The days of using  media hits  to measure public relations success  are long gone, according to research-and-measurement expert Ann Getman, Principal of Getman Strategic Communications in Cambridge, MA. 
At a recent meeting of the Independent Practitioners Network of the Public Relations Society of  America’s Boston Chapter,  Getman, who works with companies and nonprofits, advised measuring outreach campaigns in three phases: outputs, outtakes, and outcomes.
Outputs
Outputs are “short-term quantitative measures of what was put out to target audiences, including process measures (activities directed at raising visibility) and product,”  Getman said. Outputs include events, meetings, appearances, presentations, trade shows, or press release, press kits, brochures, trade show booth, tweets and the like.
Traditionally, she  said,  PR  firms have measured their success by counting the number of times an organization’s name  appeared in print on broadcasts; column inches or length of broadcast;  potential exposures if every reader or viewer in the market saw the article or segment;  the comparable cost for  reaching as many people with paid ads;  or public opinion polls measuring awareness, opinion and intent at one point in time.
Outtakes
A more effective measure, in her view,   is of  “outtakes.”  That is, what audiences take away from the communication–whether messages were received, understood, recalled or retained.
 Outtakes may be  measured through direct responses via mail,  phone, fax, email or  Web pages; letters to an editor, organization or individual; calls to a hotline or 800-number;  recall and retention studies; visits to an office, program or site,  reported intent to behave in a certain way;  requests for information or materials; visits to a question and answer or FAQ page on a Web site, focus groups demonstrating a change of awareness; “before and after” surveys, or mentions in blogs.
Content analysis assigns quantitative values to the key elements of messages in order to measures changes in the tone, language or topics of media coverage; accuracy of key facts and points, or  sources cited. 
Outcomes
Outcome research, Getman says, measures the impact of communications programs on behavior and how well a campaign has fulfilled an organization’s  objectives in launching it. Was there a change in the communications flow, employee participation or retention? Were desired actions taken by opinion leaders? Have donations increased?  Response rate to direct mail improved?  Was the quality of job applicants effected?   The amount and quality of media coverage? What about the company’s market position,  customer awareness levels or recognition of its name?
Getman says it’s important to include measurement in a communications campaign before allocating resources for outreach. ” It’s impossible –and disingenuous–  to attach meaningful measures after the fact, and knowing in advance how you’ll evaluate will keep you on target and in focus.” 
I find that my clients m are sometimes  tempted to look directly at the bottom line in measuring success:  has increased media coverage led directly to increased sales?   Depending on the product and the type of company,  the answer is, sometimes, “yes.”
But, more  often, the coverage leads to Web hits or inquiries;  if the right audiences have been  targeted, it’s then up to the sales team to bring the customers in.
At times, though, it’s difficult to quantify just what led to a specific goal.
For example,  after a conference for which I garnered  national and international media coverage, my client, a small research institute,  received a  multimillion dollar grant from a health insurance company to launch a new research center.  Did the increased visibility and prestige help
Probably. Would the hoped-for grant have come through anyway? Much as I believe in quantifying success…that’s something we will never know.

Anita Harris

Anita M. Harris is president of the Harris Communications Group, a public relations and marketing communications firm in Cambridge, MA.

Advertisements

In a new blog post entitled Pharma in 2011: A Year for Big Decisions, Scientia Advisors Managing Partner Harry Glorikian (who is my client) writes that most pharma firms’ current approaches for playing in new fields are likely to fail—and makes a number of  industry predictions for the coming year.
With several major products going off –patent, and with regulatory and policy changes in the works, Glorikian writes, many large pharma companies must rethink  their current business models in order to succeed on new playing fields. 

In the coming year, pharma can expect:

  • Little growth for big caps and fewer big cap company mergers
· Need for cash generation leading to divestment of  developmental assets
  • Increased focus on therapeutics for niche and orphan diseases
  • Accelerated  need for prescription/diagnostics combinations, leading to partnerships or acquisitions.


“In our view, most pharma firms’ current approaches for playing in new fields will not succeed—and companies have many difficult decisions to make,” Glorikian writes. “A big question is whether, in making those decisions, they will try to satisfy shareholders’ immediate needs or ensure long-term company health.”

Here’s a link to the complete blog:  Pharma in 2011: A Year for Big Decisions

–Anita M. Harris

Scientia Advisors, based in Boston and San Francisco,  is a management consulting firm specializing in growth strategies for major and emerging companies in health care, life science, biotechnology and nutrition. Scientia recently launched a practice  Pricing and Reimbursement/Market Access .

Anita Harris is president of the  Harris Communications Group— an award-winning marketing and public relations  firm in Cambridge, MA. HarrisCom also publishes New Cambridge Observer, a blog covering arts, sciences, business, politics and life in and around Cambridge, MA.


My client, Scientia Advisors,  has found that the market for certain advanced medical testing methods is poised for accelerated growth.

