Does Control = Mediocrity?
Does Barely Controlled Chaos = Creativity?
And, is creativity not the essence of great communication?
Creativity does not abound in Pharma target audience communication either in strategic deployment or execution.
Arguably Pharma communication is very controlled. Communication is centralised and regulated, consequentially it is being forced further towards the fringe of relevance.
This would be a great outcome if the fringe was anything like the Edinburgh Fringe,
But sadly the analogy really doesn’t apply.
The Edinburgh Fringe Festival is the largest artistic event in the world.
It involves over 31.000 performances by over 18,000 artists at nearly 250 venues.
They sell over 1.5 million tickets, and guess what?
“NO ONE IS IN CHARGE!”
It’s a wonderful example of a self organising system producing the greatest output of creativity known. And it’s all done without any committees, guiding bodies or interference from any form of ‘officialdom.’
Paul Gudgin is nominally the ‘Artistic Director’, but neither he, nor anyone else decides who gets to perform or at which venues. As Paul states:
“You can’t curate new ideas into existence.”
The Festival merely creates a culture of participation, cooperation and competition.
(Lessons from the Fringe can be sourced at : “Why the Fringe Matters”, Rebecca Thomas, BBC News Online, August 1, 2002. & “Drama as a sport for Culture Die-Hards”, Jesse McKinley, New York Times, August 26, 2004 )
Unfortunately the only curate relevant to a Pharma ……
Unfortunately the only curate relevant to Pharma, is the Curates Egg?
What Role Should Creativity have in Pharma Communication?
Pharma communication creativity does get utilised as a front-line weapon in its competition with other brands in particular treatment classes.
But when Pharma is utilising similar molecules to its brand and generic product competitors its arsenal of competitive communication could perhaps benefit from a little creative Thoughtware and Orgware.
Weapon number one, Pharma’s corporate brand, currently carries little impact with its target market.
Do decision makers really attach any significance to whether a treatment is produced by Pfizer, Watson or Ranbaxy?
If the appropriate approval boxes have been ticked is that not the end of the corporate brand significance issue?
In terms of treatment brands - doesn’t the same argument apply?
Do payers really distinguish between a brand such as Pfizer’s Lipitor and its generic equivalent?
This is perhaps an interesting case example where competition is being waged by Pfizer along patent as opposed to brand lines with Ranbaxy.
This begs the question: can Pharma competition, either for corporate or product brands, ever produce enough product stickiness over the patent life of the brand however creative the communications strategy?
Thinking Pharma would argue that it can.
Social media communication channels can be utilised to create new manifestations of corporate and brand loyalty that act as viable competitive weapons.
Price, the ultimate competitive weapon, in the cost-effective mind-set of the payer client may also be susceptible to a combination of creative health management and social media programs.
The Pharma sales rep weapon has now been recognised as being as effective as the prehistoric club in waging competitive war.
And so that leaves creative marketing communication.
Strategic creative in the hands of aggressive legal minds and marketing agents who bother to understand the Thoughtware of specific target audiences and competitive outcomes could be recreated.
Pharma Control of Competition
Facilitation of social media works because it does not try to control its target market.
Creative Chaos Rules – OK!
It demands a creative artistry that Pharma could achieve.
It embraces participation and cooperation.
It is the weapon of choice for competitive engagement in today’s markets.
But the question remains - Can Pharma shift its Thoughtware and Orgware to harness the competitive weapons of the age?
(Tomorrow’s Blog: Pharma Digital Communication & The Underdeveloped World)
Comments