Sales Reps, Doctors & ‘Emotional Connections’
41 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // August 18th, 2008 // 9:53 am
Forget about distributing medical literature or samples. If sales reps want to engage physicians, they need to develop personal relationships, according to a new survey that measured the effectiveness of sales forces from five drugmakers that sell antipsychotics - Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Johnson & Johnson. How personal? Well, that’s not specified, but use your imagination.
The study identified four segments of physicians: Fully Engaged, Engaged, On The Fence and Disengaged, according to PeopleMetrics Rx. Overall, 31 percent of physicians were Fully Engaged or Engaged, while the largest proportion of physicians - 53 percent - were On The Fence.
And so, the firm advises pharma that “sales representatives must develop personal relationships with their physicians to achieve the highest levels of engagement. In fact, emotional components such as friendship with the reps are the strongest indicators of Fully Engaged physicians. In turn, this has a positive impact on the duration and frequency of meetings and physician prescribing patterns.”
“Our findings will be important for sales forces in pharmaceutical companies,” Gary White, the firms’ executive vp, says in a statement. “Measuring the emotional connection sales reps develop with their physicians is not typically monitored in standard sales force effectiveness research….yet we find that this emotional dimension is key in understanding physicians’ perceptions toward their reps and the pharmaceutical company as a whole.”
So go ahead, tell those reps to ‘hug a doc today.’ Put the saying on a bumpersticker for the fleet of rental cars used by the reps. And throw those studies - whatever their source of funding - in the wastebasket. Just make sure the rep looks like the kind of person a doc would want get to know better.
Hat tip to GoozNews
jayla
The ‘personal connection’ mentioned is true, but not what most people probably infer from that statement. As a rep, you are in these offices interacting with the staff and physicians weekly. If there is a mutual respect and friendship the meetings would not be productive for either the rep or doctor. I was a rep for 12 years (I’ve since been promoted) and I never dated a doctor, went to their houses for parties etc. I was consistently ranked in the top 10% because I developed a professional rapport with my customers.
Nathan
I fully expect that the Massachusetts state legislature will quickly introduce a ban on doctor-pharma friendships. This horrible practice of developing a good rapport between pharma and doctors must be stopped!
John Mack
See some “friendly” sales rep-doctor data from this study at Pharma Marketing Blog: http://pharmamkting.blogspot.com/2008/08/friendly-pharma-sales-reps-earn-more.html
Nathan
John - thanks for the link. They measured “Physician Engagement” via 4 survey questions:
1) Retention: Given the choice, I would keep my sales representative as the representative who is assigned to my practice
2) Extra Effort: I would go out of my way to meet with my sales representative
3) Advocacy: I would recommend that my colleagues meet with my sales representative
4) Passion: I enjoy meeting with my sales representative
Wow. Those are horrible things. (sarcasm) God forbid a sales rep should be liked by their physician.
I wish I had this level of rapport with the last car salesman and real-estate agent I used…
Larry
The prezzies are helpful - especially pens and pads - but not vital in the early stages. If you have a good reason for the call and professional relationship I’ve found those are definitely the most valuable. Moreover, the physicians rarely ask for gifts…though occasionally their secretaries do! However, don’t bin those trials just yet - sound third party evidence is still needed, but this whole body of research certainly casts a doubt - predictably some might say - on all those garage loads of ego-boosting but all too often recycling-generating literature.
Harvey
This is quite interesting. I have always wondered how highly educated people such as physicians actually rely on non-healthcare people for “cutting edge” data to educate them in patient care. It truly has been a relationship driven business and NOT a scienitific exchange as pharma reps would like to think. Basically because 95% of these people do NOT have healthcare background. They can vomit up a article that they have been given, however after leagal in pharma has allowed the reps to carry the study, the physicians have already read the article 6 months ago.
Jack2
A doc who scored his/her rep high on those four rating scales (retention, extra effort, advocacy and passion) may have scored the rep high BECAUSE the rep engaged the doc in a quality and useful scientific exchange that respected the doc’s limited time.
