Pharmaceutical marketing: the industry adland forgot
Mainstream media businesses, including the likes of Google, Facebook and many of the mainstream ad agencies and media buyers don’t understand how real pharmaceutical media and marketing work, writes Medical Republic’s Jeremy Knibbs.
The pharmaceutical industry is a $26 billion enterprise in Australia, one which is subsidised directly by Australian taxpayers through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) to the tune of over $7 billion.
Despite this, the industry remains largely misunderstood by mainstream media buyers and adland in general. Sometimes embarrassingly so.
…could someone edit it please? It doesn’t need to be this long to make the points it makes.
Print people require lots of length to justify the extra pages in the publication needed for the ad space (or at least they used to)…
Also, SMI has always been flawed in digital (especially Search/Social) due to being self reported by the agencies only so this was really just a self serving premise for an article about how much the knibbler knows about Pharma to attract advertisers away from his old stomping ground of Cirrus…
Pharma marketers DO get media, everyone else doesn’t get pharma marketers.
Firstly this article is too long. Are you writing this many words to confuse the readers to think that you have a valid point?!
Take it from me, I’m a marketeer in a large pharmaceutical company and I thought the AdNdews article in particular was pretty accurate. It’s about time more articles were written like this to really make us all think and not just follow the norm.
I work as a marketer at one of the largest global pharmaceuticals and I can tell you their knowledge of digital marketing compared to other sectors I’ve worked in is terrible at best. In fact the level of marketing sophistication in general is poor and there is an effort to recruit marketers with non-pharma experience into the mix. Some divisions have very strict rules and there are more checks and balances on claims, but this isn’t what’s holding back marketing in this sector – it’s a lack of knowledge and training.
Our main KPIs evolve around reducing cost, which is why there is a push to do more efficient buying on programmatic to lower CPMs. Most media plans are not properly scrutinised by marketers and sometimes we don’t get a choice to push back because of global directives.
I’m not sure what this author bases his opinion on, but I doubt he has worked as a marketer at a pharmaceutical company lately.
Wow! I’ve just seen this and just for the record will make a few key points:
– I have no opinion on Pharma ad spend. At SMI we collect actual advertising campaign payment data from our media Agency partners and that data shows Pharma advertisers are spending more on Digital.
– The press release referenced (distributed in May!) was solely focused on Pharma Digital ad spend as robust Digital data has never before been available for this sector but SMI’s Agency partners are now providing this new transparency
– But the trade magazine media can rest assured that media Agencies are also spending more on Trade Magazines on behalf of Pharma clients in 2017. We provide Pharma ad spend for all media sectors and can now also show the sub category ad spend data (ie Analgesics) for all major media (ie total TV spend, total Radio spend etc)
– SMI is the only provider of accurate Search and Social ad spend as that data is collated directly from the actual campaign payments our Agency partners make to Search providers and Social Media websites
– SMI’s data taxonomy is approved/overseen by our media Agency partners who are clearly the media experts
And a friendly reminder: I’m always accessible if anyone wants to know more about the SMI Agency ad spend data. We’re 100% transparent about our data sources and methodology.
Jane
Ahh, it was only earlier this year this very same publication referred to SMI as “the most reliable barometer of ad spend” https://mumbrella.com.au/2016-worst-year-yet-print-industry-new-smi-numbers-reveal-419898
Mumbrella, your respect in the market is diminishing – you should stand for something and veto obvious agendas.
Thanks Nicholas, this article is the opinion of the writer and not of Mumbrella. If you’d like to submit a considered rebuttal and it meets our guidelines we’ll happily consider it.
https://mumbrella.com.au/about/submitting-opinion-content-events
Kind regards,
Paul Wallbank
News Editor
Hi Paul, thanks for the offer.
It would be hypocritical of me to do so, considering my ties with SMI.
I will ask if the writer knows SMI is just agency (excluding IPG Mediabrands) data?
People will always have their opinions, and that’s normal. Jeremy is so passionate, as he publishes a medical trade journal. His perspective is different from reality (as are all of ours) and it’s with this in mind, it’s just a shame to see Mumbrella sharing so much hyperbole.
When you guys started out, you were awesome. There was a clear ‘cut the crap’ in the journalistic style. It quickly became many of our favourite media reads. Unfortunately now, it feels a bit like cash for comment, which every media house is facing.
I get it, it’s just a shame.
And in this case, I don’t think the article helps anyone as it’s just so strongly agenda driven.
Very best, NM