sales force effectiveness study
DESCRIPTION
Sales Force Effectiveness Study ResearchTRANSCRIPT
Sales ForceEffectiveness
Andre’ Harrell Head of Sales Operations
Sales Organization Benchmark
Study Overview
Objectives
• Access BioPharm’s sales organization practices and future business strategy
• Identify opportunities in sales force effectiveness (SFE) to support future success
• Provide recommendations for improvement
Method/Respondents
• Interviews conducted among Management Team, Regional Directors, BSMs and GHTMs
• During Nov and Dec 2006
Study Overview– organization info
– job descriptions
– BSM promotional criteria
– AB 07 plan
– Product Plans
– salary & comp
– performance ratings
– call patterns
– compensation and incentive plans
– termination data
– eVoice survey
– Leadership Competency model
• Additional Data Sources
Key Findings
Overall Biopharm SFE Capabilities• In general all six areas (Culture, Organization,
Management, People, Sales, Recognition) viewed as important
• Ratings of SFE strengths clustered in middle (3-5 on a 1-7 scale). – People and rewards scoring highest
– management process lowest.
Key Findings
Culture• Traditional outcome focused on culture, changing to greater
emphasis on accountability and behavior
• Concern of becoming ‘big pharma’ and losing unique culture: due to changing and growing organization
• Potential disconnect between field and management– New leadership – Lack of internal promotions
Key Findings
Organization• Low staff turnover
• Anticipated growth in 2007 (37 new Managers plus additional management) will require management support through Management Processes
• Lack of tools to manage sales force (training, reporting and feedback now in development)
• Unclear performance expectations for sales force success
• Unbalanced Sales performance management ratings
Key Findings
People• Lack of promotion from within perceived as negative by the field
• Field is unsure of career path/opportunities
• Promotion criteria unclear
Key Findings
Reward & Recognition– Exceptional base salary; and incentive payments (target and actual) are
highest quartile for BRDs, BMS and GHTHs – IC earnings inconsistent: T2 earnings significantly less than T1
Field: – Constantly changing IC Plan – Perception of no incentive to exceed 100% – Unsure about ‘perq point’ consistency among Regions, etc.
Management: – ‘True’ performance hard to measure – Wide IC variations
Health Care Professionals’ Reporting of Representative Visits
Sales Force Effectiveness StudyBSM Field force
Study Overview
Objectives
Establish baseline sales effectiveness measures for the Biopharm’s sales forces:
-Access
-Type of visits
-Delivery of content
-Desired rep. attributes
-Rep. effectiveness
-Competition (competitive tactics)
Study Overview
Methodology
Multidimensional research project incl. various qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys
Telephone IDIs and Hardcopy rep visit forms
Interviews spanned from 5 min. to 75 min
Statistically significant differences are shown at the 95% confidence level
Respondents• Physicians (61) HEMs and PHEMs
• Nurses (12)
• Front office staff (33)
• Sales managers (17)
Key findings• Most specialty reps are viewed as good, but there are
great reps. . .– Great reps tend to provide value to the practice and have
developed long lasting, “service-oriented” relationships that make them essential to the practice
– Great reps also understand the needs of the practice and do not engage in “hard selling” tactics
– Physicians are not opposed to “selling” or “the close,” however, they want the reps to adapt their message(s) to the needs of the office
“A great rep will close without you even knowing it”…good reps try to close but often sound like…now let’s take a break to hear from our sponsor” (PHEM)
Key Findings
Access
• Practices are adopting stricter access policies with some requiring badges and many limited days and hours for reps, as well as number of reps per day
– Enforcing these protocols is difficult
– Better access is gained with schedule appointments
– Competing reps appear to be scheduling more visits than NNI (64% vs. 50%)