Again the title and spin of the article makes leaps beyond what the data concretely shows.
JC MD
#5 should be skirt length.
Justice in Michigan
I am trying to figure out why anyone needed to “study” this? Would have been amazing if otherwise, no?
Anyway, as someone who has read training manuals for sales reps, the various suck-up strategies are laid out pretty vividly - ask about doc’s family, show “genuine” interest, remember kids’ names, yadayada.
Jack2
I agree JIM, the results seem obvious. The title and conclusion of the article should read “Docs who like their reps like their reps.”
I can’t argue with that.
Ed Silverman
Hi Jack2,
I understand your point. What struck me was the firm’s advice that reps develop friendships, which would appear to go beyond the REAP listing. And the phrase about ‘emotional connections’ in the headline came from the firm as well.
Was I a wee bit sarcastic at the end of the post? Yes. But if the firm wanted to suggest something else, then they should have either used different language or, perhaps, more precisely defined their choice of words and intent.
Cheers
ed
Dan A.
Post is to fitting not to reiterate again:
You Have Now Been Sampled
While the pharmaceutical industry’s image and reputation has and appears to continue to suffer, added damage has expressed itself with costly patent expirations, as PhRMA president may concur to a degree if asked, the image of this industry, has experienced noticeable trauma over the past two decades in particular. We will start with the issue of samples.
Quite remarkable, and apparently legal, is the ability of prescribers to request branded pharmaceuticals from the makers of certain medications if a prescriber obtains a request form. For possibly a number of reasons, this avenue is rare for obtaining samples..
So even though the value of requesting samples of medications by prescribers is, apparently, an authentic method of obtaining samples, it appears that most pharmaceutical companies prefer to have their own representatives dispense samples of their promoted medications. This allows for the release of inducements to certain prescribers, which they believe affects the image of their products and its preference for them related to the inducement they may have accepted from you, which does not seem to be the situation.
These sales forces of pharmaceutical companies have been examined more now than in the past due to their size, for one reason. The size of the sales forces of large pharmaceutical corporationstripled at one point, starting in the mid 1990s. Also, estimated total income for an individual pharmaceutical representative may exceed 200,000 a year. Overall, the amount spent on these reps exceeds 20 billion dollars annually.
Sadly, and with a high degree of confidence, most big pharma representatives are viewed and evaluated by their employers as it relates to their offering of prescriber inducements they may provide to targeted prescribers, as their ability as a sales representative is difficult to determine, since most with big pharma have several representatives visiting the same doctors with identical blockbuster promoted products. In fact, one could conclude that an individual representative in such a work environment is ultimately exonerated from any individual responsibility in regards to their vocation, which is one etiology of the premise that they are judged by their employers according to how much of their employer’s monetary surplus they dispensed in a certain period of time. This will be further addressed later. Yet the inducements are never described by what they actually are, which are bribes. Who receives these bribes is largely determined by the volume of scripts they write, as well as their loyalty to a particular pharmaceutical company’s products. This data of the prescribing habits analyzed by certain pharmaceutical companies is certainly available, and this will be further addressed below.
However, and empirically, the drug sampling of doctors may be considered an ultimate if not primary type of an inducement of certain representatives. Some pharmaceutical representatives are falsely led to believe that their territory’s performance is due in large part to their powerful ability to influence others. Although such pharmaceutical representatives want to believe such a false premise, it is samples of medications that determine the prescribing habits of health care providers. This is obvious now more than ever.
Many years ago, drug reps used their persuasive, yet ethical, abilities to influence the prescribing habits of doctors in an honest and credible manner, as they focused on the benefits for the doctor’s patients with particular drugs that the detailer may promote to such a doctor. However presently, most health care providers now simply preventing drug reps to speak with them. This is especially true when they are in clinic treating and assessing patients. More and more medical establishments are completely banning drug reps from their locations, and I speculate that this is occurring for many reasons, which may include the following:
The doctors lose money. Doctors are normally busy, so their time is valuable. As a drug rep, you are an incredible waste of their time. Yet they will accept your samples still. The credibility you possibly have thought you had and were perceived as such by doctors as a drug rep is no longer viewed to exist to any noticeable degree by the prescriber.
