Navigating the Nuances of SalesForce Effectiveness: A Deeper Dive Beyond the Composite Scores
Pharmaceutical sales rep conversations are dynamic. Accurately evaluating and optimizing the sales force effectiveness (SFE) / promotional effectiveness (PET) is paramount for a brand’s success. Brand teams and Insights professionals constantly seek innovative methodologies to understand what drives prescriber behavior and ultimately, brand success.
Recently, IQVIA introduced the BrandImpact™ score, a data-driven composite metric designed to distill the Sales Force Effectiveness research into a simple and single number. The analogous FICO score that is referenced is predictive of future credit risk with high degree of accuracy, and is therefore used to inform tens of millions credit decisions. While the allure of such a concise and seemingly comprehensive metric is undeniable, a deeper examination of its underpinnings and likely diagnostic and predictive value is crucial for pharmaceutical insights professionals.
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein
The promise of a single, normalized score (0-100) that quantifies sales rep impact is indeed attractive – who does not get it? A 70 is better than a 60, and 100 is the north star. It suggests a simplification of complex market dynamics, offering a clear score for evaluating quality, opportunity, risk and a path for improving sales rep effectiveness.
However, history has shown that reliance on simplistic measures can lead to misdirected strategies and ultimately, unrealized potential of the brand. The pharmaceutical industry has a rich history of evolving approaches to evaluate detail effectiveness, each with its own strengths and inherent limitations. Understanding these nuances is key to discerning truly actionable insights from potentially misleading simplicity.
Broadly, methodologies for evaluating Sales Force impact on HCPs can be categorized into three approaches:
- Single Composite Detail Scores (CDS): Typically, a weighted average of various detail components, aiming to provide an overarching measure of effectiveness. While easy to grasp, the diagnostic and predictive power of such single scores for Sales Reps have frequently been called into question.
- Univariate Component Search (UCS): This approach focuses on single-component statistical analysis, allowing for a deeper examination of individual factors' independent impact. This approach offers greater granularity, and helps understand each factor on its own.
- Response Models (RM): Multivariate models aim to establish a direct relationship between promotional activities and market outcomes, such as prescribing behavior. Controlling for a wide range of factors outside of promotion. This approach offers the most nuanced understanding of causal relationships and are generally considered the most powerful for deriving prescriptive insights.
For many years, leading pharmaceutical insights organizations, have predominantly used methods that fall into the second category, focusing on detailed analytical techniques. The emergence of a new composite score, while presented as a significant advancement, warrants careful scrutiny, particularly when compared to established, more granular analytical frameworks.
The Allure and the Pitfalls of Simplicity: A Historical Perspective
The appeal single composite detail scores (CDSs) like the BrandImpact score lies in its inherent simplicity and the promise of straightforward answers. Who wouldn't want a single number to encapsulate the complex interplay of Sales Rep-HCP interactions and their impact on HCP perceptions, intent and ultimately prescribing? The underlying logic, often built on weights derived from perceived impact on prescribing, sounds impressive; however, as the industry has learned, the diagnostic and predictive power of such scores is questionable. Are brand team efforts that drive a CDS score from say a 60 in quarter to 70 in the next for a HCP segment or territory time likely to result in higher observable target HCPs perceptions, intent and behaviors in the relevant future?
We have witnessed firsthand how similar composite scoring methodologies have achieved notable market traction for a period, only to falter when their predictive capabilities failed to materialize. A notable example is the rise and eventual stagnation of certain CDS approaches in the past, which, despite their initial market success, ultimately proved insufficient for forecasting future sales. This cyclical pattern underscores a fundamental truth: simplicity, without a proven track record of predictive accuracy, can be a dangerous distraction.
Questions to Ask: Unlocking True Promotional Impact
When presented with a metric like BrandImpact™ score, or any similar composite score, it is imperative for pharmaceutical insights team to move beyond the surface-level appeal and engage in critical questioning. The most vital question you can pose is this:
“Has this score been generated retrospectively for my brand or analogue brands, and if so how is it associated with subsequent HCP behaviors?”
The critical test lies in its ability to demonstrate that it is indeed worth paying attention to – that it reliably predicts future prescription trends.
Here are key questions to consider and discuss with your analytics partners:
- Predictive Validity: Can you demonstrate, using historical data for my brand, that the BrandImpact™ score accurately predicted subsequent changes in market share or prescription volume? What is the time lag between score generation and observed impact?
- Granularity of Insights: While a single score provides an overview, what specific drivers of promotional effectiveness does it highlight? Can it pinpoint actionable recommendations for optimizing different facets of our promotional mix?
- Underlying Methodology: What is the statistical rigor behind the weighting and aggregation of the components that form the BrandImpact™ score? It is specific to therapeutic class, specialty…etc, and how has the impact on prescribing been validated?
- Data Inputs and Limitations: What specific data sources are utilized in the calculation of the BrandImpact™ score, and what are the inherent limitations of these data in capturing the full spectrum of prescriber decision-making?
Conclusion: Embracing a Data-Driven Future with Discernment
The pursuit of enhanced promotional effectiveness is an ongoing journey, one that demands robust analytics and a commitment to understanding the intricate factors that influence relevant physician behaviors. While simplified metrics can offer an initial glimpse, true progress lies in embracing methodologies that offer both diagnostic depth and predictive accuracy.
By asking the right questions and critically evaluating the evidence, pharmaceutical insights professionals can ensure they are making decisions based on a comprehensive understanding of what truly drives brand success, rather than being swayed by the seductive simplicity of a single, unproven number. The goal is not just to measure, but to understand, predict, and ultimately, to ensure your brand’s success in the marketplace.
Get in touch with us:
