Depends who you ask, perhaps. But drugmakers may be "shooting themselves in the foot" by perpetuating the belief that they are poorly regarded, even though new research shows this is not the case, according to David Lewis of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, who spoke at a conference sponsored by
PharmaTimes.In a recent survey, 49 percent of UK Members of Parliament described their feelings towards the industry as “mainly favourable,” while the views of 18 percent “very” favourable. Only 16 percent described their opinions as “mainly unfavourable” - fewer than the 17 percent who said they held none of these views.
Moreover, of 2,000 UK adults who were asked the same question, 51 percent say they were favourably disposed and just 14 percent were unfavourable. And 26 percent of the adults polled also said their positive views of the industry were based on use of meds, either by themselves or someone else, and they admired drugmakers for their R&D and discovery of new meds and for saving lives. However, there was also widespread dislike of the industry’s perceived “excessive” profits, pricing policies and activities in Africa and the Third World, according to Lewis.
While the industry has long had to live with negative coverage in the broadcast and print media, the Internet has made the scrutiny of perceived bad corporate behaviour much greater and available to “anyone with an opinion and a laptop,” Alex Bollen, research director at survey research organisation Ipsos MORI, told the conference.
She described how a company’s “bank of goodwill” can persuade its stakeholders to be willing to hear its side of the story in time of crisis, and stressed that it is vital for employees to have buy-in and become “ambassadors” for the company. Your stakeholders are customers, employees, investors, legislators, journalists, non-governmental organisations – “in fact, anyone who can bugger up your business,” she told the meeting.
Roger Stubbs, deputy managing director and head of business research at Ipsos MORI, said recent research revealed a “sea change” in the factors which business journalists take into account when judging pharma. Quality and range of products, which has always had priority status, is now even more important, but the second and fourth most important factors – R&D spending and investment and financial performance – are declining, although R&D spending and performance is now assuming much greater importance.
If a crisis occurs, people expect to hear from the ceo, who is the voice of the company and responsible for 47 percent of its reputation, said Jennifer Garratt, managing director of Burson-Marsteller’s healthcare practice. However, she also pointed out that only two pharma ceo – Procter & Gamble’s Lafley and Novartis’ Dan Vassella - are included in the Burson-Marsteller/Economist Intelligence Unit’s list of the world’s 25 most-admired business leaders.
Loss of reputation is the second biggest threat to any company, after business interruption, and it takes an average of three and a half years for the crisis to fade and reputation to be restored. However, only 22% of companies have any kind of plan in place to deal with crisis issues, Garratt told the conference.
Source: PharmaTimes
7 Comments
Put me down for one of the ambassador jobs!
;-)
Would be interesting to see trend lines. Last I heard, most polls in U.S. declined pretty sharply from 97-04; then upticks since then, but not close to pre-97 levels.
It shouldn't be terribly surprising since The UK government has a goal of nuturing a successful UK-based global pharma sector and would think Parliment would look favorably on the industry.
I look at this report as typical PR pap.
I don't think it's that it's a bad reputation, and I don't think pharmalot posters give a fair perspective of the industry (more of a bimodal industry). I do think there's a story in how these companies went from the top of the heap to the middle of the heap.
This is interesting and raises a few questions.
Top of the list - Who commissioned this report and why? Wonder what is up, I really do not think this is just a "oh wouldn't it be fun if..." type of study.
Who were they adults they asked, were any of them "patients" and what about the parliamentarians. Of those who looked upon Pharma favorably, what portfolios do they handle, how much are they influenced by Pharma (or not).
Same questions could be asked of those who did not have a favorable view of Pharma.
I think we need more background in order to put this into better context.
That being said, the UK does tries to foster better relationships with pharma. They must, they cover drug costs.
The good will statement is nicely packaged baloney - Pharma is not nor can they ever pretend to be anything related with good will. Everything has an ROI attached to it.
Take drug programs for instance, this is the biggest "good will" program we like to stir peoples emotions up with. Our main objective is to grease the squeaky wheel thereby stifling the patients voice against the high price of our drugs while we encourage these patients to pester their governments into covering/subsidizing the drugs. In the end we get what we want.
Let's be clear, we cannot ever initiate, fund or manage a program that doesn't show ROI. We would be out of business, everything we do must be related to profits.
Right down to the charity's we give to, the main question always is - what is in it for me. There isn't one ounce of altruism in management. This does not include individual employees. They may actually genuinely believe differently, but that usually changes...
FPME says: "Let’s be clear, we cannot ever initiate, fund or manage a program that doesn’t show ROI. We would be out of business, everything we do must be related to profits."
That's exactly what I was arguing the other day -- and you claimed this was a horrible system. Now you are saying that "this is just the way it is, oh well"? I thought your abhorred this "ROI" mentality!? This is what the free-market is all about -- there is no altruism in a free-market economy!
Nathan,
I do not know why you are saying that. The other day, I was suggesting ways of how to change. I am not saying at all that this is just the way it is, oh well. I am being rather sarcastic!!
I have never bought into the philosophy of ROI above all else.
Rather, the initiatives that I suggested the other day would certainly start to put an end to all the games of smoke and mirrors we play to try to hide what the truth is.