– Our managers report some difficulty accessing their physicians (15%-25% of the time)
• BSMs leverage their existing relationships to gain better access
• When access is restricted BSMs use creativity to gain access
– Use hemophilia chapter events
– Become part of the hemophilia community
Key Findings
Share of Attention• BSMs compete with more then just
hemophilia reps• Present reps need to create a “need” to
maintain current share of attention levels• More freq visits assoc. with top of mind reps
– most assoc. with positive impressions• Need to establish value to seek freq access –
need something new
Visits • Visits once a month are the most effective
– BMS call frequency viewed as just right by majority
Several HCPs report wanting to see more of the Competing reps
Share of Attention% of representative visits over six weeks
n = 154
Baxter26%
Wyeth14%
Novo Nordisk
10%
Bayer8%
Other*42%
Key findings
Description of Call
Present Co
n=16
Company 1
N=40
Company 2
N=21
Company 3
N=13
Detail 68.8%b 41.0% 47.6% 53.8%
Sample drop 0.0% 7.7% 4.8% 15.4%
Literature drop 25.0% 23.1% 38.1% 15.4%
Service call 6.3% 23.1% 9.5% 15.4%
Checking-in 0.0% 44.4% 100.0% 100.0%
Follow-up 0.0% 22.2% 0.0% 0.0%
Logistics for programs/education 100.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0%
Staff training 0.0% 5.1% 0.0% 0.0%
Present Co engaging in more details, while competing reps focus on service
Key findings
Sales Call Effectiveness
Present Co
n=16
Company 1
N=40
Company2
N=21
Company 3
N=13
Rating of Overall Effectiveness 8.6 8.1 8.3 8.4
Presented clinical information 75.0%b 30.8%c 52.4% 46.2%
Consider the information presented
relevant 100.0% 89.7% 85.7% 100.0%
impactful 93.8% 64.1% 81.0% 76.9%
new to you 50.0% 43.6% 52.4% 38.5%
important to your practice 93.8% 87.2% 85.7% 100.0%
Our managers scored well overall – with new marketing information and new messages BSMs can only improve upon their standing
Key findings
Product Messages• HCPs report that many visits do not include a message, however our
managers nearly always deliver a product message
– New indication & Safety/Efficacy messages dominate“Product has been approved by FDA for use in patients with acquired
hemophilia for treatment of bleeding episodes and prevention of bleeding before surgery.”
• BSMs are delivering more complete product messages then competitors and these messages appear to be “landing” – keep up the good work!
– Competing Product Messages -“Reviewed reconstitution and administration procedures.”; “Use in bleeding disorders.”
Key findings
Perceptions • Hemophilia reps are viewed similarly on many key
effectiveness metrics -knowledgeable, professional and responsive– Our managers are viewed very positively but there is room for
improvement – Rep tenure is important but a good, well trained rep can over come lack of
tenure – more tenured reps tend to get more time with HCPs– More time leads to more positive impressions of reps
• Although perceived as more effective than Company 1 during sales visits, Company 1 reps were consider to be top tier by over 70% of HCPs , while Present Co managers were considered top tier by approx. 50%– The perception of Company 1 superiority is primarily a result of what they
do and the resources they have, rather than their personal or professional qualities
Key findings
Rating of Rep Interaction
Present Co
n=16
Company 1
N=40
Company 2
N=21
Company 3
N=13
Professionalism 8.8 8.4 8.6 8.3
Respectful of time 9.1 8.5 9.0 8.2
Makes good use of time 9.1 8.6 9.0 8.6
Knowledgeable about own product 9.3 8.5 8.8 8.5
Responsiveness 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.2
Provides value to me and my office 8.6 8.5 8.9 8.0
Understands my practice 8.6 8.5 8.8 8.1
Helpful 9.1 8.5 9.0 8.2
Key findings
Closing Strategies – Scheduled Calls
Sales Call Closing
Present Co
n=16
Company1
N=40
Company 2
N=21
Company3
N=13
scheduled a follow-up discussion or invited you to participate in a company sponsored program 62.5% 34.8% 23.1% 44.4%
asked you to begin prescribing, or prescribe more of… 50.0% 34.8% 38.5% 22.2%