Scientia, a management consulting firm, recommends that many diagnostics companies reexamine their portfolios and  business models to position themselves for growth.
Immunoassays are laboratory tests used to identify and quantify blood components associated with particular diseases. Immunoassays are a key growth area within in vitro diagnostics (tests conducted in laboratories, as opposed to those carried out in living organisms).

Based on  a review released on June 28, 2010, Scientia Advisors Founding Partner Arshad Ahmed said: “Most current immunoassay technologies focus on detecting one or several proteins in a patient’s blood/serum or other samples.

 “However, novel markers and new technologies that can detect and measure multiple markers simultaneously will become increasingly available in the next several years.”

 Such advanced technologies—already used in diagnosing and treating infectious diseases, cancer, and kidney injury—are faster, more accurate and more cost-effective than many “traditional” tests. As a result, they may command higher prices and are driving growth in the overall immunoassay market.

What is more, for diagnostics players, marketing and business models are changing, according to Ahmed. Pharmaceutical companies are beginning to incorporate diagnostic tests into their sales processes. And certain diagnostics companies are adopting a “sole service provider” model—in which tests are marketed directly to physicians and performed in company-run laboratories.

 In light of these changes, “it is crucial that companies in the diagnostics space re-examine their business strategies in order to compete successfully in the coming years,” Ahmed said.

Review highlights:

  • The $7.7B immunoassay market, which comprises one fifth of the $37B in vitro diagnostics (IVD) market, grew approximately 6% a year between 2005 and 2007. The immunoassay market has since shown 9% compound annual growth — a rate that is expected to continue through 2012, largely due to technology advancements.
  • Growth in the immunoassay market will be driven by the emergence of (1) ultra-sensitive platforms, which enable detection of analytes at minute concentrations; (2) multiplex technologies, which allow simultaneous analysis of multiple compounds and (3) novel biomarkers that increase the accuracy and efficiency of diagnosis or treatment.
  • Emerging economies, such as China’s, are experiencing robust immunoassay market growth.
  • Personalized medicine and new business models such as the bundling of immunoassays with marketed drugs and the sole service provider areare changing industry paradigms.

                                                                               *

Scientia’s study, Strategic Review of Immunoassays: Seeing Beyond the Market Inflection Point”. is available for download at no cost at www.scientiaadv.com.

—Anita M. Harris

Harriscom Blog is a publication of the Harris Communications Group of Cambridge, MA.

Scientia Advisors, based in Boston and San Francisco,  is a management consulting firm specializing in growth strategies for major and emerging companies in health care, life sciences, biotechnology, and nutrition.
 

 

                                                                                  ###


A new review by my client, Scientia Advisors, finds that, with the market for biologic  drugs growing much faster than that of drugs based on chemical compounds, many biopharma companies are repositioning and forming new alliances in order to succeed in a rapidly changing pharmaceutical landscape.

In the review, released today, Scientia reports that revenue growth for the small molecule (chemically-based) drug segment has slowed and will begin to decline within three years as numerous blockbuster drugs go off patent and are replaced by less expensive generic substitutes.

In contrast, the market for biologics (based on living matter) which comprises approximately one-third of the overall pharmaceutical market, increased at a 21% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) between 2003 and 2008, to $110B.

While the CAGR for biologics has since slowed to 8%, Scientia projects 2013 revenues of $165B, due largely to rapid growth in monoclonal antibodies. Scientia also projects growth opportunities in the vaccine and cell therapy segments.

Many biologics command relatively high prices and require complex and expensive manufacturing processes. To keep costs down, biopharmaceutical companies are increasingly seeking to outsource their manufacturing to contract manufacturing organizations (CMOs).

 In addition, “numerous biologic therapies with total revenues of $37B will have lost patent protection by 2017, promising considerable opportunity in biosimilars (government-approved new versions of branded biopharmaceutical products following patent expiration),” Glorikian said. “As a result, pharmaceutical, generic drug, and contract manufacturing companies are joining forces to enter the biosimilars space. To be successful, they must take into account the considerable technical, competitive, and regulatory hurdles that will be involved.”

Scientia Advisors’ review, entitled “Assessing the Biopharmaceutical Market: Promises and Challenges,” is available for download at no charge from www.scientiaadv.com.

–Anita M. Harris

HarriscomBlog is a publication of the Harris Communications Group–a public relations, content and thought leadership firm in Cambridge, MA.  We also publish New Cambridge Observer.

Welcome!

July 16, 2009


Butterfly1b-webHi–and welcome to  HarrisCom.blog, a publication of the Harris Communications Group of Cambridge, MA

 We’ll be covering and commenting  on issues relating to the traditional and new media, public relations, social media,  health care life sciences, and our clients.   We welcome links, pingbacks, comments and suggestions. Our materials are copyrighted, so if you’d like to use them, please email us for permission.

Thanks for stopping by!

 Anita M. Harris, President

%d bloggers like this: