"How different are branding strategies in the pharmaceutical

industry versus fast moving consumer goods ?"

Schuiling, Isabelle ; Moss, Giles

ABSTRACT

The objective of this paper is to analyse the branding strategies used currently in the pharmaceutical
industry and compare it to the best practices in Fast Moving Consumer goods. First the authors review the
differences in the way branding is defined and organised in pharmaceuticals versus FMCG and identify why
branding could be leveraged in the pharmaceutical industry to help it return to strong growth in the future.
Second, the authors analyse in detail what branding strategies are currently used within pharmaceuticals
and FMCG. The choice of brand names strategies, the level of brand globalisation, the use of brand
extension and co-branding as well the situation of brand portfolio management are compared. Based on
this benchmarking, the authors offer recommendations to guide future branding development successfully
in the pharmaceutical industry.

CITE THIS VERSION

Schuiling, Isabelle ; Moss, Giles. How different are branding strategies in the pharmaceutical industry versus
fast moving consumer goods ?. IAG Working Papers ; 2003/101  (2003) http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/5428

Le dépôt institutionnel DIAL est destiné au dépôt DIAL is an institutional repository for the deposit
et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques and dissemination of scientific documents from
émanents des membres de l'UCLouvain. Toute UCLouvain members. Usage of this document
utilisation de ce document à des fin lucratives for profit or commercial purposes is stricly
ou commerciales est strictement interdite. prohibited. User agrees to respect copyright
L'utilisateur s'engage à respecter les droits about this document, mainly text integrity and
d'auteur lié à ce document, principalement le source mention. Full content of copyright policy
droit à l'intégrité de l'oeuvre et le droit à la is available at Copyright policy
paternité. La politique complète de copyright est
disponible sur la page Copyright policy

Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/5428 [Downloaded 2020/04/07 at 15:54:46 ]

IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY VERSUS FAST MOVING

CONSUMER GOODS?

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to analyse the branding strategies used

currently in the pharmaceutical industry and compare it to the best

practices in Fast Moving Consumer goods. First the authors review the

differences in the way branding is defined and organised in

pharmaceuticals versus FMCG and identify why branding could be

leveraged in the pharmaceutical industry to help it return to strong growth

in the future. Second, the authors analyse in detail what branding

strategies are currently used within pharmaceuticals and FMCG. The

choice of brand names strategies, the level of brand globalisation, the use

of brand extension and co-branding as well the situation of brand portfolio

management are compared. Based on this benchmarking, the authors

offer recommendations to guide future branding development successfully

in the pharmaceutical industry.

1
 AUTHORS

Isabelle Schuiling

is Professor at the University of Louvain School of Management in

Belgium. Prior to her academic experience, she was a former Marketing

Director Europe and Belgium at Procter and Gamble. Her research

interests are related to branding and international marketing. Isabelle

holds a PHD from the University of Louvain and an MBA from the

University of Chicago.

Giles Moss

is Regional General Manager of S.E. Asia, Australia and New Zealand at

UCB Pharma and has held varied sales and marketing positions at both an

affiliate and global level in companies such as BMS, SmithKline Beecham

and UCB. Giles is a pharmacist, holds an MBA from Henley and has an

interest in brands.

2
Introduction

The pharmaceutical industry has come relatively late to branding. During

the 1980’s and 1990’s the pharmaceutical industry has enjoyed success

over an extended period of time, achieving relatively easy double digit

growth on a consistent basis. By in large this was through using traditional

methods and there was no apparent urgency to change the way it

marketed its products. The success of the industry relied on three factors;

strong research and development (R&D), aggressive defence of patents

and use of the dominant promotional tool - powerful sales forces. The

industry has been therefore product and R&D driven and not market

driven. Despite the size of the sales generated, there are over 40

blockbusters or products that generate in excess of $1Bn, drugs were

treated as products and not as brands.

The picture has however changed, industry growth has been slowing down

and firms have been searching for ways to maintain it. The three traditional

success factors of the industry are less evident than in the past. First, it

has become much more difficult to identify the blockbuster drugs that can

fuel company momentum and additionally product innovation remains

costly and more illusive than ever. Second, many of the most successful

drugs will soon suffer patent expiry, more than half of the global top 50

best sellers will go off patent in the next 5 years. Moreover, in view of the

concentration of sales in fewer big products, the sales at stake are much

3
larger than in the past. Third, sales efforts are reaching a certain saturation

level as the industry consolidates, it will not be possible in the future to

base success just on increasing the number of sales representatives

promoting a product (Datamonitor 2002).

Combined with this back drop generic competition has also been

developing rapidly and constitutes an increasingly real threat for the

industry. Generic companies benefit, not only from patent expiration, but

also from the cost reduction pressures evident in every healthcare system

around the world.

The industry has reacted via consolidation. In a series of significant

mergers and acquisitions it has attempted to maximise R&D and reach

economies of scale in the sales and marketing area.

Despite this we believe that mergers will not be sufficient in themselves to

allow a return to the double digit growth seen during the 1990’s.