Based on information and belief, the prescriber’s perception of you as a drug rep is you only provide information that is presumed by them to be overall inaccurate and void of authentic objectivity related to your promoted products as a pharmaceutical representative. This view is due to the frequent statistical gymnastics the employers of drug reps engage in way too often in relation to the clinical benefits of their medication illustrated by what is likely biased data.
Doctors by their very nature seek answers objectively. And doctors do in fact find out about drugs through other methods besides the representative of the drug’s maker, such as the internet and experience with certain medications, because of their awareness of the lack of authenticity of certain medications combined by the absence of credibility of the representatives of such medications. This is further illustrated by reps being selected by pharmaceutical companies due to their perceived appearance and personalities judged by certain employers. Further trait desired is their candidate’s potential and complete obedience in relation to their directives to them, which is expressed by the displayed affinity for money from a potential candidate. Qualities related to anything of a scientific, medical, or clinical nature is of no concern to most pharmaceutical companies, quite apparently.
This is why pharmaceutical representatives have no interest or concern regarding public health, perhaps. This premise is further validated by their employers’ minimal concern regarding the medical knowledge of their sales representatives, as this is replaced with teaching their representatives on how to issue various inducements to select prescribers., yet are just shy of calling these inducements what they actually are, which are bribes. Examples may be creating a check from your company to a certain supporting doctor and handing this check to thank a doctor for supporting your company’s products for doing little, if anything, for your employer to justify this check. Knowing this, it seems to validate their apathy regarding the medical knowledge of their sales representatives, while emphasizing obedience of them instead, which does not allow them to examine what they are told to do by some pharmaceutical companies, which may be viewed as inappropriate inducements to select prescribers.
In relation to non-monetary inducements given to certain prescribers, they may be of a certain value and are possibly without any clear medical benefit, such as TVs or DVDs, perhaps. And the autonomy that exists with some pharmaceutical companies allows such activities of legal or ethical consequences to be applauded by them to certain representatives of theirs as examples of innovation or creation by representatives who implement these activities. This appears to eliminate the need to examine the consequences potentially of some activities and tactics encouraged by certain pharmaceutical companies.
Another issue is what is referred to as data mining, which is a determining variable as it relates to who a pharmaceutical maker may choose to support financially, as determined by this data available to them, which authenticates the prescribing habits of others. When a pharmaceutical company issues such a reward, that takes many forms, the pharmaceutical maker, which is often very large and lucrative, alters their relationship with certain prescribers into a pathological symbiotic relationship of one that is focused on the continued monetary gain presumed to be of one that is great benefit to the maker of such medications. By doing this, the maker has not even allowed in a conceptual sense to be of an entity of any medical benefit of others ho to reward via numerous financial incentives for supporting the medical products produced and marketed by the gift giver, as this product maker often manifests itself into a creator of a quid pro quo relationship through what could be considered a pathological form of symbiosis that becomes a destructive host upon its creation by such companies. The receivers of such corruption are determined by those pharmaceutical companies that analyze this prescribing data, which is available to them starting with the selling of various identifying numbers of certain prescribers that are made available through the selling of these identifiers for the monetary gain of the providers of this data, which starts with the American Medical Association. Further disturbing is the fact that this behavior is not prevented by our lawmakers. In addition to pharmaceutical companies determining the supporters of their medications, the data also allows these companies to select certain prescribers that are of high volume, both of particular disease states and overall frequency. Because this variable allows a pharmaceutical company to conclude who could potentially affect their business and therefore dispense their financial stimulus methods accordingly. This allows certain pharmaceutical companies to create reciprocal relationships in addition to the anticipated continued prescribing habits of known supporters of certain drugs provided by and promoted by their makers.
