps have larger territories, multiple products, and are not expected to see 8-12 customers a day.

    The problem with our business is we viewed as a marketing tool and not as field personal representing our companies. Marketing runs the show and they do not take into effect the human element of what doctors do on a daly basis they just look at marketing objectives and metrics, based on flawed market research.

    I laugh my ass of at the web-casts. I had to do a live one once with an MD and he cancelled on me at the last second. It would be unexceptable for me to tell me DM that my doctor cancelled becasue something was actually more important than wasting an hour of his time watching another doctor read our PI over the internet so I asked the doctor if I could just use his name and run the webcast and say he was on it with me. He said no problem just give me a heads up when your manager is with you. I mean I have a good enough of a relationship for a doctor to lie for me but the web-casts will replace that, yea right. I spent the day in the hospital this guy practices at and ran the webcast while doing other pointless admin work.

    It's amazing how marketing and senior managment at these companies do not want to hear real feedback about anything. They force us to waste time and do idiotic things like this becasue they just don't get it and they don't want to get it. My prediction is the layoffs will continue and to be honest some of them are justified I mean there is no reason more than one person should be selling the same product(s) to the same group of MDs. I do beleive companies think that they will be able to get the same bang for there buck with the new technology that is out there as opposed to reps so they will implement marketing plans based on the falsified information about pilot programs they ran with reps in the field. This will obviously fail becasue no doctor will waste there time registering for pointless webscasts so there will be no ROI and they will be forced to have some sort of rep/human contact to reach out to customers. I wonder if they'll put the web-casts on plans when that ship starts sinking?

    I would not not overthink this. Back in the late 90's early 2000's E-Trade and on-line brokerage services were going to replace financial advisors and stock brokers all over the country. I was working for a broker at the time and he was flipping out. 10 years later that has not happened. Untill machines can talk, understand human behavior, and react accordingly they will not replace humans. Customers still like having there asses kissed and information delivered to them by a person. Pharma will not be like it was back in the 90's and most of the 2000's with huge pods and multiple partners but reps will still serve a purspose. Like I said earlier in most sales jobs you do not call on 50 -60 customers per week and you spend time during the day doing admin. Until pharma companies understand that sales is not marketing and cannot be quanified by metrics they will continue to this downward spiral of bad decisions and idotic marketing plans.
     
  3. Wonka

    Wonka Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2006
    Messages:
    3,234
    Likes Received:
    13
    The article shows there are still 75,000 US reps. I find that hard to believe.
     
  4. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    The problem I see is that many Pharma companies end up using the same consulting company. These consulting companies conduct surveys and other ineffective ways to gather their data. As we all know, our offices take the money and Joe the Janitor fills out the survey. It's completely ridiculous.
    This is a growing problem. These consulting companies are telling our marketing departments that "OUR RESEARCH SHOWS......."

    Hence the botched up marketing in Pharma. I wish companies would save their money and just ask the sales force.
     
  5. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    So true, the amount of money spent on marketing surveys is baffling. Especially when the docs read the first 3 or 4 questions and then Christmas tree the rest of these internet surveys. One doc told me he earns around 5k in Amazon.com credits annually.
     
  6. Fucktard

    Fucktard Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,579
    Likes Received:
    66
    There are a lot of issues and problems that COULD be fixed and a LOT of money to be saved if they did the above.

    It will never happen, though, because asking the people who know makes too much sense.
     
  7. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    This makes waaay too much sense and is not enough of a waste of money.
     
  8. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    I must disagree, it is already happening in Texas. There is a company that created computers for Pharma management that bypasses the reps. It's like a Drone where the doctor gets PDEs via a touch screen terminal in their office. I have heard that all San Antonio offices are going to this because of the Texas Medical Board (maybe a pilot program?) The pharm rep is a thing of the past...period.
     
  9. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Thing of the past? There are still over 80000 of us so it's quite premature to say that. Marketing data that has no merit I'd being used to initiate this alternative. Marketing data in this industry is generally skewed useless BS. Let's see how well it works. Have you looked at the results of past attempts to initiate alternatives? They failed.
     
  10. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Ask any Suboxone doctor if they could practice Suboxone treatment well without their rep...you will probably get the answer "no"...but Suboxone is a very different drug, treatment philosophy really, than just going in and saying "my company's drug performed 20% better in trials than my competitors"...that isn't meant to belittle other reps. But being in Big Pharma before becoming a CL for Suboxone, I can tell you the difference is night and day. I will never return to Big Pharma, if anything happens to my job. We are actually liked and valued by most of our physicians....it used to be that way in pharmaceuticals in general, before the big boys decided pods and 5 reps seeing the same doc in a day was a good thing.
     
  11. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    I agree.
    In order for companies to get a competitive edge, they need to hire reps.

    Only if you have the consoildation of all drug companies, which could happen in a few hundred years (seriously), then you might see no more reps.

    But, as long as you have companies competing with different products, you will see reps, because people buy from people, not from computers.

    The reps is still valuable.
     
  12. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    It's just big Pharma feeding the WSJ a story that acts as a reason to get everyone ready for more layoffs of primary care/patent loss drugs that many reps are selling now.
    It's not gonna take over a large part of the industry unless samples are taken away.
    There will always be some reps but there is no need for as many as there have been or are.
    If you have to wait for a rep to come out of an office, there are too many reps.
    I think 20,000 more will be gone in the next 18 months, mostly from those multiple reps selling the same drugs. The focus is to get down to 1-2 reps per group of drugs and use contract to bulk up for launches, for a year or two.
     
  13. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Everybody is replaceable, until the company loses money.