Rating of Representative's Interaction with you
9.3 8.8 8.4 7.8
Closing the call
Our managers are trying to deliver a solid product message and close each call with a call to action – opportunity to ask for the business more often
Key findings
Opportunities• More HEMS (58.3%) specify a brand than PHEMs (50.0%)
• HEMs report physicians are generally involved in the decision process (65%) compared to 45% of PHEMs
• 33% PHEMs believe patients have a say in treatment decisions compared to 7.5% HEMs
• PHEMS also place a value on the role of Managed Care (30.8%) versus HEMs (17.7%)
Additional LearningProduct® Message testing• The perception of positioning of Product for congenital hemophilia is:
– Very effective for serious bleeds– Use in the hospital– Not suitable for home use because the half-life is too short
• PHEMs and HEMs view Product differently – Why?• ITT and Competing Product seem to get the nod for home
maintenance and prophylactic use• Recombinant safety no longer enough to drive Product growth; HCPs
have already taken action
Opportunities
• Our reps enjoy good access, effective closing strategies can help to maximize efforts
Opportunities
• Our reps enjoy good access, effective closing strategies can help to maximize efforts
• Explore role of drop-ins in order to maximize sales effort
Opportunities
• Our reps enjoy good access, effective closing strategies can help to maximize efforts
• Explore role of drop-ins in order to maximize sales effort
• HEMS and PHEMs perceptions are different, explore and capitalize on this difference
Health Care Professionals’ Reporting of Representative Visits
Sales Force Effectiveness StudyGHTM Field force
Study Overview
Objectives
Establish baseline sales effectiveness measures for the Biopharm’s sales forces:
-Access
-Type of visits
-Delivery of content
-Desired rep. attributes
-Rep. effectiveness
-Competition (competitive tactics)
Study Overview
Methodology
Multidimensional research project incl. various qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys
Telephone IDIs and Hardcopy rep visit forms
Interviews spanned from 5 min. to 75 min
Statistically significant differences are shown at the 95% confidence level
Respondents•HCPs (79): ENDOs, PEDs and Nurses
•Front office staff (45)
•Sales managers (16)
Key FindingsAccess• Providing value is key to office access
“Anything that saves the office time and provides the best care for the patient brings value.” (GHTM)
“Physicians, nurses and staff members look to us as serving them and the patients. Patients are the priority, whatever they need, and if you can ‘pull it off’ is rewarded in getting sales.” (GHTM)
• Physicians have been very loyal to both Company 2 and Company 3. Product specialty managers are trying to change those relationships.
• Main challenge - not being able to compete with competitors with respect to value-added services
Key Findings
Main concerns surrounding Access
• SMN completion services a concern for GHTMS• Helping Office Staff draft Managed Care/insurance
appeals letters• Patient Education• Providing speaking programs
Key FindingsAccess
• Reps that provide more value-added services are granted greater access to the practice – not always the physician
• Nurses are viable targets with some possessing significant influence on product choice
• Access is being restricted with limited days and times for rep visits; gaining time with physicians is highly competitive– Better access gained with scheduled visits
• Company 2 focuses more on scheduled (57%)• Present Co is balanced with 50% sched/ 50% drop-in
Key FindingsShare of Attention
• Company 3 clearly adopting a high freq call strategy
• Present Co reps need to create a “need” to maintain current share of attention levels
– Need to provide a value
Visits
• More visits equal more opportunity
• HCPs rate longer visits higher in terms of overall effectiveness and interaction
– GHTM call frequency viewed as just right by majority
– GHTMs have an opportunity to increase visits
Several HCPs report that Company 1 and Company 2 reps visit too much – is this hurting sales?