Conversely, if a prescriber is determined by a pharmaceutical company to be harmful or of minimal financial benefit to a pharmaceutical company in relation to its promoted products, such a prescriber is often determined by such a company to be ignored by such a company, which includes any items of benefit to the health of others become forbidden and without access to such prescribers, which could include samples to such a prescriber as well.
While such unethical activities may appear to be ridiculous and without reason to some, this does not mean they do not occur, as the apparently unethical behaviors of certain pharmaceutical companies seem to be unbelievable by others on occasion. Furthermore, such tactics may cause an outbreak of corruption by other similar organizations, perhaps.
For example, possibly as a response to some tactics of branded pharmaceutical companies, some managed care providers are giving financial incentive to prescribers if they choose a generic medication that is typically less expensive than the branded variety. While legal, this activity is overall unknown to most citizens. However, such activity makes them no different in their approach to health care than certain pharmaceutical companies, as both affect the sterility of the judgment of some doctors who accept these inducements.
It seems that external regulation is necessary to prevent the drug companies from allowing the autonomy of drug reps and their own often secretive tactics that are utilized by some of the companies in the pharmaceutical industry. To many, it is rather obvious that internal controls of companies that perform such wrongdoing, are void of self-regulation, and choose to be this way with deliberate intent. If regulation happens, then it may be possible to resurrect the ethical element necessary as a participant in the health care system. The importance of public health should be the apex of their existence as a company that participates in this system..
Overall, pharmaceutical representatives are good, intelligent people who perhaps do not realize the results of actions that many consider to be unethical. Yet they do as they are told in order to maintain their employment, yet may compromise their integrity at the same time- as at times these methods implemented by members of the pharmaceutical industry with progressive frequency may result in a toxic culture and environment of certain companies that create with force certain representatives who perform activities that may be against their desire as a person.
I believe most reps really WANT to do well for their employers, yet are prohibited from doing so now because of how their employers are now viewed in their medical community, in relation to any contributions they may appear to make, which is not in the best interests of the patients, overall. Ethics once associated with this industry have atrophied over the past decades, and the result is the pharmaceutical industry is no longer viewed as a segmented type of a corporation, yet is unfortunately viewed as one with the objectives of greed and profit, and there are no exceptions of this perception that has been known to members of the pharmaceutical industry, yet have refused to shift their own point of view regarding this accurate premise the public has of them
Fear ensures loyalty.” — Author unknown
Dan Abshear (what has been written is based upon information and belief).
Jack2
My critique is not aimed at Pharmalot. You fairly represented the text in the website’s summary.
And I don’t doubt that a big part of a good reps job is being likable. I just think that the survey results on their own can be interperted in multiple ways, and don’t necessarily bear out the authors’ conclusion.
Doc
Its all about trust and relationships, every company has either used in the past or still using the Mackay 25, where you learn and leverage your customers interests, etc for increased product use. Science is dying a fast death in marketing departments all over pharma.
Ken
The concept of engaging physicians is as old as the drug industry. Prior to HMOs, capitation,formularies and $4 generics; a rep and doc had a relationship based on trust and a bit of friendliness. Pharmacists could tell when the rep had been in town because for the next week his/her product was the one written. The pharma industry and trainers recycle concepts of MD engagement, reprint specification, PI comparisons, role playing and the like to justify their jobs and try to explain why their me too drug cannot get the sales volume of the competitions tier one med.
Also failed pharma reps and managers open their own consulting services to push these outdated concepts and new to the industry MBA executives spend the money for them and force their reps to use them…this quarter.