Branding, however, represents a new competitive advantage that could be

leveraged by the industry, in line with the success seen in the FMCG (fast

moving consumer goods) area over the last two decades. Branding

strategies could then help to maximise return on investment for new

products whilst helping to alleviate the inevitable growth of generics in the

future.

4
The objective of this paper is to first investigate what is the current

branding situation in the pharmaceutical industry and how it compares

versus the FMCG experience; second develop a rationale for branding;

third to analyse how pharma’s existing branding strategies differ versus

current best practise in the FMCG area e.g. in the choice of brand name

strategies, global branding, brand extension, co-branding and brand

portfolio management and then finally to recommend actions that could

make a difference resulting from the lessons learned from successful

FMCG branding.

The current branding situation in the pharmaceutical industry

Brand definition

Traditionally when a pharmaceutical product is launched the product

positioning is based on the product licence i.e. its indications and the

established efficacy, safety and tolerability seen in registration clinical

studies. Post launch studies then tend to lead to a broadening of the

indications, the development of new dosage forms and the strengthening

of claims versus the competition (Moss 2001).

In the recent past, some pharmaceutical firms have been investigating

how to develop brands but there is still much confusion in the way brands

are defined, thought about and managed. At its simplest some

5
prescription drug marketers believe that giving a name to a certain product

will make it a brand. Others believe that adding a bit of symbolism to a

product will be sufficient to create a brand (Chandler and Owen 2002).

One of the factors that has added to the brand debate within

pharmaceuticals is the possibility of pull through advertising, direct to the

patient communication about prescription only medications. These

campaigns termed DTC (direct to consumer) are strictly regulated

worldwide and are new in that they became possible only in the 1990’s.

Previously only OTC’s (over the counter pharmacy items) were allowed to

be advertised to the public.

The rules vary widely country by country but the biggest difference exists

between the US and EU. Europe only allows disease awareness

campaigns, not product related campaigns, and even then the types of

diseases which can be featured are often restricted. As a result DTC

expertise in Europe is less advanced when compared with the US. A few

well known European campaigns exist like the Novartis UK Stepwise

campaign which has utilised newspaper and television advertising to raise

awareness of the fungal nail infection disease area, a therapy class area

where the Novartis brand Lamisil (terbinafine) commands a dominant

market share.

In the US product name adverts in various media, including television, are

allowable assuming they have been approved by the FDA and the

6
resultant raft of regulatory requirements has been complied with. The early

years of DTC have proven difficult with few individual brands hugely

benefiting from this type of exposure. Having said that the industry is

learning gradually what works and what doesn’t, but the huge increases in

spend seen at the end of the 1990’s have now levelled off and DTC spend

accounts for approximately 15% of the budget for prescription drug

marketing according to the FDA (The pink sheet 2003). Some therapy

areas appear to respond better than others e.g. antihistamines (Claritin,

Zyrtec), irritable bowel syndrome (Zelnorm) and erectile dysfunction

brands (Viagra, Levitra). In general however, according to a Kaiser Family

Foundation study (Erickson 2001) DTC appears to increase the size of the

market rather than significantly change an individual brands share of that

market. The study focused on antidepressants and suggested that

physician detailing still made the difference about which antidepressant

was prescribed but more patients identified themselves for consultation as

a result of the advertising.

The failure to achieve more concrete results could well be directly related

to the generally low level of understanding of brand management within

the pharmaceutical industry, DTC being seen as just another tactical

approach in marketing.

In FMCG, the brand logic follows a much more thorough and systematic

approach. A brand is viewed as a set of tangible and intangible benefits

7
that are registered in the mind of consumers. The choice of these benefits

is based on a thorough analysis of the market, the consumers, the

competition and other environmental factors. This analysis permits to

identify the right target group and to develop a unique brand identity. This

identity will differentiate the brand versus competitors in order to get a

competitive advantage in the market.

Brand management organisation

In the pharmaceutical industry, the organisation of brand management is

also quite different to that seen in the consumer world. Global marketing

people will often come late into the development process, often in phase

3b, close to final registration. Key decisions are taken at a much earlier

phase of the products development plan, often years earlier when the

product enters phase 2. This has started to change in some of the bigger

companies such as AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly or Genentech

(Erickson 2001) but these are often the exceptions that prove the rule,

talking about brand development and actually achieving it are often years

apart.

Moreover, Pharmaceutical Marketing people are often more sales driven

than marketing driven and therefore pay more attention to the executional

elements of marketing rather than developing the strategic thinking that is

required to make in-depth analyses of data from the market, the

consumers and the competitors. The traditional career route to the top in

8
the industry is to start as a representative, followed by country specific

product management and then back to sales in a management position to

allow a career path in the direction of being a country general manager.

Operational top management therefore has tended to come from

individuals who have experienced big line management careers rather

than a specialised marketing background and career. If you then add to

this top tier senior R&D management who have only ever worked in that

area and necessary finance expertise, this then constitutes the make up

many boards. As a result marketing experts are on the periphery at the top

level, especially as central or global marketing positions do not hold the

same cache of their counterparts in FMCG – a few notable exceptions

exists such as Hamad (ex CEO Pharmacia and now of Schering Plough)

but they are not the norm.

