William Looney
|
AS THE OLD BROADWAY SONG GOES, JUNE IS BUSTING OUT ALL OVER—and true to the season this month's issue stretches the seams
with content that ranges from the sublime to the ridiculous. Where else, for example, can you read about Big Pharma's intimacy
problem with social media? Says author and analyst Mark Chataway, drug companies will never capture the platform's potential
until they can match the relentless focus of a political campaign in building on-line connections around a set of highly targeted
demographics. While some in industry are nostalgic for the days when a CEO could hit a reporter's camera with a golf club
and get away with it, Chataway archly notes the tools of reputation management have changed. He points to the Obama campaign's
adept use of social media to create awareness and forge new voting constituencies based on the broadest interpretation of
what qualifies as a community: Did you know transgender chefs have issues that deserve the attention of our President?
Were Big Pharma to apply the same detail to community building through social media, its reputational status could be transformed,
from dull corporate wallflower to an interested, engaged, and prolific citizen—where markets can be grown by saying something
new to different people. And all people are patients, at some point.
Once the conversation is started, the question arises how to keep that audience amused. So our second feature this month provides
at least a partial answer. If you want to stimulate a patient to do something sensible by himself, then play games—literally.
Technology has opened up new ways to apply visual simulations to help providers and patients understand the consequences of
health behaviors and to help predict and measure outcomes as participants respond with desirable changes in practice and lifestyle.
Senior Editor Ben Comer provides three cases where the science of repetition and the art of contrast are enlisted to induce
"learning behaviors," with that final eureka moment of recognition—if I do "x" I will achieve "y"—determined by the patient,
no one else. That in turn is the best way to guarantee the intended results.
Our cover picture has the camera set at Yankee Stadium for America's ultimate game: baseball. The story within is our annual
tribute to deal-making in the life sciences, in which no exercise in behavior modification is required: All the players this
year are single-minded in seeking to acquire prize assets at the lowest possible risk. Our roster of 11 field experts find
a growing imbalance between the expectations of society for funded innovations and the daunting complexities of the deal-making
process. These range from the challenges of valuing IP, as science leaps ahead of the law; anticipating payer need; funding
costly post-marketing obligations imposed by regulators; to forging common ground with academia and other new partners from
different functional and geographic settings.
A practical example of just how hard it can be to pony up to market expectations is implicit in our fourth feature, describing
Shire's efforts to build a value case for its promising inventory of acquired CNS compounds. Senior Vice President for Specialty
R&D Jeffery Jonas describes for Pharm Exec his plans to invigorate this highly important therapeutic class through an aggressive approach to new indications and commercializing
leads from promising outside assets. This is a mission he calls "search and rescue," a variation of the company's more familiar
description of itself as a "search and develop" enterprise.
Our final entry brings us truly to the sublime, in the form of an exclusive back page interview with management and innovation
expert Clayton Christensen of the Harvard Business School. Even though Christensen has written a book applying his insights
about how organizations innovate to pharmaceuticals, he still approaches our industry with an outsiders' perspective. He believes
CEOs need to seek out views from non-traditional players, to confront regulatory and financial pressures that force an excessive
focus on short-term results, and to take more time to think—period. Innovation in medicines faces significant challenges from
a changing payer environment, but progress is possible because part of the solution is in the industry's own hands. It starts
with changing the internal funding incentives that create a bias toward projects that conform to the current business model,
which by definition means they are not innovative.
Significantly, Christensen says he would welcome a more structured encounter with the industry's "deep thinkers;" it is gratifying
he makes his reference in the plural form. It brings us back to the notion of community: We are all our brothers' keeper,
and there is much to be done.
William Looney
Editor-in-Chief
wlooney@advanstar.com
Follow Bill on Twitter:
@BillPharmExec
PharmExec Blog
Follow Us
RSS
Bookstore