Share of Attention% of representative visits over six weeks
n = 285
Genentech17%
Lilly28%
Other*14%
Novo Nordisk
16%
Pfizer17%
Serono8%
Key Findings
Description of Call
Present Co
(n=46)
Company 1
(n=53)
Company 2
(n=68)Company 3
(n=53)
Sample drop 34.8% 18.9% 22.1% 30.2%
Literature drop 17.4% 7.5% 8.8% 9.4%
Service call 21.7% 26.4% 17.6% 22.6%
Checking-in 26.1% 43.4% 48.5% 34.0%
Follow-up 58.3% 56.5% 45.5% 77.8% c
Logistics for programs/education 25.0% 17.4% 42.4% d 0.0%
Staff training 16.7% 26.1% 12.1% 22.2%
Present Co and Company 1 reps engage in more details, while Company 2 reps focus on service
Key Findings
Sales Call Effectiveness
Present Co
(n=46)
Company 1
(n=53)
Company2
(n=68)Company 3
(n=53)
Rating of Overall Effectiveness 8.6 8.8 8.2 7.7
Presented clinical information 17.4% 24.5% 26.5% 35.8%
Consider the information presented
relevant 91.3% 81.1% 70.6% 81.1%
impactful 91.3% 81.1% 70.6% 81.1%
new to you 73.9% 71.7% 54.4% 54.7%
important to your practice 41.3% 37.7% 27.9% 28.3%
Present Co and Company 1 both receive high scores
Company 2 tends to present more clinical information but the information does not appear to be new or important to HCPs
GHTMs provide relevant and impactful information
Key Findings
Marketing • GHTMs are happy with the Product marketing materials
“Present Co marketing material is wonderful.”
“I use the brochure and detail pieces.”
• Yet, use of the materials depends on the circumstances“I use the marketing materials primarily when I’m new to an office,
and early on when I’m establishing a relationship.”
– Company 2 reps appear to be using detail aids more than NNI
• The GHTMs have additional needs as well“Managed care is a hot topic right now, and I need the tools to resolve the issues they’re facing.”
Key FindingsPerceptions • Not all GH reps are the same – Company 2 and Present Co
reps are rated very high on key rep effective attributes• Although NNI Reps track with Company 2 reps on all
effectiveness metrics; Company 2 reps are perceived as Top Tier reps more often then Present Co reps.
“[Company image affects a rep] to start with. One person may have a level playing field to start with, another may have an incline.” (PED)
• Company 2 reps are perceived to be top tier by 90% of the HCPs interviewed; 78% consider Present Co reps top tier– Only 52% consider Company 2 top tier; while 71%
consider Company 1 to be top tier
Key FindingsKey comparisons – Company 1 v. Present Co • Company 1 first to market product; very tenured
– Attain longer visits– Make more service calls
• Both visit HCP offices about twice a month - compared to Company 2 and Company 3 that strive for once a week
• Present Co reps most often give a product message; Company 1 reps are equally likely to discuss product availability/coverage, programs, service, or patient resources– Company 1 reps discuss more value-added services (HCP and patient
educational opportunities)– Company 1 reps are much more likely than any other company’s reps to
schedule a follow-up discussion • The perception of Company 1’s superiority is primarily a result of what
they do and the resources they have, rather than personal attributes
Key Findings
Opportunities - Rotations
• Many HCPs report that rotations are in place but when asked to describe how the rotation worked – all respondents had difficulty explaining how it worked– In theory there is a set rotation– in reality that rotation can be influenced
• Our managers have an incredible opportunity to influence rotations– GHTMs are detailing HCPs more often than their competitors– They are perceived as very effective – Have the opportunity to close a solid message with a call to action
Key Findings
Closing Strategies – Scheduled Calls
Sales Call ClosingPresent Co
(n=46)
Company 1
(n=53)Company 2
(n=68)Company 3
(n=53)
scheduled a follow-up discussion or invited you to participate in a company sponsored program 39.1% 66.7% 31.0% 25.0%
asked you to begin prescribing, or prescribe more of… 43.5% 30.0% 31.0% 70.8%
Rating of Representative's Interaction with you
9.6c 9.8c 7.7 8.5
Closing the call
Company 2 asking for the business, GHMTs making an attempt to close the call – Company 1 focused on follow-upGHTMs interactions with HCPs rate very high compared to Company 3 and Company 2
Opportunities
• Our managers are well liked and perceived to be very knowledgeable, professional and effective – what they need to do is “ask for the business”– Can’t assume fairness in rotation
– Rotations can be influenced !
Opportunities
• Our managers are well liked and perceived to be very knowledgeable, professional and effective – what they need to do is “ask for the business”– Can’t assume fairness in rotation
– Rotations can be influenced !
• GHTMs are detailing HCPs more often than their competitors– Opportunity to close with a solid message with a call to
action