Report Library

Share this Report

Marketing Mid-Tier Pharmaceutical Brands (PH84)

Winning Resources for Near-Blockbusters
&nsbp;
 
 

  • Make the Most of Mid-Tier Pharma Brands

    The mid-level brands profiled in this study all fall short of reaching the $1 billion benchmark set by blockbuster drugs. However, global brand teams in charge of these drugs often reach their peak annual sales by investing far less money than their blockbuster counterparts. In many cases, mid-level, or sub-blockbuster drugs, are more profitable than blockbusters.

    Some mid-level brands face a Catch-22 scenario - they never reach blockbuster status, therefore they do not receive blockbuster-level commercialization investments; on the other hand, the fact that they receive lower investments could be the reason they never reach blockbuster sales.

    Mid Tier Pharma

    Cutting Edge Information developed this research to assist mid-level brand teams in maximizing their peak annual sales. The benchmarks included within provide context for mid-level teams to request budgets and staffing increases throughout each stage of development and post-launch. Furthermore, our analysts have outlined challenges that mid-level brand face when launching into the European and US markets.

    The following recommendations and conclusions were among Cutting Edge Information's top study findings:

    Mid-level drugs thrive in underserved markets and, therefore, must prepare for inevitable competition and generic entrants.

    Some of the most successful mid-level brands have branded themselves in markets where few competitors exist or have done poor jobs of commercializing their drugs. While pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies can capitalize on the opportunities these markets present, this situation leave many mid-level brands vulnerable to competitive threats, especially generic drugs. With relatively low resource to draw upon, mid-level drugs are susceptible to losing their market share rapidly, even prior to patent expiration...

    Promotional infrastructures limit mid-level brands from becoming blockbuster sellers.

    An underdeveloped promotional organization and limited commercialization resources hold brands back at launch. For both European and US commercialized products, companies struggle to institute favorable promotional infrastructures for their products. Brands suffer most at launch from companies' weak presence and lack of experience. Of the European and US brands surveyed in this report, more than half had an average or unfavorable promotional infrastructure...

    Mid-level drugs must optimize their budgets and headcounts by consistently shifting resources between major functions.

    It is not uncommon to find mid-level brands shifting resources between support functions throughout the development process. Although none of the global-level brands neglected any major support functions, many re-prioritized their allocations at each development stage to focus on different goals...

    Balance brand priorities to commercialize mid-level drugs in Europe.

    Brand teams commercializing products with mid-level revenue expectations balance their investments to address key challenges, and they often sacrifice one avenue of resource allocation for another. Each of the mid-level brand teams that market drugs in Europe received conservative investments either in marketing spending or staffing throughout development. The brand teams managing these drugs made difficult resource decisions as they backed different approaches to launch...

    Intelligent commercialization choices lead to blockbuster-level aspirations for mid-level products, while mislaid resources can enormously hinder potential sales.

    Mid-level brands tended to face uncertainty at launch. In their total expenditures and mix of key marketing expenditures, the group of six brands in this chapter reflects this uncertainty as many companies wait until Phase III to heavily dedicate resources...

    Back to Top

  • Companies and Therapeutic Areas Included in Mid-Tier Pharma Brands Research

    Companies

    • Allergan
    • AstraZeneca
    • Bristol-Myers Squibb
    • Cubist
    • Human Genome Sciences
    • Merck KGaA
    • Millennium Pharmaceuticals
    • Novartis
    • Salix
    • Sanofi-Aventis
    • Serono
    • Shire Pharmaceuticals

     

    Therapeutic Areas

    • Antibiotics
    • Autoimmune Diseases
    • Cardiovascular
    • Dermatology
    • Gastrointestinal
    • Inflammatory
    • Nephrology
    Back to Top

  • Mid-Tier Pharma Brand Metrics

    Executive Summary

    • Figure E.1: Mirroring Niche Allocations Early and Blockbuster Allocations Late
    • Figure E.2: Study Context: Therapeutic Areas

     

    Chapter 1: Global Resource Allocation

    • Figure 1.1 Mid-Level Brand Expenditures and Sales
    • Table 1.1: Mid-Level Brand Table
    • Figure 1.2: Mirroring Niche Allocations Early and Blockbuster Allocations Late
    • Figure 1.3: Mid-Level Brands' Staffing Mirrors Niche Brands' Staffing Throughout Early Development
    • Figure 1.4: Total Global Spending
    • Figure 1.5: Total Global Staffing
    • Figure 1.6: Global Brand Activities Spending
    • Figure 1.7: Global Brand Activities Staffing
    • Figure 1.8: Global Market Research Spending
    • Figure 1.9: Global Market Research Staffing
    • Figure 1.10: Global Thought Leader Development Spending
    • Figure 1.11: Global Thought Leader Development Staffing
    • Figure 1.12: Global Advertising Spending
    • Figure 1.13: Global Advertising Staffing

