Decideware

What Pharmaceutical Marketing Clients Want and Need

The Pharmaceutical sector is recognized as one of the largest, most complex, competitive and influential marketing environments.

A special feature in this month's PharmaVOICE, "Client Services" focuses on the client-agency relationship and reveals agency executives' perceptions of industry trends, best-practices and client needs.

While the challenges of successful pharmaceutical marketing remains, ahh ... challenging, some common themes emerge from discussions with major providers of communications services when asked the question 'what it is that clients want and need? from their relationships with their agencies.

In no particular order, those answers include the following:

Brand

Clients want agencies to demonstrate their commitment to managing the brand. No surprise here, but they now expect seamless brand management across a complex, disparate media landscape.

Training

Clients typically recruit their marketing team from the salesforce; these people need training in the skills that will make them successful marketers - agencies are well placed to provide that service.

A Partnership Approach

Clients are looking for their agency to integrate with the marketing team and other communication service providers to work seamlessly as one coordinated unit.

"The most important component of providing excellent client service is to break down the barriers that can form between client and agency."

Channel Agnostic & Integration

Channel growth and fragmentation has confused the media landscape. Clients need help understanding what strategies are most (cost) effective to help drive sales growth, short term and long term. And they want advice on how to integrate their marketing spend across various channels.

"Client service teams that are communication channel agnostic can better serve their clients by not only recommending the most effective communication tools for their brands, but by providing guidance on how all of their communication will work together."

Media Expertise & ROI

The rise of digital media channels has added to the complexity of the media environment and (re)fuelled the call from marketers (and their CFOs) for greater levels of accountability. Marketers want a better understanding of the ROI from A&P spend.

Author: Derek Groom

Source: PharmaVOICE.com

This is part 3 in the series of key points that I picked up on at the eyeforprocurement 2nd Supplier Management Conference at the Flamingo in Las Vegas.

CPO vs Buyer

A third area of discussion was from the supplier perspective, about whether noble ideas for strategic supplier relationships that the CPO desires could be at odds with the behavior of Buyers operating "at the coal face".

To expand, Buyers working at operational levels are typically using leverage techniques to force down costs, sometimes in competition with other desired outcomes, such as improved quality.

It is possible for Suppliers to receive mixed messages from Buying organizations lacking a supplier management technique which clarifies each suppliers' performance objectives with a meaningful and well constructed scorecard, which allows all the key people working on the business to contribute to the performance evaluation process.

We were invited to think carefully about the alignment of scorecards developed to support the business objectives of the relatively few, high value suppliers and how that needs to be managed very differently to the relationships with the much larger group of transactionally focussed suppliers.

Conference Summary

All in all it was a terrific conference for professionals interested in techniques and tools to manage high value strategic suppliers. All the speakers were on message and there was plenty of time for discussion and networking. I will be sure to attend next years conference!!!

Author: Richard Benyon (Decideware)

This is part 2 in the series of the series "What happens in Vegas ..." where I highlight some of the key points I picked up on at the eyeforprocurement 2nd Supplier Management Conference at the Flamingo in Las Vegas earlier this month.

Collaborative Practices vs. Collaborative Relationship

We heard an interesting discussion around the buzz word "collaboration".

The audience was challenged to think about whether their relationships with suppliers merely had "collaborative practices", ie processes that simply interfaced with each other.

Or, whether we engineered truly "collaborative relationships" featuring shared goals and joint strategies built in partnership to achieve those goals.

A truly collaborative relationship obviously requires a deeper level of commitment and trust by both parties.

And this lead to an interesting discussion around trust.

• A critical point was made that "The biggest impediment to trust is time"
• A trusting client/supplier relationship requires an investment in time

Accordingly, because time is a precious and costly resource it's best to only build high trust collaborative relationships with a relatively select group of high value, strategic suppliers.

A leading technology organization, by way of example mentioned that they only apply a collaborative approach to 6 key Strategic Suppliers - and the return from investment is substantial.

Author: Richard Benyon (Decideware)

Last week I attended the eyeforprocurement 2nd Supplier Management Conference at the Flamingo in Las Vegas.

With a high powered team of client-side Supplier Management experts both presenting and participating, there was a wealth of content to absorb.

Day 1 was worth it's weight in gold with a great deal of discussion around the value of Supplier Scorecards, and specifically the role of the "people aspects" of managing strategic relationships.

Here are some key points that I thought would be of interest to our Blog audience. Each point will be covered in this and the next 2 posts.

