Communication Tips When No One May Be Listening

In a world where current communications channels are often full of noise, and in a time where flux and uncertainty may be commonplace for many, one thing holds true – communication should always be open and constantly flowing.

As a healthcare communications professional, I agreed with the speakers on this panel today "Communicating Value During Times of Uncertainty: What To Do When No One Is Listening" in that we must truly identify and communicate separately with each of our key audiences, as each audience will no doubt hear things differently.

What does this mean? Here are some tips:

1). When developing our communications programs we must think closely about the messages we want to distribute to each audience (where an impact can be made). Panelist, Samina Bari, Sr. Director of Communications at Ikaria Pharmaceuticals, breaks her communications into three audiences and she gives each audience their own set of strategies (which I agree with and suggest doing if you aren’t already). Those three audience groups are:
* External Audience (the public)
* Internal Audience (you employees and stakeholders)
* Growth Audience (analysts, investors, regulators and physicians)

2). In times of uncertainty, when you may not have great news to report, you should still be communicating.

Emily Mendell, VP of Strategic Affairs at the National Venture Capital Association, “Believes there are indeed opportunities to communicate even when things may be bad.” She suggests that a company can talk about what it is they are doing right and how they are going about it.

So what to do? Talk to your Communications Team or agency partner to develop a strategic communications plan (a shell if you will) for times of uncertainly. And further flush it out when those times come approachin’.

3). Continue to talk to the traditional news media even if you can’t place a story in the news right away.

Many changes have been (and continue to) taking place in the traditional news media from downsizing to more and more journalists and producers taking on double and triple responsibility. Even though these changes have occurred, the panelists and I strongly suggest to continue communicating (even if you don't have big news to share) with the news media and further develop your relationships with them. It still holds true and strong that relationships with traditional media is key to a big part of your communications success. While every story you pitch may not be able to run, those media relationships will hold true when you need them the most -- when you have news to share.

4) Definitely get engaged in social media communications if you aren’t there yet. Start listening, sharing, and eventually communicating when you are ready. Social media communications can have tremendous impact and influence on target audiences if conducted correctly. And the great thing about this type of communication is that the door is always open. However social media communications should be a part of your companies’ communications plan and it should fit into the communications mix along with a plan on how to do it, and when to do it. If you don’t want to hit the traditional news media with a communications message you can always put it out and share it in the social spaces which can have tremendous impact on your audiences.

So I now ask, how have you been communicating historically and as of late?

Interested in hearing your thoughts and having you share what you've been doing in your communications, and what has been working/not working for you.

By, Leigh Fazzina, Sam Brown, Inc.
www.sambrown.com
Follow us on Twitter! @SamBrownInc

Plenary Session - An Overview of the Industry:Past,Present,and Future

I have enjoyed this Plenary Session for the past several years and it certainly met my expectations this year, however, we need to cut down on the number of slides.

One speaker challenged the audience with the following question, "What business would you rather be involved in - Banking, Auto's or Pharma/Biology/Biotech. We all know the answer and that's we're at this meeting.

The following market forces were identified as having a significant impact on the industry:
1.Generics (72% of all Rx products dispensed are generics)
2.Safety and reputation
3.Innovative drought
4.Rx to OTC switches
5.Medicare Part D and Medicaid
6.Economic slowdown
7.Healthcare reform.

That pretty much says it all!!!!

In answer to the question, Is the current crisis different?
The answer was - yes - because of the systemic nature of it and the pervasive uncertainty that has been created as a result of it.

There are some new necessities that influence the present state of the industry and will drive the future of the industry.They include: big pharma patent cliff and the need for big pharma to reinvent itself.

Is the biotech business model sustainable? The answer was that the new rules of the road include: focus deep,search wide,prove quality; cash is king and get ahead of change.

Another major comment was that the good news is that Biologics make up 17% of the global market and growing.

The final speaker talked about the growing and significant contribution of medical affairs departments' in the industry. He noted that the tension caused by the balancing the needs of patients and creating value for shareholders can be bridged by medical affairs.

This was a great session and everyone in the industry should be exposed to this analysis.

Thriving in the New Normal

While the supply of venture capital available to our industry has shrunk over the last year, the number of good ideas looking for investment hasn’t. As the market realities have taken hold, new partnering strategies have emerged and are becoming increasingly mainstream.

Business is good for partnering companies, said John Maki, President and CEO of Vicus Therapeutics, who was among the panelists on this morning’s session that focused on growth strategies for bioscience companies. John’s company focuses on finding drugs that already have FDA approval for non-cancer indications that show promise in combating cancer-related indications. In other words, they are repurposing existing drugs to fight cancer. Because all the drugs are already FDA-approved, the product can move to market faster at massive cost savings – and ultimately – the patient gets the life-saving treatment sooner.

A similar business model is shared by fellow panelist Bruce Bloom, President and CSO of Partnership for Cures. His company is looking to raise funds for medical research that can move to market in two years or less. Again, the key here is existing FDA approval.

Juan Harrison, VP of Takeda Research Investment generally oversees a slightly longer timeline. Like the others, his company is looking for complementary therapies. “Nothing sells like the data.” Juan went on to say that they solely look at the science and return on investment is not the top item on his priority list.

Martin Reeves, VP at Cephalon, oversees what may be the fastest partnering timeline of all the panelists. And when I say fast, I mean five-six weeks to move to the partnering phase. The company has a sweet spot for Phase II assets. However, they will vary to differentiate their portfolio. Not surprisingly, they like the potential of blockbusters. In this market, potential therapies that offer only incremental advances just don’t cut it.

Biosimilars-Challenges and Opportunities-Regulatory Session 1

Biosimilars is one of those issues that can make my eyes gloss over, however this panel provided a good overview regarding where we've been and where we're going. And, where we're going is on the immediate horizon - the current Health Insurance Legislation includes provisions that would govern Biosimilars. We could have legislation regarding Biosimilars by the end of the year, assuming a political resolution. On this point one panelists noted that Biosimilars is a "policy" debate within a "political" debate on access and affordable health care.

Some salient points by presenters included:
1.The key issues are: exclusivity,similarity and economics.
2.The stakes are high - by 2016 there will be at least $40B in marketed products coming off patent.
3.The debate on Biosimilars will not be like the brands vs generic debate of past years - it will be a discussion of brands vs brands.
4.Innovation needs to be recognized - the average cost to develop a biologic is $1.2B and the average time to bring a Biologic to market is 10 -15 years.
5.Patent protection is essential and the issues of identical vs similar need to be resolved.

The policy debate on Capital hill represents the convergence of complicated science (Biosimilars)colliding with the most complex legislation governing the industry - Hatch-Waxman Act.

One final comment on exclusivity - one presenter said that when Mick Jagger wrote "I can't get no satisfaction" he received years of exclusivity and financial reward based upon his innovation. Scientists should be afforded the same reward. A somewhat tongue in check comment but relevant.

Only One More Week Until Biotech 2009

There is only one more week left until Biotech 2009.  We hope to see you in Philadelphia at the PA Convention Center next week.

We will be using this blog to post updates from the conference and overviews from some of the sessions. 

Please share your comments and feedback with us.  We hope to make this blog, and the experience at Biotech 2009, as interactive as possible.