Early feedback about how to manage both DTC and traditional prescription

brand management in the same organisation shows variable results.

Where FMCG experienced individuals have been recruited disillusionment

sets in quickly, due to the highly restrictive regulatory environment the

industry lives in. In addition due to the fragmented DTC geography there

are various local structural answers (mostly in the US) and few if any

globally coordinated approaches. Even in organisations where consumer

healthcare divisions exist i.e. OTC divisions, the transition to DTC has not

been easy and few really great campaigns or brands have so far been

created, and none rolled out globally.

9
In FMCG, brands are created very early in the development process and

marketing people will work very early with R&D, at the beginning of the

product development process. At Procter and Gamble, Marketing people

will work with R&D in the beginning of the development of new product

ideas. They will test together prototypes and develop brand concepts.

FMCG firms will also dedicate a lot of management attention, investment

and effort to manage their brands. These brands are viewed as the key

assets of the firms. Branding will be a strategy priority at every level of the

organisation. The traditional career path to reach general management is

to grow in the marketing function to first become a brand manager, then a

category manager and finally a marketing director. The FMCG marketing

function is considered as a line job but is sited in the centre of the

organisation unlike the pharmaceutical industry where global marketing is

a staff function and the sheer size of the sales forces means marketing

support is required in the countries. As a result country marketing receives

the majority of resourcing in pharma leaving a gap at the centre of the

organisation.

Despite the lack of brand focus in the pharmaceutical industry, we

consider however that the industry has not realised that it is managing

brands and not just products. Indeed, the pharmaceutical product has all

the elements that make it a brand. It represents in consumers’ mind a set

10
of tangible and intangible benefits. It does not only deliver a certain

efficacy (tangible) but it offers also additional values such as trust

(intangible). The brand has an existence in both doctors and patients

minds, that goes beyond the product itself. Pharmaceutical companies

develop molecules but doctors prescribe brands (Kapferer 1997).

Rationale for branding development

It is clear that the competitive environment is becoming harsher in the

pharmaceutical industry and the necessity for health care systems to

adopt generics will only accelerate the decline of branded sales post

patent expiration, unless the industry manages itself differently. This is

why we consider that branding can represent a new competitive

advantage.

The creation of brands would enable firms to differentiate the products

versus its competition using both tangible and intangible benefits. In view

of the increased number of competitors and the relatively lower number of

really distinctive products, it is even more important to provide “a reason

for being” to each brand.

Branding can help to sustain the brand against generics after patent

expiration. A strong brand will benefit from a high consumer loyalty (Aaker

1991, Kapferer 2001). The brand would therefore be in a better position to

sustain sales after the patent has expired. For perspective, during the

11
1980’s, a product suffering patent loss could still expect to have 60% of its

sales turnover 12 months later. In the 1990’s, that figure dropped to 40%

and in certain cases it has been further exceeded (Prozac). (IMS

Health.com). A strong base of loyal consumers would give additional time

to maximise return on investment (Blackett 2001). The maths is relatively

straight forward, patent expiry often coincides with peak sales for a

product and therefore at its simplest for every month a pharmaceutical

brand with annual sales of 1,2 Bn USD is maintained the revenue upside

is 100 M USD (using the same logic a six month delay is therefore worth

over 0.5 Bn USD)

Some authors have also highlighted the possibility to better protect the

brand versus generics from a legal point of view when it is branded

(Blackett 2001).

Finally, brands will have also a stronger influence on the behaviour and

attitudes of patients and doctors.

It is right that a key difference versus FMCG is the relatively limited life

time of pharmaceutical brands. They enjoy only 20 years of exclusivity as

a maximum and in general will go off patent after an average of 7 years

from when they enter the market. Some authors consider therefore that in

view of this short life cycle it is not worth investing in building brand equity

(Datamonitor 2002). This is different to FMCG where brands can live for

ever, Procter and Gamble management for instance does not believe in

12
the product life cycle concept. Within the consumer area if they are well

managed, brands should last for ever.

We do not believe that this important difference should prevent

pharmaceutical firms from building brands. We consider that brand names

should be more strongly linked than today to the corporate name (Moss

and Schuiling ). The latter can be used as a full name or as an umbrella

name linked to the product brand name. This would be in line with the

current trend in FMCG where companies try to link their product name

brands to their strong corporate name and image.

Another important difference seen in contrast to FMCG has been the often

highlighted additional layer that exists between the pharmaceutical

manufacturer and the patients (consumers). Doctors and pharmacists do

inevitably make branding strategies much more complicated.

We do not believe that this represents an insurmountable difference

versus FMCG as, contrary to what certain authors highlight, doctors can

be convinced by arguments other than the purely rational. They are also

influenced by other factors such as trust or the quality image of the

manufacturer. In addition they need to be reassured and in similarity to

many consumer purchases they operate on a basis of limited information.

They also make decisions for emotional reasons, not only rational ones

(Chandler and Owen 2002).

