Tag Archive for 'consumer advertising'

mnelson

Every time an Rx is written, it’s another New Year’s Day.

Right now we’re all thinking about starting a brand new year, ready to put our good intentions into action—you know, our plans to work out more, eat less.  Form new good habits.  Break the bad ones.  It seems to be human nature to need—or at least like—a trigger point for change.  So every January 1, we declare our intentions to make daily wellness choices in the new year.  And we all know what happens next.  By June a few of us are still at it, but many of us are back where we started.

That 6-month mark is a familiar theme for pharmaceutical marketers.  Because that’s the time the average persistence curve takes a dramatic dive south, especially for chronic conditions. If we think like Advertisers, we rely on mass media DTC campaigns to tell people “ask your doctor” and we consider the box checked. But when our consumers walk out of the doctor’s office with a new Rx and some good intentions in hand, it’s like another New Year’s Day.  Six months later, where will they be?

Advocate brand-builders understand that ROI for long term commitment is return on involvement. So they focus more of their time, attention and investment post-script—they ask themselves not “how can we get consumers to adhere?” but “how can we stick with our consumers?”  The Advocate definition of DTC is Do, Teach, Connect.

Here’s why:

1) Because mass media offers no utility to us as consumers except to make us aware, and awareness is the most superficial level of involvement.

Do means taking action vs. sending messages:

  • Adding utility to media –making it somehow useful, not just interruptive
  • Creating tools and personalized support systems
  • Showing up to solve problems where and when it matters most
  • Using mass media instead as a mass invitation to an involving, personalized experience

2) Because, as we learned in Pink Tank’s 2010 She Says Survey of 1300 women, consumers want more transparency from pharma companies when it comes to risks and benefits.

Teach means empowering choice, not preaching information:

  • Improving their “health literacy” about therapies and procedures
  • Tying rewards and risks together in a complete, logical and honest story
  • Giving them ways to visualize what’s happening inside, especially in chronic and preventive conditions where they may feel no cause/effect

3) Because now a physician’s opinion is a lesser part of the equation.  Over 40% of She Says Survey respondents told us that before filling a prescription they gather consensus through their Circle of Influencers both online and off.  Consumers are now taking a bigger role in their own care and self-navigating their way, armed with knowledge and community.

Connect means finding new ways to bridge disconnects and dead-ends healthcare consumers meet as they try to self-navigate:

  • Correcting misalignments or gaps in their Circle of Influencers
  • Helping to start or facilitate conversations between influencers
  • Thinking outside the industry for innovative partnerships to form new continuums of self-care

So how about this:  On January 1, 2012, let’s resolve to involve healthcare consumers more by redefining and redesigning our DTC efforts with the goals of Do, Teach, Connect.  The result could be a happier and more involving New Year for all of us.

*For more information on health and wellness visit thewellatgsw.com

edavis

Artificial Intelligence

When research resists reality, what’s the point?

Many years ago I was part of a team working on an osteoporosis drug for post-menopausal women.

One particular research task was a basic focus group of demographically appropriate women asked to evaluate the content and design of a waiting room poster.

A waiting room poster. You know, often found in waiting rooms.

The six women sat around a table in an interior room while the three poster designs were paraded, boxing-ring style around them before being placed on easels at the front of the room.

The moderator’s questioning asked such supposedly innocuous questions as “What, if anything, catches your eye?”, “Do you find anything appealing in these, where you might want to investigate closer?” or “Is there anything you dislike about them?”

From there, the discussion devolved into specifics … on a sub-atomic level.

We all consume advertising or communications individually, and make decisions about what we’ve seen or heard on a personalized basis. Any interpretation of messaging is a singular endeavor.  Now, we may consult one another on this stupid Super Bowl spot or that amazing immersive web experience, but we do so guided by our own prejudices and knowledge.

What this study design provided was a chance for our focus group to become a collective audience that merged opinions and ideals into a Frankenstein-like monster.

So is it any surprise the final poster was a hodgepodge of the initial three?

It’s simple: the study design was lazy. Traditional focus-groups are researchers’ path of least resistance — they get juicy, specific answers to unfortunately, the wrong questions.