This too shall pass
Actosrep
Oh, the science is still there. It is just that the “science” is not about the molecule it is about the prescriber segmentation and targeting. Integrated or psychographic segmentation, which integrates prescribing data and consumer data (such as credit cards, magazine subscriptions, previous and current domicile, etc…) identifies physician segments and helps drive marketing activities. By determining whether or not a physician will respond to a science based message or is more relationship oriented, etc… it gives a rep a supposed advantage. Then again, there was a day when Lily only hired RPh’s and reps and doctors were on a first name basis. Then the Pharma arms race began and we now have Pharma Ken and Pharma Barbie parroting the latest detail piece and catering breakfast and lunch. It just means that there are plenty of opportunities for the McKinsey’s and Boston Consulting Group’s to siphon off more of Pharma’s profits because the industry is so damn thick-headed.
Justice in Michigan
Actosrep - When do you see the “pharma arms race” beginning and what characterized it? Very interested. Thanks.
Paul Vadera
What’s missing in all these posts is that the role of the rep is not necessarily to influence a doctor to prescribe your product based solely on the rep’s assertions, but to present scientific evidence that serves as a hunting license for the doctor to further research the drug’s appropriateness for his patients. The better the relationship the rep has with the doctor, the more likely the doctor will be to pursue independent research. Said another way, the more credible the rep has been in the past the more likely a doctor will listen to your story preliminarily pending further review. That’s it, nothing else, nothing sinister here, just to point the doctor in the direction of more research.
Doc
Mr. Vadera,
Are you from an alternate universe? With 30+ years in pharma sales and marketing experience and counting - you could not be more incorrect. Reps are incentivized to sell, held accountable to goals for their continued employment - the focus is 100% sell more, regardless of the science. Marketing can’t present it quite that bluntly, but in their meetings - it is the objective. Science is waaaay down their list of priorities, if on that list at all.
hella
Dan A wrote “Based on information and belief, the prescriber’s perception of you as a drug rep is you only provide information that is presumed by them to be overall inaccurate and void of authentic objectivity related to your promoted products as a pharmaceutical representative.”
That is the excuse some of them (prescribers) use as a smokescreen for the fact that they are creatures of habit like the rest of us and changing their prescribing ‘habits’ is inconvenient, even if it is in the best interest of their patient. Who has the time to counsel a patients on a new method or medications? Who has the time for extra questions when 8 patients are scheduled in an hour? In almost 15 years “selling” I can give you so many examples of this laziness. It is sometimes up to the salespeople to keep chipping away at the prescriber to get them to at least consider trying a medication that might indeed improve the quality of life of a patient, treat a disease with less side effects, allow for better compliance. Usually it takes a good relationship with a doc first, before any effective chipping can begin. There are many reasons to write or not write for a product….but please don’t pretend that if reps/pharma were not involved the decision would be pure and in best interest of patients.
If I had the time I would love to respond to all of your points. Fortunately, I need to get into the field and provide inaccurate information to my prescribers.
Anna
Dead. I just want to remind you that my son is dead and the chain reaction started with a drug rep, conning an overworked Medicaid psychiatrist. Read the latest information coming out of the first state trial (Alaska) against Lilly for its evil lies, greed, and murder caused by Zyprexa. See them on the blog furious seasons.
Sam
Sales Reps, Doctors & ‘Emotional Connections’ questions the validity that emotional connections should be part of the senario of promoting various drugs. This is because neither the physician or the sales rep are
going to need or buy these drugs that will cost thousands of dollars over the years.
Suppose all the people who made comments concerning this topic were
in the market to buy a car. The first limitation would be - how much car
can we afford to buy? Once we decide on the price range, we will find
5 or 6 brands with a number of models. We would probably consult with
J.D Powers, Consumer Reports and various Car Magazine to determine
what car is the best to buy. We would be interested in performance, safety, gas milage, design and incidents of repairs and how the car
handles when you go for a test drive.
The car salesperson may be handsome, is charming, sexy or looks great in a mini. But lets face it, we want the best car for the lowest price.
I would hope that any physician of mine would have my best interest at heart and not there to help the sales rep.
HorusCat
I just don’t get the shock and amazement over the fact that SALES reps develop RELATIONSHIPS with their CUSTOMERS.
Ed, shame on you, though, for insinuating that “relationships” might be untoward. I certainly read a sexual insinuation in that.
