Global Navigation
No quick fix
Thumb through the next few pages of the magazine and you'll come across a large number of recruitment ads aimed at tempting you to an apparently bigger, better, more lucrative position. European brand manager, senior product manager, marketing manager, head of important stuff – the list goes on. They are all great jobs, I'm sure, and yes, even in these tough economic times, it's good to know that someone out there still needs you. There's no doubt that, if you're looking for a change, there are plenty of opportunities in pharma – for the right people, of course.
These days, there is much more openness about job-hunting. OK, you probably wouldn't go shouting about it to your boss or skipping around the office with a big banner declaring: "I'm just going to collect my bonus, then I'm out of here," but there's a general acceptance that people do, and will, move on.
Jobs are seen, more and more, as stepping-stones to the next big thing on the career ladder. You may not know exactly where you'll end up, which I think is half of the fun, but what you do know is that you won't be in the job you have now for ever. There are more steps to be taken. It's likely that you'll move onwards and upwards and your current position will become a distant memory.
Job for life
It used to be that when people said there is no such thing as a job for life, they were bemoaning the fact that employers would readily cut jobs, as and when they wanted, so no job was considered safe. However, these days, it's the employers who have to come to terms with staff moving on much more readily. Today, few people enter a job planning to stay there for the long term, so employers run the risk of investing in a new recruit and for that person to take a better offer a few months later. It happens all the time.
I wouldn't begrudge anyone the opportunity to move on and try do better for themselves but, whatever their reason, the way many people look at the job market and their own careers presents the industry with a problem.
This problem is called short-termism: the quick-win attitude. It is the desire to make one's mark in the shortest time possible and then move on to make one's mark in the shortest time possible somewhere else.
Nurturing
Think about this. It takes a long time for most drugs to come to market. There are years of research, many millions of pounds of investment, barrels of determined effort and all sorts of clever science that I can't pretend to understand to get the product right before it can be launched at last. The tiny little molecules are nurtured through their early stages by scientists, who care for them like they do their own children and, finally, the day comes for their babies to make their own way in the world. Like one of thousands of newly hatched turtles on a beach trying to reach the sea before a giant seagull rips it to pieces, your drug stands only a small chance of survival in the early stages of its life. But it makes it, against the odds, which is when its development can start in earnest.
At this point, Jonny Fandango, the new hotshot in the marketing department, gets his hands on it and comes up with a tactical plan that will bring in unbelievable sales. For at least three months. Go Jonny!
I myself was a Jonny Fandango once, and I'm pleased to say that the drug I marketed is still in existence. In fact, I take it every morning with a cup of tea and a biscuit chaser, but that's because it's a great drug. It survived, despite me carrying through my own one-year job plan. I left that company with a half-decent reputation and enough blurb about product launches on my CV to get on to the next stepping-stone in my career.
But the drug that keeps me alive is one of the lucky ones. I could name dozens of examples where short-termism has led to significantly lower sales over time than could have been achieved if the marketers of those products had taken a longer-term view of their jobs.
Conflict
Therein lies the problem. Of course, you want to make your mark, but, surely the short-term attitude to a particular position is at odds with you wanting to do the best for your product and your company? If you really, honestly wanted the best for your product, you would eschew any thoughts of short-term glory and take the long-term view, wouldn't you?
You would wish to leave a legacy. You would implement the kind of strategy that lived on and helped your product to achieve success long after you had moved on up the ladder.
What often, but by no means always, happens in pharmaceutical marketing is that a new product manager arrives and wants to make a notable contribution. So incumbent agencies are nudged out and new ones brought in, with new ideas and bags of enthusiasm. By the way, all agencies know this happens and if you're the agency that is pushed out, then there will be times, too, when you're brought in to bring a new perspective on whatever the product happens to be – it's the circle of agency life.
All change
So, the new agency puts a great campaign together and wins awards and everybody is happy. Then, that product manager leaves and the whole process starts again. Just as customers were getting used to your new branding or your new patient education programme, it changes.
It's not unknown for a pharma company to introduce a patient programme promising all sorts of great support to the end-users of their drugs, only for the whole programme to be cut a year later in favour of something entirely different and of little immediate benefit to patients at all. This is hardly a good advert for the pharma industry and, arguably, a complete waste of money.
The idea of leaving a legacy may sound rather grand to some, but my point is simple: if we were all to start our new jobs with a longer-term view, we would all benefit as a result. Marketing plans would be implemented for an enduring period, rather than changing every time a new product manager comes on board. This would save money for companies to spend in another area of their business.
Alternatively, it could mean that they don't have to reduce their workforce quite as often. Wouldn't that be nice?
Longevity
Surely it is far more satisfying to take the opportunity to be remembered or known for implementing a marketing plan that has true longevity, that was conceived with true vision and continues to have a profound effect on patients' lives (and therefore sales) years later, than getting a quick win that nobody remembers or cares about two years down the line?
Taking this approach is easier said than done, I know. I'm not expecting a complete shift in attitude towards interviews or careers once pharma marketing professionals have read this article.
However, if, over the longer term, there was a general movement towards a genuine desire to leave a legacy, then maybe this article will have proved its point.
The Author
John Young is managing director of John Young Communications
To comment on this article, email pm@pmlive.com
