Pharma Product Plan

Pharma The first thing that needs to be done is to understand how bioavailability helps with patient outcomes. This feature of the product needs to be translated to something concrete. There are two main outcomes of this class of pharmaceuticals. The first is that they reduce hypertension, and the second is that they reduce edema. Hypertension is already a major health issue in the U.S., so it probably has the best chance of success for gaining market share. Poor bioavailability means that the drug is probably less effective.

A pill that delivers 100% bioavailability is actually quite remarkable. It would lower the cost of treatment in hospitals, which would otherwise need intravenous administration in order to achieve 100% bioavailability. So that is one angle - the cost benefit to hospitals. For direct comparison with the market leader, better bioavailability should translate to lower incidence of hypertension between the two drugs. There might be lower incidence of heart attacks and strokes as the result of better bioavailability. In addition, patients are probably going to report feeling better in general.

Translating fewer heart attacks and strokes is easy -- better quality of life, longer life, more time with family, less time in hospital. Nobody wants to be put at greater risk of heart attack and stroke. 2) There are two approaches to better differentiation other than clinical benefits. Let's be realistic here -- gently pushing off-label uses is common practice in the industry. A drug that helps to lower blood pressure is going to have off-label uses if the only on-label uses are for patients with heart failure or renal insufficiency.

So let's find some off-label uses and promote those through the usual unofficial and difficult-to-trace means. But if we want to remain completely legal about it -- and goodness knows a pharmaceutical company might theoretically decide to do this -- then differentiation can come in the form of branding or price. If the market perceives the product as a me-too, then pricing maybe should reflect that. Unfortunately, the competition is a generic, so being cost-competitive against a generic is not going to be easy.

So branding is a means of differentiation that should be looked at. The product is more modern, and has better effectiveness in theory, so the branding should aggressively reflect that this is an improvement, and not just a me-too. Product X must be given a snappy name and be promoted as a more up-to-date version of the competitor drug.

Admittedly, this will be a tough sell, but marketing directly to patients on the basis of improved quality of life options as per the first question is something that might prove effective, especially if the other drug is not targeting patients directly. 3) " Features tell, benefits sell" simply means that pharmaceuticals are sold on the basis of what they can do for the patient -- not medically but in terms of lifestyle. The classic example of this are the boner drugs.

Marketing the actual feature would be a little graphic, but the benefits are a better sex life, happiness, peace and calm and that type of thing. So all the positive benefits are the subject of the marketing, leaving the details for the consumer to infer. Another good example is the quality of life, touchy-feely stuff like this Celebrex ad: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL-Njsi7AU4) that features a man taking his.