13
We will now review what are the branding strategies currently used by

pharmaceutical firms and compare it to the best practise in the FMCG

area.

14
Branding strategies

- Brand name strategies

We need first to highlight that the particularity of pharmaceutical brands is that

they have, two names. The brand name and the molecule name. The

molecule name is present throughout the development process and will be the

one used in scientific publications.

We have identified a series of strategies being used to select brand names in

the pharmaceutical industry:

- Chemical derived names: The brand name is based on the scientific

name of the molecule. This has been the traditional way of naming

pharmaceutical products. For example, Cipro for Ciprofloxacin, Capoten

for Captopril, Risperdal for risperidone (Erickson 2001). The issue of this

strategy is that the brand name is too generic and might speed generic

penetration later in the brands life. Moreover, it doesn’t give many

possibilities to identify a unique name that can be used on all international

markets and it is more difficult to protect from a legal point of view.

- Therapy names: The name will be indicative of the disease the product

treats. We will find for example : Procardia for patient suffering from

15
 heart problems. This strategy represents a risk as the brand name could

also be easily imitated and can be more difficult to protect from a legal

point of view. Moreover, generics may find it easy to select a name that

is close to the therapy and the known pharmaceutical brand.

- Use or indication name: The selected name will connote a particular

use, indication or characteristic of a brand. For example, we will find :

Prilosec, Glucophage, Propulsid, Norvasc, Ventolin, Cardizem. There is

also a risk of imitation from the competition.

- Family name or drug class name: The family name is a brand name

that is similar to other products in the same class and is registered by the

same company. For example: Mevacor/Zocor, Zoladex/Nolvadex,

Beconase/Vancenase. There is also the possibility of identifying a name

that is semi-descriptive of a drug class: Tolinase, Micronase, Orinase

(Erickson).

- Corporate name: The name will contain an identifiable portion of the

corporate name tied to a certain product or product line. For example,

Sandimmune (Sandoz), Baycol and Glucobay (Bayer) and Novarapid

(Novo Nordisk). This strategy is of course only powerful when the

corporate name is well known and has strong positive associations.

- New invented name: The name has been created for a specific

product. For example: Zocor, Zantac, Zanax, Prozac, Xenical etc. In

16
 the past few years, there has been an overuse of Zs and Xs for first

letter. The advantage of this strategy is to identify a unique and

distinctive name that can also be used for global expansion. It is also

easier to protect from a legal point of view.

Based on these various strategies, we can identify three basic naming

strategies: Descriptive brand names (linked to molecules, therapy,

indication or use and family or drug product class), corporate brand names

and new product brand names.

In FMCG, there is no significant difference in the basic naming strategies

but the focus on them is different. We find also three basic brand name

strategies: 1) Descriptive brand name (Pampers, Mr Clean, Tonigencyl,

Ultra-Bright toothpaste). This name strategy is, however, nowadays, not

very frequent as these brand names are not easy to globalise and are

viewed as too generic; 2) New brand names (Dash, Ariel, Perrier). This is

a strategy that is being used by many multinationals where it is important

that each product brand has a distinctive positioning. A company such as

Procter and Gamble exist through its brands and not as a corporate entity.

Their strategy is to cover a market with a multi-brand approach (Ariel,

Dash, Vizir, Bonux, Dreft in the detergent market) ; 3) Corporate brand

names. In this case, some elements of the name can be linked to the

brand name (Nescafé, Nesquick, Nestea from Nestlé, Dior with Diorissimo,

Miss Dior , Diorella ) or can be fully in line with the corporate name and

17
can serve many different products (BMW, Renault, Ford) or product

categories ( Yamaha, Mitsubishi).

The trend in FMCG is now to use more often corporate names as an

“umbrella “ name strategy in the current context of globalisation. The trend

is indeed to associate a new product to very well known big brands or

corporate brand names to benefit from existing awareness and strong

image. Nestlé is using its corporate name as an umbrella for all its food

products that are linked to a pleasurable experience (Crunch , Galak, Yes,

Sundy, Nescafé, Nesquick from Nestlé (Kapferer). This is also in line with

the experience of Japanese multinationals that have for a long time given

the corporate name to products that belong to different product categories

(Honda cars and lawnmowers, Yamaha motorcycles, musical instruments,

Canon cameras, printers and copying machines etc).

Based on the FMCG experience, we believe that the descriptive names

are not ideal for the creation of pharmaceutical brands. They don’t offer

the freedom to select the right brand name. There is also a big risk to

create a generic association that will benefit to the development of

generics and make them more difficult to protect legally. Finally, it will be

more difficult to identify names that are suitable for global expansion.

Brand names have to be easy to pronounce and, if they are to be

memorable, be short, distinctive and difficult to imitate. The brand names

have to be identified very early in the process as they are part of the brand

equity that will be created.

18
New invented names are ideal to meet the criteria of uniqueness and

memorability. We recommend, however, to favour the association of the

corporate names as an “umbrella “name in order not to focus only on the

product name that has a limited life time, as indicated earlier.