The reasons why physicians prescribe go way beyond relationships. I called on the same psychiatrists for 6 years. They all liked me, talked to me, gave me time, made room in their schedule for me. I barely made quota. Why? Because more goes into prescribing a drug than whether a doc likes a rep–in 99% of the cases. Habit. Formulary access. Sample availability. Evidence. Experience with the med. After all, the doctor probably likes most of his reps–people who go into sales tend to be likeable. I don’t think a doc ranks his reps in order of liking and then prescribes accordingly.
Reps develop relationships with doctors for sales purposes, but that oversimplifies it. When you spend 8-12 hours every day, every week, every year, interacting with the same 250 people, you become emotionally connected. That’s just human nature. If you didn’t do that, you’d be bored out of your mind. Sales people go into sales in large part because they LIKE interacting with people. You are implying a level of cynicism and exploitation that simply doesn’t exist in pharmaceutical sales or most of life, for that matter.
Ed, you obviously go out of your way to get people to connect to you and your work here. The same posters post all the time, and they learn details about each other which they reference from time to time. You attempt to satisfy your customers’ needs for information and inquiries about some of the decisions you make. Is it just because you want us to keep coming back so that you can attract advertisers, so that you can live in a nice house and have a nice car and go on nice vacations? Or is it because you get satisfaction out of the human connections that are made as you do your work?
Former pharma Marketing Exec
Sam,
You describe what it should be. Unfortunately patients get complacent. What they really need to do is listen very carefully to their doctor, then take all the information with them and finish their own research at home and give careful time to consider what the options are. This would really bring up more questions.
It always amazes me that there are so many patients who research the heck out of car buying, house buying and what school to send their children to. When it comes to their own health care they acquiesce.
While it is nice to be liked and develop a good rapport with the docs in your territory there is something kind of sleazy in the thinking that Doctors can be bowled over and possibly bring harm to a patient just because they have a personal preference for a rep.
Not too too long ago, it was important for me to be liked and welcomed in the doctors office as a rep or marketing person in the field. But putting an emphasis on personal appearances or emotional connections over science is just wrong.
Hope the doctors reading the study are as revolted…I can’t believe someone paid a company to conduct the study. A clear indication that Pharma has way too much money to burn. Another reason to Ban a rep - today!
Harvey
So sales reps are at the level of healthcare providers such as PharmDs, MDs, DOs, and RNs?
Am I misseing something?
Orco
What I have seen here is mostly crap! I’m not going to finger one by one but just take some segments of what people here have said.
You can’t say Rep’s just go and vomit what they have been taught by the company and the Dr. can go online and get more info. Usually, studies that come out for X drug are the ones that are published and the ones that the reps bring into Dr’s offices, the other ones are not always official. Nowadays some studies say that drinking tap water can cause cancer! WOW! That means I’m going to get cancer no wait maybe if I drink bottled water. Ohh here is another news, bottled water is not safe it is = to tap water now what?
Reps don’t get paid 200,000 a year maybe just a few.
Does drug marketing differ from jean marketing or lotions or soaps? Is every consumer the same? Are Dr’s the same throughout the USA and other countries? WHy do we vote for a different candidate instead of everyone voting for the same one? Maybe its the same reason why Dr’s Rx some medications instead of others.
I can go to a Dr’s office and say the truth but, if the Dr doesn’t like me is he going to trust me? I need to build a relationship to get to this point. Isn’t everyone this same way or is it only them. I guess Dr’s are normal people and act the same way as anyone else.
Justice in Michigan
I guess I’ve already said that I can’t imagine this study coming out differently. It gives marketing “research” a bad name.
I agree with Cat on this one. I’ve been working with the same copy place for twenty years, even though they charge more than others, etc.. But I go back because of the relationship, the trust, and the fact that I know - when something screws up (as it has) - they will make it right.
If that characterizes a relationship between doc and rep, I’m all for it. My guess is that the crap they write in the training manuals is for folks who really do see their work essentially as a scam (which includes the folks who wrote the manual).