Value Driven Scorecards

Do the questions you're asking on your supplier scorecards drive extra value from the relationship - beyond those basic benefits that you expect to achieve?

One question that all the participants agreed was of terrific value was essentially this:

"Does this supplier demonstrate a commitment to continuous improvement?"

This single, important question has the effect of "Raising the Bar" from each assessment period to the next and is particularly useful for mature relationships where most of the easy wins have already been achieved e.g. direct cost reduction, simple process improvement, financial management, etc.

Some Comments

I would like to add to this discussion the point that Value-driven scorecards need to have criteria in them that are future-focussed.

In contrast, many of the criteria in non-strategically oriented scorecards tend to be historically focused.

By this I mean that criteria such as "Innovation", "Continuous improvement" and "Strategic alignment" are strategically oriented, future-focussed criteria linked to what WILL happen, not what HAS happened.

It is also interesting to note that criteria that focus on previous performance also tend to address governance issues, such contract compliance. Future focussed criteria "go beyond the SLA".

Author: Richard Benyon (Decideware)

In a recent Blog entry entitled "The Marketing Organization – Can we manage it?" in ANA Marketing Musings, Bob Liodice (President and CEO of the ANA) made the following comments on Marketing Accountability.

"CMO’s have to seriously upgrade their credibility. As a function, marketing must continue to push for increasing levels of accountability across the entire marketing supply chain. Marketers are often disappointed due to a lack of credible metrics and measurements throughout the entire chain. A well-oiled accountability machine – that includes partnerships with Finance and an Analytics group – can provide increasing confidence that marketing does what it says it will do."

Blunt Tools

This concept of the "marketing supply chain" and its measurement is obviously very close to my heart. It is not surprising that CMOs do not have access to credible measurement and visibility. Most CMO's only have access to rudimentary tools used to monitor and measure agencies and these have been sadly lacking in bringing anything of great use to the CMO at a strategic level.

Fight the Good Fight

Your typical CFO has access to a wealth of information about their business processes. Comparisons of business units, benchmarking sales, budget trends, exception reports, global averages, normalized scores, capability assessments etc. They enjoy a very strong voice at the management table - armed with data to back-up their arguments and requests.

Why not your CMO?

Why then would each and every CMO not invest in exactly the same tool-set? Surely that would allow them access to the same armory of data that his or her peers have? And one of the cornerstones of marketing accountability should be the evaluation and rating of the performance of the company's key marketing agencies.

Now here is the provocative question - is your CMO being led to your company's management table without the appropriate tools to do his or her job?

Author: Richard Benyon (Decideware)

Should agencies position with client organizations as expert specialists or expert generalists?

Paul Bennett, Euro RSCG's new Australian head believes "one of the most pressing issues for the communications industry was the lack of expert generalists".

He believes the increasing fragmentation of media has "forced more people into specialist roles".

Further, that "in the northern hemisphere everyone has become an expert specialist but marketing directors need to be expert generalists".

So, he thinks "Marketing Directors are looking for agency partners like them" (i.e. expert generalists) and "that's happening now in Europe and North America."

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald, 20 Mar 2008

Author: Viji Ratnam (Decideware)

What is feedback success???

I was recently researching the "people-centric" aspects of Supplier Relationship Management, especially focusing in on how and why to collect feedback. I found a great definition for success ...

"Creates and/or reinforces focused, sustained behavior change and/or skill development in a sufficient number of individuals so as to result in increased organizational effectiveness."

Here are some tips that were elicited from research performed by the Multisource Feedback Forum. Carol Timmreck and David Braken created 11 guidelines for initiating and sustaining 360 feedback in performance reviews.

How many do you think have direct usage in delivering critical feedback to strategic suppliers and marketing agencies???

11 Tips to get there

1) Make sure the program sponsors within the organization have clear expectations for the process

2) Make sure the program sponsors understand the implications of their process-design decisions

3) Use pilot groups

4) Train both Evaluators (those who fill out feedback) and Owners (those who deliver the reports)

5) Train the managers who will use the data for decisions

6) Communicate progress frequently and thoroughly

7) Hold evaluators responsible for their input

8) Involve evaluators in feedback and action planning

9) Hold Owners accountable for de-briefing suppliers and action planning

10) Implement follow-up processes to ensure compliance

11) Provide adequate resources for coaching, counseling and skill development

Author: Richard Benyon (Decideware)

Reference: Harvard Business School Press, Managing Performance to Maximize Results

(Note, I have taken the liberty of changing some of the terms above to make them more appropriate for the management of suppliers or agencies)

A recent supplymanagement.com survey of 100 buyers revealed "83% in favour of longer-term relationships, while 17% preferred shorter deals".