It is of course necessary to have already created strong corporate brand

names that have a very clear and positive meaning in the mind of

consumers. This is far from being currently the case in the pharmaceutical

area following the number of mergers that have occurred over the past 15

years. It is not unusual to see General Practitioner market research around

the world showing that many doctors do not know which companies

produce the drugs they prescribe. As far as corporate brand names are

concerned if the 2002 Financial Times survey of the world’s most

respected companies (Financial times 2003) is anything to go by

pharmaceuticals has a long way to go. In a ranking of the top 60 global

companies, pharmaceutical companies managed only 4 entries – the

highest being GlaxoSmithKline at No 41. Success in the survey probably

reflects good branding and respect with integrity and consistency being the

most admired qualities. Only one of the top 50 CEO’s was from the

pharmaceutical industry Daniel Vassela being placed at No 44.

There is one big risk with this corporate brand naming strategy, and that is

the risk of failure of a product in the total portfolio of brands. This risk is

similar, but less pronounced, for any global brand in FMCG, particularly in

19
the Food industry like Coca-Cola, Nestlé or Kraft. The advantages are

however bigger than the risks. The company will also evidently have to

foresee excellent PR campaigns that would minimise negative reaction

from the market if a problem would arise. The most recent example of this

was the withdrawal of Baycol (a cholesterol lowerer) from Bayer which has

opened the way for acquisition of the parent company brand.

- Global branding strategy

Global branding consists of offering a brand that has standardised a

maximum number of elements of its strategy and marketing mix to ideally

offer one standardised product to every international market.

Some authors considered that the marketing globalisation was irreversible

due to the important economies of scale that it permitted, the emergence

of global consumer segments and the rapid diffusion of technology (Levitt

1983, Jain 1989). Other believed, on the contrary that global marketing

represented a risk because difference of cultures and consumer habits

would remain between markets (Wind 1986, Douglas and Wind 1987).

Today, global marketing has been adopted by the majority of FMCG firms.

The question is not anymore to globalise brands but rather to see how to

do it successfully and what level of globalisation to achieve. It is important

to note that the creation of global brands has been more driven by cost

considerations than market ones (Kpaferer 1991, Terpstra 1987).

20
In the pharmaceutical industry, the pressure from the financial community

is starting to have en effect on company strategies. Top line growth is

becoming more difficult to achieve and therefore there are similar

pressures to cut costs to maintain growth in profit. Globalisation of brands

is one way to benefit from economies of scale.

Arguments for and against global branding are very similar to the ones that

have been given for the FMCG industry. The proponents of brand

globalisation consider that 1) consumers (both doctors and patients) are

more similar than different in terms of their desires 2) the market dynamics

have changed. With regulatory convergence occurring not only in the EU,

but between the US, EU and Japan, there is no need to work so often with

individual regulatory authorities and the power of local partners is

decreasing, 3) the reduction of costs at all levels will improve significantly

return on investments, especially if an expensive clinical trial can be

leveraged in all markets 4) control can be gained over the local network of

partners, 5) one single positioning and image worldwide can be created,

6) more power can be achieved vis a vis doctors with the global

organisation communicating one message, and 7) the internet has

changed forever the availability of medical information to the patient (being

the second most searched web topic), allowing important dialogue about

health and drug related issues. Within this context a global brand reduces

possible confusion and provides consistent information on a global basis.

21
A number of truly global brands now exist – Viagra from Pfizer, Vioxx from

MSD, Nexium from AstraZeneca, Keppra from UCB – but not everyone

thinks the approach ideal.

The opponents to global branding consider that there are inherent risks to

this strategy. The arguments are the following : 1) Customers needs vary

significantly by markets, 2) regulatory approval systems can still be

influenced nationally, 3) identical drug molecules are sold under different

names in different countries, 4) pricing remains a major difference and

globalisation of brands induces higher risks of parallel importation, 5) the

perception of disease and medicine practised might be different country to

country, and 6) problems with one product might affect other products of

the company very quickly.

In FMCG, the trend towards more globalisation happened earlier and

faster, around 10 to 15 years ago. The key driver of the globalisation of

brands in FMCG has been the reduction of costs linked to strong

economies of scale. The pressure to globalise brands continues to be

strong and has even accelerated over the last 5 years. This resulted from

1) the need to find new competitive advantages, 2) the level of industry

globalisation and 3) the pressure from the financial community and firms

shareholders (Schuiling 2001). Most companies have given priority to

global brands, often at the detriment of local brands. This trend had a big

impact on brand portfolios. For example, Procter and Gamble has

exploited global branding as a competitive weapon since the early 1990’s.

22
A few years later, its key competitor, Unilever, was forced to react and

further globalised its brand portfolio despite following in the past their

traditional multi-domestic model. As a result, they have announced at the

end of 2001 that they would eliminate 1200 brands out of 1600, three

quarters of their brand portfolio, to concentrate on 400 brands with

international presence or potential.

In global branding, the principle to follow is to look at what is common

between markets and minimise or forget the differences between them.