Rather than design the test as the best simulation of a waiting room, in which one’s attention is a competition — between what is on the walls, what is in the three-month old magazines, what’s on Dr. Oz, and what’s on your phone, this testing scenario simply re-created the war room from Dr. Strangelove.

Rather than allow the audience to experience a traditional waiting room time (enough to absorb the world around them) followed by a transfer to an “exam” room where they were asked a consistent set of questions, they were shepherded into a large room, around a large table, given coffee and then left with open-ended queries that encouraged a solution to the “waiting room poster problem” that had suddenly developed.

This committee-ization of creative is designed to provide a safe haven for spineless brand managers — you know the type — those who lack self-esteem for any of their convictions. Those who choose a limited consensus over true, valuable feedback.

Isn’t there a better way to gauge reactions in a more realistic scenario?

The answer is quite simple: Choose a more realistic scenario.

• Research first. Why play catch-up after the fact when a better-informed strategy yields better-informed creative?

• Conversation and sharing are fantastic research tools when the problem is loosely-defined and answers can help narrow the field of creative and strategic directions … before you even begin creative process.

• Don’t present the work as a problem to be solved by your testing subjects.

• Hew to reality as much as possible. Testing a journal ad? Put it in a journal. Let it compete with other materials and diversions. If it doesn’t register at all with your subjects, that should tell you much more than a poster-sized version on an easel.

• One-on-one questioning can lead to more specific but varied results. That’s okay. Consensus building isn’t really the goal, however, if you must …

• … outliers are outliers for a reason. Just because one of 12 subjects mentions something, doesn’t mean it’s worth addressing.

• Remember you can’t read facial expressions in online vote-based testing. Oh, and anonymous subjects? They like to lie sometimes.

• Test-marketing (using the communications in a concentrated real-world setting) may tell you more than any contrived scenario.

• Remember again, it’s a focus group … not a decision group.

I often deride post-creative research as an expensive way to cover one’s ass. It doesn’t have to be that way. Smart, well-built and calculated research can yield great strategic and creative input.

Just don’t expect horribly real results from artificial intelligence.

vzabrotta

The same old-same old is just advertising noise

Last week, I found myself and two colleagues sitting in a taxi traveling to a client meeting when a discussion broke out about advertising…imagine that! Being steeped in the pharma industry, we often look at a broader range of consumer brands to explore trends, opportunities, and case studies. To me, advertising is advertising – the good and the bad, inside and outside of our industry.

I am continually intrigued by some of the attention-getting campaigns that hit consumers through various communication channels.  When you look at it, there are quite a few markets that have heated competition for our mind and soul.  Because after all, we have to spur people to act differently than what they would normally do – that’s what advertising is all about….right?

It all started with a gecko.

Anyway – back to the taxi….the conversation settled on the insurance market and what the titans Geico and Progressive have been doing.

Is there anyone who is not familiar with the Geico gecko?  Or their cavemen? And what about Flo, the spokesperson for Progressive – the latest entry into the market that has clearly struck a vein with their innovation pricing?  But what really had me and my colleagues fired up is what Nationwide has been doing to enter the fray.

Not the greatest spokesperson.

The “the World’s Greatest Spokesperson in the World” campaign has just kicked off…and if the three of us crammed in that ride were the final arbiters of life or death for this new campaign, it would die a slow death.

You see, other than an oddly interesting spokesperson, it seems the Nationwide message is really no different than what others are offering.  They are too late to the party of leveraging a consumer insight that says be memorable and catchy, make pricing a central theme, and people will beat a path to your door (or website, as the case may be).

In some ways, our triad felt Nationwide was perhaps trying too hard to drive recall and interest.  For our money, their character /campaign pushed too hard on that line between cool and annoying (assuming there exists such a line).

We need to be a little uncomfortable.

Which brings me back to the pharma industry….and the campaign work that we so consistently see in our marketplace.  Do we see connectivity in pharma campaigns that leverage a customer insight….or efforts that seem to repeat the same old thing regardless of the brand? Are we truly pushing to gain interest through new visuals and copy….or wind up repeating the same thing that is seen page after page?

Are we okay getting nervous about campaigns….but in a good way that allows strong advertising to do what it can: open doors (literally and cerebrally)? Don’t wait until you are in the back of a taxi to start your own conversation on this….in fact, let me know what you think!