     

    Brand 1

    • Table 1.2: Brand 1 Spending
    • Figure 1.14: Brand 1: Global Spending Allocation
    • Table 1.3: Brand 1 Staffing Table
    • Figure 1.15: Brand 1: Global Staffing Allocation
    • Figure 1.16: Brand 1: Launch Context

     

    Brand 2

    • Table 1.4: Brand 2 Spending
    • Figure 1.17: Brand 2: Global Spending Allocation
    • Table 1.5: Brand 2 Staffing
    • Figure 1.18: Brand 2: Staffing Allocation
    • Figure 1.19: Brand 2: Launch Context

     

    Brand 3

    • Table 1.6: Brand 3 Spending
    • Figure 1.20: Brand 3: Global Spending Allocation
    • Table 1.7: Brand 3 Staffing
    • Figure 1.21: Brand 3: Staffing Allocation
    • Figure 1.22: Brand 3: Launch Context

     

    Brand 4

    • Table 1.8: Brand 4 Spending
    • Figure 1.23: Brand 4: Global Spending Allocation
    • Table 1.9: Brand 4 Staffing
    • Figure 1.24: Brand 4: Global Staffing Allocation
    • Figure 1.25: Brand 4: Launch Context

     

    Brand 5

    • Table 1.10: Brand 5 Spending Table
    • Figure 1.26: Brand 5: Global Spending Allocation
    • Table 1.11: Brand 5 Staffing Table
    • Figure 1.27: Brand 5: Global Staffing Allocation
    • Figure 1.28: Brand 5: Launch Context

     

    Chapter 2: European Marketing

    • Figure 2.1: European Marketing Mix
    • Table 2.1: European Brand Table
    • Figure 2.2: European Total Spending
    • Figure 2.3: European Total Staffing
    • Figure 2.4: European Brand Activities Spending
    • Figure 2.5: European Brand Activities Staffing
    • Figure 2.6: European Market Research Spending
    • Figure 2.7: European Market Research Staffing
    • Figure 2.8: European Thought Leader Development Spending
    • Figure 2.9: Mid-Level Brand Thought Leader Development Staffing
    • Figure 2.10: Mid-Level Brand Advertising Spending
    • Figure 2.11: Mid-Level Brand Advertising Staffing
    • Figure 2.12: European Brands' Average Marketing Spending as % of European Peak Annual Sales (by Resource Category)
    • Figure 2.13: Mid-Level Brands' Average Peak Marketing Staffing (by Resource Category)
    • Figure 2.14: European Brands' Total Marketing Spending (as % of European Peak Annual Sales)
    • Figure 2.15: European Brands' Peak Total Marketing Staffing
    • Figure 2.16: European Brands' Brand Activities Spending (as % of European Peak Annual Sales)
    • Figure 2.17: European Brands' Peak Brand Activities Staffing
    • Figure 2.18: European Brands' Market Research Spending (as % of European Peak Annual Sales)
    • Figure 2.19: European Brands' Peak Market Research Staffing
    • Figure 2.20: European Brands' Thought Leader Development Spending (as % of European Peak Annual Sales)
    • Figure 2.21: European Brands' Peak Thought Leader Development Staffing
    • Figure 2.22: European Brands' Advertising Spending (as % of European Peak Annual Sales)
    • Figure 2.23: European Brands' Peak Advertising Staffing

     

    Brand 6

    • Table 2.2: Brand 6 Spending
    • Figure 2.25: Brand 6: Budget Allocation (Early-Stage)
    • Figure 2.24: Brand 6: Budget Allocation
    • Table 2.3: Brand 6 Staffing Table
    • Figure 2.26: Brand 6: Staffing Allocation
    • Figure 2.27: Brand 6: Launch Context

     

    Brand 7

    • Table 2.4: Brand 7 Spending
    • Figure 2.29: Brand 7: Budget Allocation (Early-Stage)
    • Figure 2.28: Brand 7: Budget Allocation
    • Table 2.5: Brand 7 Staffing
    • Figure 2.30: Brand 7: Staffing Allocation
    • Figure 2.31: Brand 7: Launch Context