In view of the FMCG experience, we do not believe that the trend will be

different in the pharmaceutical industry. We should expect the

development of many more global brands and the elimination of many

local brands, even successful ones. Indeed, the pressure to reduce costs

will be as important as in the FMCG area. It will be key to further increase

industry profits and financial analysts and shareholders will continue to

increase the pressure.

We may also assume that diseases are much more global than many

other needs in FMCG product categories, as a result globalisation

pressure will be even stronger. Some important regional differences do

exist, such as the problem of malaria in Africa and Asia, but when

considering the top seven markets there is little variation (the top seven

being US, Japan, Germany, France, UK, Spain and Italy).

23
 Firms will need to further restructure their brand portfolio, especially

because of the vast number of smaller brands and products that they have

acquired in their recent mergers and acquisitions. Similarly to FMCG,

there will be a trend to maintain and further expand global brands while

disinvesting in local brands.

- Brand extension and line extension

A brand extension is defined in the branding theory as an existing brand

name that is being extended to a category of products that is different to

the existing one. A line extension consists, on the other hand, in the

launch of new products, under the same brand name, in the same product

category.

It is difficult to compare strategies in both industries as the vocabulary

used and the strategies are quite different.

Brand extension

The FMCG strategy of taking an existing brand name and then extending it

to other product categories has been tried on occasion within the

pharmaceutical OTC sector (over the counter – free from prescription) but

very limited success has been achieved. To some extent this strategy has

24
worked counter to the training of one of the key influencers in the process,

pharmacists. They fear the increasing chances of a dispensing mistake as

a major argument to resist this type of brand tactic e.g. Panadol is

associated as a paracetamol brand, but adding aspirin components and

changing the brand name to a similar sounding brand would be potentially

difficult. Many patients, who where for instance aware that they are aspirin

allergic, would not spontaneously, check the constituents for such a well

known paracetamol based brand.

A relatively new phenomenon could also be seen as brand extension – it is

the area where one product is marketed in numerous different diseases at

the same time, sometimes with the same brand name sometimes with

different brand names -

A limited number of examples exist, where a single prescription only

molecular entity (product) is allowed to be marketed under two names in

different unrelated indications e.g. bupropion hydrochloride is marketed by

GSK as Wellbutrin for depression and as Zyban for smoking cessation.

Although this is an extension of a molecular entity it changes the brand

name deliberately. In this case, we consider that this does not correspond

to a brand extension since two different brand names exist. This is

comparable to the P&G experience of marketing two brands Dash and

Ariel based on the same chemicals under two different positioning

(whiteness and stain removal respectively) under two different names.

25
A new approach is being pioneered by the biggest companies in the

sector, it is the researching, developing and launching of a brand in a

number of different indications simultaneously. Pregabalin from Pfizer, an

anti-epileptic product, is expected to be launched in the EU (during 2004)

with epilepsy and neuropathic pain indications at the same time. In

addition it has the potential to be launched in a third simultaneous

indication, with the addition of general anxiety disorder (GAD) when US

launch occurs subsequently (FDA filing Oct 03). This strategy of trying to

achieve launch of multiple indications at the same time is a largely new

and direct impact of the need to have bigger and bigger brands to replace

sales of products reaching patent expiry over the coming decade.

Obviously the resources required to be able to do this are huge and are

only really available to a handful of companies in the top 20, who’s R&D

spends run into the multiple billions of dollars each year. In this case, this

strategy is close to the definition of brand extension, as seen in branding

theory.

Line extension

This term is similar in pharmaceuticals and FMCG, this connotes an

original brand and the later reformulation of it into new dosage forms. This

tactic sometimes allows pricing flexibility but more often improves the

competitive dynamics a number of years after the original launch. These

new dosage forms tend to allow administration to different patient types

e.g. an oral solution can greatly ease the difficulty of administration of

26
large oral dosage forms to the elderly or paediatric populations. Another

example constitutes the intravenous forms (IV), which can provide rapid

loading of the product in the patients’ blood stream in the intensive care

setting. Even tablet development can have an impact e.g. melt tablets can

provide an acceptable taste mask and ease swallowing of large tablets as

well as increasing the chances of compliance with a particular regimen.

Reducing the frequency of administration can be highly successful also

e.g. allowing the patient to take the product only once a day vs perhaps

twice or three times previously.

Within a different context the pharmaceutical industry talks also about

“therapy franchises”. These are groups of products which work together in

a particular area or can be complimentary in that they are used by the

same physician speciality to treat the patients of one disease area. As an

example in 1999 MSD (Merck Sharpe & Dome) got 52% of its sales from

various products in the cardiovascular area. (Moss 2001) At a less

analytical level, BMS (Bristol Myers Squibb) is and always has been an

oncology house, the old Glaxo has been the asthma powerhouse whilst

the old Smithkline Beecham was a specialist in vaccines. All of these are

therapy areas which require a particular expertise, for research,

development and sales and marketing. We would consider this “therapy”

franchise as the development of a certain category or specialised strategic

focus of the company but it has nothing to do with brand or line extension.