The respondents believe longer-term contracts deliver benefits to both parties, including:

* price and supply stability

* suppliers better aligned to buyer needs

* buyers better understanding supplier strengths

* opportunities to develop new products, services and systems

* opportunities for suppliers to deliver value-added initiatives leading to greater cost reductions rather than focussing on short-term price reductions

* buyers can incentivise suppliers and share cost reductions

However, respondents recognise that long-term supplier arrangements:

* best suit key suppliers

* need to be maintained and managed properly

* require that performance is properly monitored, managed and leveraged

We concur with the views of the respondents!

While it's sometimes tempting to look to apply high-value assessment techniques and tools to the more transactional segment of the supplier base - because it's the typically the largest segment by number of suppliers, we firmly believe high value assessment tools & techniques are best applied to high-value supplier relationships where the opportunities to extract greater value from relationships (however value is defined) are available. Those opportunities simply often don't exist in transaction relationships and accordingly the investment in seeking to secure greater value is uneconomic.

Source: Supplymanagement.com

17 January 2008 

Author: Derek Groom 

Procter & Gamble were named the Cannes 2008 Advertiser Of The Year.

A.G. Lafley, Chairman & CEO, and Jim Stengel, Global Marketing Officer, will jointly accept the award.

The organisers said: "This important award is presented to advertisers who have distinguished themselves for inspiring innovative marketing of their products and who embrace and encourage the creative work produced by their agencies."

"Five years ago, Procter & Gamble made a public commitment to embrace creativity to drive their marketing. This public commitment was a message to their agencies and to the people who work in their agencies and resulted in many thousands of column inches being written about this initiative in the world press. The vision materialized in 2007 when P&G won 14 Lions at Cannes, including the coveted Press Lions Grand Prix. There can be no greater commitment to the cause of Creativity than that displayed by P&G and we are delighted to be awarding them this prestigious honour," said Terry Savage, Festival Chairman.

“We are humbled by this terrific honour,” said Jim Stengel, Global Marketing Officer, Procter & Gamble. He adds, “We are inspired every year by the great work and ideas we experience at the Festival. To be named 2008 Advertiser of the Year is an accomplishment we’re proud to share with all of our agencies who touch P&G brands. They have been key partners for us in our commitment to advance creativity and innovation on P&G brands around the world.”

Source: Canneslions.com, 11 Feb

Author: Richard Benyon 

This is the second article in a series inspired by a book published by Harvard Business School Press called "Managing Performance to Maximize Results". It is a compilation of articles, all based around Human Resources Performance Management - and in many cases the ideas and practical examples have direct parallels in the area of Strategic Relationship Management.

What we all hate to do!!!

One of the most difficult aspects of Relationship Management is how to tackle poor performance. Faced with an uncomfortable situation, people often simply gloss over the problems.

In a client-supplier relationship this can lead to 'churn' which in many cases comes completely out of the blue because underlying issues have never been surfaced and discussed, yet alone resolved.

Fix or Fire

When a significant issues has been identified, perhaps the first decision is whether you actually believe that the agency / supplier can improve? And secondly, you want an ongoing relationship with them. If you do then the next step is to engage with the agency / supplier to address the issues that you have identified. And at this point you need to invest to fix the relationship.

So here are three tips we have gleaned from the Human Resources space that can help in managing relationships with your few key suppliers.

1. Be Direct

The first element is to make sure that you clearly, explicitly communicate that the supplier's performance does not meet your expectations.

At the same time you should ensure that you also communicate that you do hold out hope for an improved performance. The fact that the discussion is being held is evidence of your commitment to fixing performance and continuing the relationship.

2. Be Specific

Address the specific issues. Detail exactly what is wrong. And how you think it could be fixed. And consider this, what resources are you prepared to mobilize to help fix it?

This element of the action or development plan has been mentioned in many previous Blog articles. Without a commitment to address issues, the entire process is merely performance evaluation, rather than performance management.

3. Be Objective

Do not attack the team or personality in any way. Be sure to stick to as factual an account as possible. it needs to be about observable events, not hearsay.

Try to maintain an objective eye and ensure that in no way does it degenerate into any form of personal attack.

You may find that keeping these three points in mind will help keep a focus on the future of the relationship and not allow it to degenerate into a historical beat up session.

Author: Richard Benyon (Decideware)