     

    Brand 8

    • Table 2.6: Brand 8 Spending
    • Figure 2.33: Brand 6: Budget Allocation (Early-Stage)
    • Figure 2.32: Brand 8: Budget Allocation
    • Table 2.7: Brand 8 Staffing
    • Figure 2.34: Brand 8: Staffing Allocation
    • Figure 2.35: Brand 8: Launch Context

     

    Brand 9

    • Table 2.8: Brand 9 Spending
    • Figure 2.37: Brand 6: Budget Allocation (Early-Stage)
    • Figure 2.36: Brand 9: Budget Allocation
    • Table 2.9: Brand 9 Staffing
    • Figure 2.38: Brand 9: Staffing Allocation
    • Figure 2.39: Brand 9: Launch Context

     

    Chapter 3: US Marketing

    • Table 3.1: US Brand Table
    • Figure 3.1: US Marketing Mix
    • Figure 3.2: US Total Spending
    • Figure 3.3: US Total Staffing
    • Figure 3.4: US Brand Activities Spending
    • Figure 3.5: US Brand Activities Staffing
    • Figure 3.6: US Market Research Spending
    • Figure 3.7: US Market Research Staffing
    • Figure 3.8: US Thought Leader Development Spending
    • Figure 3.9: US Thought Leader Development Staffing
    • Figure 3.10: US Advertising Spending
    • Figure 3.11: US Advertising Staffing

     

    Brand 10

    • Table 3.2: Brand 10 Spending
    • Figure 3.13: Brand 10: Budget Allocation (Early-Stage)
    • Figure 3.12: Brand 10: Budget Allocation
    • Table 3.3: Brand 10 Staffing Table
    • Figure 3.14: Brand 10: Staffing Allocation
    • Figure 3.15: Brand 10: Launch Context
    • Figure 3.16: Brand 10 Sales Investment vs. US Average

     

    Brand 11

    • Table 3.4: Brand 11 Spending
    • Figure 3.18: Brand 11: Budget Allocation (Early-Stage)
    • Figure 3.17: Brand 11: Budget Allocation
    • Table 3.5: Brand 11 Staffing Table
    • Figure 3.19: Brand 11: Staffing Allocation
    • Figure 3.20: Brand 11: Launch Context
    • Figure 3.21: Brand 11 Sales Investment vs. US Average

     

    Brand 12

    • Table 3.6: Brand 12 Spending
    • Figure 3.23: Brand 12: Budget Allocation (Early-Stage)
    • Figure 3.22: Brand 12: Budget Allocation
    • Table 3.7: Brand 12 Staffing Table
    • Figure 3.24: Brand 12: Staffing Allocation
    • Figure 3.25: Brand 12: Launch Context
    • Figure 3.26: Brand 12 Sales Investment vs. US Average

     

    Brand 13

    • Table 3.8: Brand 13 Spending
    • Figure 3.28: Brand 13: Budget Allocation (Early-Stage)
    • Figure 3.27: Brand 13: Budget Allocation
    • Table 3.9: Brand 13 Staffing Table
    • Figure 3.29: Brand 13: Staffing Allocation
    • Figure 3.30: Brand 13: Launch Context
    • Figure 3.31: Brand 13 Sales Investment vs. US Average

     

    Brand 14

    • Table 3.10: Brand 14 Spending
    • Figure 3.33: Brand 14: Budget Allocation (Early-Stage)
    • Figure 3.32: Brand 14: Budget Allocation
    • Table 3.11: Brand 14 Staffing Table
    • Figure 3.34: Brand 14: Staffing Allocation
    • Figure 3.35: Brand 14: Launch Context
    • Figure 3.36: Brand 14 Sales Investment vs. US Average

     

    Brand 15

    • Table 3.12: Brand 15 Spending
    • Figure 3.38: Brand 15: Budget Allocation (Early-Stage)
    • Figure 3.37: Brand 15: Budget Allocation
    • Table 3.13: Brand 15 Staffing Table
    • Figure 3.39: Brand 15: Staffing Allocation
    • Figure 3.40: Brand 15: Launch Context
    • Figure 3.41: Brand 15: Sales Investment vs. US Average
    Back to Top
  • Back to Top

The Benefit:

Push sub-blockbuster brands as far as possible with detailed resource benchmarks from development through post-launch.

 
Tell us more
about what you need.
CLICK TO
DOWNLOAD