So this becomes a microcosm of the ways we think of the industry in general. Either there is trust, or there isn’t.
And, the more there isn’t, the more we’re all toast.
Orco
Former pharma Marketing Exec,
how can you say ban a rep? Seems like former describes you but, pharma marketing Exec was a little too big a position for you.
Every rep is supposed to bring fair balance into every office they call. This means you talk about your drugs’ benefits and features but also about its side effects, adverse events etc. Have you forgotten?
Harvey
Reps do get paid in the six figures and even make more money that some junior faculity at teaching centers in major cities with huge student loans and work many hours. There is something wrong with that.
Justice in Michigan
If reps make six figures, they also make more money than many _senior_ faculty at major research universties. That much I can guarantee.
If you love what you do, believe in what you do, and can look at yourself in the mirror and feel profoundly good about who is staring back - as well as about the company you represent and promote to the world - that is fine with me.
If not, no salary will get you out of the toilet.
Justice in Michigan
If reps make six figures, they also make more money than many _senior_ faculty at major research universties. That much I can guarantee.
If you love what you do, believe in what you do, and can look at yourself in the mirror and feel profoundly good about who is staring back - as well as about the company you represent and promote to the world - that is fine with me.
If not, no salary will get you out of the toilet.
Ed Silverman
Hi HC,
Sorry for the belated reply. I logged off early yesterday.
Anyway, as I noted in a remark earlier on this thread, I confessed to being a bit sarcastic in this post - and the sarcasm was directed at the report and its conclusions, not sales reps. I wasn’t the one who suggested reps should develop friendships and emotional connections - which, of course, can be interpreted differently by different people.
Some of what the market research firm promotes is obvious, but also rather simplistic. Unfortunately, the firm declined to respond, at all, when I asked to see the report in full or discuss the details. So I was left to use my imagination, such as it is.
I understand your points about sales reps and human nature - no argument about any of that. Sorry, though, if my sarcasm offended. But it was sarcasm.
Regards
ed
Jack2
1. Your pay doesn’t fall directly in proportion to your years of education. I know, I do NOT benefit from the current system. A PhD in sociology takes just about as long as a PhD in engineering, computer sciences, or an MD. It takes longer than a JD or an MBA, yet it pays less than all of those degrees. Should this surprise sociology PhDs?
2. Your employer only ever pays you what it thinks it needs to pay you to keep you there. A sociology PhD also makes less than a truck driver. If you don’t like it become a truck driver.
3. Want to drive a truck across frozen lakes in the winter in Canada? You can make more money than even drug reps in less time. Want to work on an oil rig in the northe sea - it pays well. Sure you don’t want to? Are there other aspects of the job you don’t like? Academic faculty have WAY more job security than anyone in private industry, especially the modern pharma industry. Within the pharma industry, I’d say sales reps have the least job security of any group. Easy come, easy go. Salary isn’t everything. There’s a lot of other aspects to a job (even excluding ethics) that influence the salary. The more sucky the job, the higher the pay.
4. Industry reps command high salaries because people in sales (even outside of pharma industries) make high salaries, and pharma needs to compete with those salaries.
5. Your job is more than just your education vs. your time. Working in sales can be demoralizing.
6. People in sales need to be likable. I’m not. I’m not in sales. This is the skill they need the same way a surgeon needs to know how to perform surgery. A pharma rep is hired because they can comprehend the marketing message behind the drug, basically understand the drug, are likable, are optimistic, and are tenacious.
7. People in sales don’t just act likable. They tend to actually BE likable people, who are GENUINELY interested in other people. If it was an act, they couldn’t do it everyday.
…I still say that although the conclusion of the article is true, the data do not support the conclusion to the exlusion of all other possible conclusions.
harpy
You can file this study with the one that found putting wheels in childrens’ shoes would result in more broken bones or that animals have feelings (really! dogs get sad! cats feel superior!). I need to start writing grants to get funding for “Studies of the Bleedin’ Obvious.”