27
In FMCG, the use of brand extension has been very frequent and has

been developing very fast over the last 10 years. In view of the very high

cost of launching new brands and managing them, firms have decided to

launch new products behind existing brand names. This builds on the

trend to concentrate efforts on big brands only. For example, Procter and

Gamble is concentrating on big brands that generate more than $ 1 billion

sales e.g they have recently decided to launch two new innovations under

existing brand names. New biodegradable wipes, named Kandoo under

the Pampers “umbrella” name and a new product for washing cars under

the Mr Propre/Clean “umbrella” name. This trend would be seen in both

multinationals and local companies

The consequences of extending existing brand names are much more

complex in the pharmaceutical industry than in FMCG. There is always

the risk of confusion and therefore misuse of drugs. The extension of

existing brand names is therefore limited in this industry. However, if the

industry leverages more the corporate name as an umbrella strategy,

pharmaceutical will be more fully in line with the brand extension concept.

28
- Co-branding

Co-branding is defined as industrial alliances that are visible by the

mentioning of two brand names. All alliances do not lead necessarily to the

mentioning of two names (Kpaferer 2001).

In the pharmaceutical industry, due to the fragmented nature of the market

place, we have seen more co-R&D development or co-marketing of

products than in the FMCG sector. There are numerous examples of this

but generally the industry has moved away from its understanding of co-

marketing towards co-promotion. During the 1980’s and 1990’s a lot of

products were co-marketed (i.e. the same molecule (chemical entity)

promoted under a different brand name by different companies). It was

thought that potentially doubling the resources via co-marketing

agreements could double the market share for the original owner of the

molecule. In reality the hard lesson was that, similar to FMCG, dilution of

focus meant poorer in market performance than hoped for. The brand

development costs with the different companies and the need to establish

two unique brands in the minds of the physicians led to inefficiencies and

net net poorer results e.g. despite its heritage with Innovace (Renitec in

the US) MSD and its co-marketing partner were never as successful with

Zestril and Carace as with the original.

29
A more common pharmaceutical tactic is co-promotion i.e. the same

molecule, with the same brand name, promoted in the same territory by

two companies working as separate but strategically connected partners.

A good example of this is the UCB and Pfizer relationship for the

antihistamine Zyrtec in the US. UCB owns the molecule but both

companies promote the brand with their own fieldforces sharing the

revenues and profits resulting from their activities – in effect maximising

the possible promotional share of voice for the brand within the market

place.

Co-promotion is not only used as a brand tactic but has been pioneered by

Pfizer as a strategic driver for its acquisitions. Over the years Pfizer has

entered into a number of co-promotion deals with third parties e.g. Lipitor

with Warner Lambert and Celebrex with Pharmacia, the relationships

acted as a form of due diligence before hostile or agreed takeover moves.

In FMCG, the use of alliances has existed for some time but to a lesser

degree than in pharmaceuticals. There are different levels of alliances and

co-branding is only one of them. The development of co-branding is a new

trend in the market and has been adopted by some key companies quite

recently. The advantages of these associations are being able to benefit

from the awareness of two well known brands, their image, their specific

target market or their technical expertise.

30
The concept is that two known brands will work together in developing or

promoting a new product and will visibly link to the two brand names.

These co-branding associations can be short term and are more related to

co-promotional activities (Disney and Pampers) or long-term where both

companies have long term agreements to develop, launch and promote a

new product behind both brand names. The idea is to benefit from the

awareness, image or technical skills of two equally known brands. For

example, Philips and Nivea (Beiersdorf) have decided to develop and

market a new product “Philishave Cool Skin with Nivea for men”.

Objectives were for each of them to attract new users, enter new

distribution channels, reinforce both brand images and share development

and launch costs.

Co-branding of ingredients has now become a classical tactic (Iintel,

Lycra, Nutrasweet) whilst endorsement campaigns (Ariel and Whirlpool)

have been running for decades. All these co-branding agreements are

linked to the need to decrease costs of development and of marketing of

new products.

Based on FMCG experience at this stage there appear to be very few

opportunities for significant successful co-branding within pharmaceuticals

due to the weak corporate brand name situation at present,

31
Conclusions

The pharmaceutical industry has come late to branding and it has not yet

received the strategic importance given to it by other industries. After

many years of relatively easy double digit growth, the industry is now

facing difficulties as it cannot rely, as in the past, on its traditional factors of

success: R&D, protection of patents and strong sales force. Moreover, the

growth of generics is another threat that the industry has to face, a threat

experienced 20 years ago by the FMCG industry.

To return to significant growth, we believe than branding could represent a

new competitive edge that the industry should leverage.

The analysis of current branding strategies in the pharmaceutical industry

has shown important differences versus FMCG.

In the choice of brand names, the basic naming strategies are the same

but focus on them is different. Descriptive branding should not be pursued

based on the experience in FMCG. These names are not easy to

globalise, are too generic and difficult to protect from a legal point of view.

A new name can only be recommended if it is to be used in association

with the corporate name in an umbrella strategy. Indeed, investing in a

new brand name is not ideal long term as brand names have a limited life

time. This is why we recommend following the current FMCG trend -

32
leverage existing big brand names or corporate names to maximise

awareness and benefit from their positive image. This can only be

implemented after strong corporate names have been established.

