The second workshop dealt with developing the strategies to help the team achieve the desired goals and determining what the team needed to focus on. The question that needed to be answered at this workshop, as defined by Mouncey (2009), was ‘What impact factors will impact the performance?’
The team decided to investigate the impact of four different drivers: POSMs, medical detailing to influence prescription writing, the pharmacist’s recommendation, and free-of-charge goods supplied with the products as a promotional tool. It was a challenge for the team to agree on the analytical outcome of the data collected from the survey and how this could influence the intervention plan. According to Mouncey (2009), impact factors need to be divided into three types: qualifying factors, competitive advantage factors and productivity factors. Qualifying factors are those that bring products to the minimal acceptable level from the customer’s perspective. In our project, the customers were physicians, pharmacists and consumers. According to industry norms, the team believed that having all the different driving factors (POSMs, medical detailing and supply of FOC goods) was essential and a minimum requirement to compete in the market. The competitive advantage factor meets the customer’s needs and demands; doing so over time is crucial in order to gain a competitive advantage in the market, which would be reflected in the project’s performance. The qualifying and competitive advantage factors aim to increase the project’s revenue and market share, whilst the third type of impact factor, the productivity factor, aims to improve the profitability of the project. The focus of the productivity factor is on the team’s decision- making process, how the team is structured, and how the strategy is formed to deliver
165
results and performance. In line with that, the team selected the following impact factors:
Detailing activities for physicians and pharmacists
Implementation of POSMs by the marketing department according to the defined planograms
Supply of FOC goods
As noted, the above three impact factors were considered minimal requirements to be competitive in the market, but what provides the competitive advantage is the effective implementation of the marketing activities to improve visibility and brand awareness, in addition to the marketing and sales coverage of the detailing activities and supply of FOC goods. Smart spending through close monitoring of the ROMI is what improves the productivity factor; that can be done by selecting the physicians to be covered in the detailing activities, how much to spend for the POSM activities and what percentage of FOC goods should be supplied to pharmacies as a bonus. The following table presents the gap analysis of the impact factors by strategy.
166 Table 13: Gap analysis of impact factors by strategy
Impact factor and
actions Metric Actual Target Segment performance metric Actual Target
Consumer factor: Promotional activities related to point of sale materials Improve visibility Number of
POSMs implemented 35 counter- top and 30 floor stands Market share vs. market leader 8% vs. 82% Improve brand
awareness Cost of POSM implemented $17,000 Sales value vs. market leader $885,000 vs. $6.1m
Improve coverage Revenue for segment $575,000 polyclinic and
hospitals Gross margin for
segment $286,000
ROMI for segment 107% in community
pharmacies, 48% in polyclinic pharmacies, 212% in hospital pharmacies Expert Factor: Medical detailing with physicians and pharmacists
Full coverage of
pharmacies Number of visits 3422 Market share vs. market leader 8% vs. 82%
Coverage of all class A and B general
practitioners
Cost of medical representative visits
$82,000 Sales value vs. market
167
Using medical
marketing aids Medical Aids (Drop-card and brochures)
$3000 Revenue for segment $354,000
Scientific
gatherings $6000 Gross margin for segment
ROMI for segment 58% in community
pharmacies, 11% in polyclinic pharmacies and 86% in hospital
pharmacies Retail Factor: Supply of free-of-charge goods to pharmacies
Full coverage of
pharmacies % of FOC goods supplied versus revenue
60% Market share vs.
market leader 8% vs. 82%
Reduction in the percentage of the FOC goods to be supplied versus last year
Cost of FOC goods supplied versus revenue
$244,000 Sales value vs. market
leader $885,000 vs. $6.1m
Achieve growth in the revenue and gross margin in all segments
Cost of FOC goods supplied versus gross margin
$244,000 vs.
$477,000 Revenue for segment $885,000
Gross margin for
168
Table 14 summarizes the metrics chosen to assess the outcome of the defined impact factors. For the consumer factor, the team decided to focus on pharmacies in the community and polyclinic segments, in which there was a high influence of direct marketing to consumers. The team also decided to implement some of the POSMs in a few outlets in the polyclinic and hospital pharmacy segments. The target revenue related to this impact factor was set at $477,000, while the target gross profit was set at $286,000. As defined in Table 14, the target ROMIs for this impact factor were based on POSM marketing to improve feasibility and brand awareness. The target revenue and gross margin for the expert and retail impact factors were generalized with the total of all three segments. The team decided to cover all three segments with medical detailing activities since physicians have the highest influence on prescriptions in both the polyclinic and hospital pharmacy segments while the pharmacist, as per the survey findings, have the highest influence on the consumer’s decision in community pharmacies. The target revenue and gross margin for the retail impact factor, which is related to the supply of FOC goods, was also generalized, as the FOC goods are supplied to all three segments.