Former pharma Marketing Exec
Orco, the point I am making is that with studies out there like this, more Docs have more reason to Ban Reps. I wouldn’t pay someone for a study like this and I wouldn’t use it anywhere. Sorry you couldn’t see the message.
JIM, I don’t care how much I like somebody, or somebody likes me. If we are comparing exactly apples to apples then I will not pay more for the same thing because I like somebody. If the person selling me a product or service really likes me he/she will respect the fact that I work hard for my money and can spend it anywhere I wish and I am compelled to spend it wisely. I want to be assured of value for my money. Much like a doctor who is supposed to decide on which drugs to use for a given patient based on the patients case and certainly not because I like Sales Rep “Y”- let me do you a favor and the next five patients that come into my office get product “X” - which is exactly what this study sounds like it is promoting.
The troubling thing is that patients have to go through their doctors to get access to drugs and medical devices. There has to be reasonable assurance that the decisions on which drugs being used are based on science - first and foremost. This study is definitely no friend of pharma.
Sam
I have many consumers who hate to see reps coming into
the physician’s office. Their complaint - They are still sitting in the MD’s waiting room- an hour after their appointment time- when a sales rep appears, goes to directly to the desk bearing gifts of one sort or another - and is allowed in to see the doctor right away! These patients who maybe in pain or suffering from some other medical condition, now have to wait even longer and they become angry and frustrated.
As to what brand a doctor writes for: It may not be because a physician likes a rep, but I do know when a certain rep from a certain company is in the area when that brand of a certain class of drug is being written for over the next 4 or 5 days.
You know how it is - out of slight, out of mind or visa versa
Doug
Sam hit the nail on the head. I stopped seeing one doctor after listening to him talk with one of those rapport-building reps about his vacation home for fifteen minutes. I now stick to academic medical centers - still crawling with the SOBs but not, so far, in the practices I deal with. If I do get a prescription for something which is not available in a generic, I grill the MD for as long as it takes to convince me there is a valid reason - other than some drug company rep with a great rack - why he’s prescribing that and not something else.
Justice in Michigan
Says Jack 2: “A sociology PhD also makes less than a truck driver. If you don’t like it become a truck driver.”
Where’s my rig, man?
Remember when it was cool to be a trucker? What if sociologists communicated on CB?
“Hey Good Buddy, got some anomie on I-23. Gonna go down to Motown to check my SES. Tell Weber to get out of his iron cage and meet me at Lil’s.”
Amazed by these posts
hmmm, anger, paranoia, obsessiveness, and then more anger expressed here.
Perhaps some of you would benefit from some of the meds available today in the U.S. for Bipolar disorder, because many of you sound ill, esp Dan A. .
Why don’t you move to Canada, or India, or even the EU, where providers aren’t, as you all say, so unduly influenced?
But then you wouldn’t have the freedoms to express your opinions in most of these countries. And you certainly wouldn’t have the health care choices that you have in this country.
That’s why you’re here in the USA. Go to Canada, it’s close, and then someone who appreciates the USA for it’s freedoms can have your job.
James R
Dan A. Chill brother. Take a breath. We all luv ya, no need to write a novel.
MARGO
CURIOUS ABOUT DRUG REP/DOCTOR RELATIONSHIPS. dO DRUG COMPANIES HAVE POLICIES WITH THEIR REPS ABOUT AFTER HOUR DINNERS WITH THE DOCTORS? COCKTAILS? JUST CURIOUS. BEING IN THE HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY I AM NOW WONDERING ARE PATIENTS GETIING WHAT THEY REALLY NEED AND WHAT WOULD BE THE BEST FOR THEIR TREATMENT OR THAT THEY HAVE A “OUTSIDE RELATIONSHIP OF SORTS?
I THOUGHT THAT THERE IS SOME KIND OF GUIDELINE WITHDRUG COMPANIES AND THEIR EMPLOYEES.