Currently, this is not the case, after a series of mergers and acquisitions

that have left corporate brand names undifferentiated and at times

confused. There is a need first to clearly establish corporate brand identity

before leveraging these names.

Branding theory and practise in pharmaceuticals is still 10 years behind

the FMCG area.

We expect that continued pressure towards globalisation will continue and

this will effect change in the pharmaceutical industry in time. The pressure

to reduce costs will become as strong as in FMCG. The companies will

need to develop more global brands to benefit from economies of scale

that will lead to reduced costs and maintained profit growth. More global

brands will be developed and more local brands will be sold or left

unsupported. It will be important for the pharmaceutical industry to

understand the advantages but also the drawbacks as brand globalisation

progresses.

Regarding brand extension strategies, the two areas have big differences.

Some attempts of extending an existing brand name have been tried in the

OTC sector, but with limited success because of the risks of misuse.

Another strategy is being developed which tries to launch a single

33
chemical entity simultaneously in different indications under the same

brand name. The development of brand extension will only be leveraged

when the industry focus more on corporate names than product brand

names.

For co-branding strategies, different levels of alliances exist between

companies. Alliances leading to co-R&D development or co-promotion

have been used more often in the pharmaceutical industry, than in the

FMCG area. Co-branding, an alliance that associates visibly two FMCG

brand names will be more difficult to adopt in the pharmaceutical area.

In conclusion, the difference identified in the branding strategies between

both industries are more linked to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry

is several years behind FMCG in terms of brand development than to

major structural differences. This shows that the pharmaceutical industry

will benefit from a good understanding of the FMCG experience to guide

future development successfully.

34
References

1. Datamonitor (2002), report on “Pharmaceutical Promotional

Effectiveness” November .

2. Moss, G. (2001), “Pharmaceutical brands: Do they really exist?”,

International Journal of Medical Marketing, Vol 2, Issue 1, pp. 23-

33.

3. Chandler, J. and Owen, M (2002), Developing brands with

qualitative research, London: Sage.

4. “The Pink Sheet” (2003), September 29, pp. 31.

5. Erickson, D. (2001), “Branding goes global”, The Business and

medecine report, pp. 60-71.

6. Idem

7. Kapferer, J.N. (1997), “Marque et médicaments: le poids de la

marque dans la prescription médicale”, Revue française du

marketing, N° 165.

8. Aaker, David A. (1991), Managing brand equity – Capitalising on

the value of a brand name, The Free Press, New York.

9. Kapferer, J.N. (1991), Strategic Brand Management, The Free

Press, New York ( 2nd edition, 1998 , Kogan Page , London and

New York ).

10. IMS Health.com

11. Blackett T. (2001), Brand medecine: Use and future potential of

branding in pharmaceutical markets, International Journal of

Medical Marketing.

12. idem

35
13. Datamonitor (2002), report on “Pharmaceutical Promotional

Effectiveness”, November,

14. Moss, G. and Schuiling, I. “ A brand logic for pharma- A possible

strategy based on FMCG experience”, International Journal of

Medical Marketing, accepted for publication. Date to be confirmed.

15. Chandler, J. and Owen, M (2002), Developing brands with

qualitative research, London: Sage.

16. Erickson, D. (2001), “Branding goes global”, The Business and

medecine report, pp. 60-71.

17. Idem

18. Kapferer, J.N. (1991), Strategic Brand Management, The Free

Press, New York ( 2nd edition, 1998 , Kogan Page , London and

New York ).

19. Special Report “World’s most respected companies” (2003), The

Financial Times Monday January 20.

20. Levitt, T. (1983), "The globalisation of markets", Harvard Business

Review, Vol. 61, May-June, pp. 92-108.

21. Jain, S. (1989), "Standardisation of international marketing strategy:

Some research hypothesis", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53, January,

pp. 70-79.

22. Wind, Y. (1986), “ The myth of globalisation ”, Journal of Consumer

Marketing, 3 (Spring), pp. 23-26.

23. Douglas, S. and Wind, Y. (1987), “ The myth of globalisation ”,

Columbia Journal of World Business, 22, Winter, pp. 19-29.

36
24. Kapferer, J.N. (1991), Strategic Brand Management, The Free

Press, New York ( 2nd edition, 1998 , Kogan Page , London and

New York ).

25. Terpstra, V. (1987), “ The evolution of international marketing ”,

International Marketing Review, Summer 1987, pp. 47-59.

26. Schuiling, I. (2001), “Think local , act local: is it time to slow down

the accelerated move to global marketing?”, European Business

Forum, Issue 5, Spring, pp. 68-70.

27. Moss, G. (2001), “Pharmaceutical brands: Do they really exist?”,

International Journal of Medical Marketing, Vol 2, Issue 1, pp. 23-

33.

28. Kapferer, J.N. (1991), Strategic Brand Management, The Free

Press, New York ( 2nd edition, 1998 , Kogan Page , London and

New York ).

37