Viagra or Pfizer: How important is the corporate brand in pharmaceutical branding?
I tend to agree with branding the individual products in the pharmaceutical industry for all the reasons posted plus one other.
When it goes bad for a particular drug (and it eventually happens to some) you only lose or destroy the image of the product and not the entire company. Let's face it consumers are not loyal to a company but rather the drug that will cure what ails them.
Jonathan Baltuch, President, MRI - April 3, 2004
The question is the problem. It is typical of marketers who feel they can push behaviour change through slick promotions.
In this case, the key is the relationship between patient and doctor and between doctor and pharmaceutical sales rep. That is the point of difference provided a drug actually works.
Tom Holman, Director, UltraFeedback - April 5, 2004
Making a decision after assessing the trade-off between economies of scale/trust with a branded-house approach weighed against the stand-alone distinction (both in good times and bad) that a house-of-brands approach creates is a tough one.
I think we also have to take into account whether the buyer is an individual or buying center. We might have to use a combination of both product and organization, changing the emphasis depending on who the buyer.
Gordon Graham, Founder, Orxil Business Training - April 6, 2004
I think there is no hard and fast rule for umberella branding or individual branding, it varies from case to case. If the company is extreamly confident about quality of the product and product going to be launched for short span of time to counter certain competition then they should capitalize on corporate image and strengthen it as well. But in the case of any experimentation the individual brand is the answer with less vulnerabilty to the corporate image.
Umer Ghumman, Category Manager Food, Tetra Pak Pakistan Ltd - April 6, 2004
Is it really possible to pose this question without addressing the differences and dynamics of OTC (Over the Counter) and Ethical (prescription) drugs?
The targets, purchasing mechanics and drivers are completely different. Despite the success of direct to consumer advertising in the US for ethical drugs like Viagra, the consumer still must consult with a physician that might point the patient to another brand/manufacturer/formulation or a pharmacist who might even recommend a generic substitute. The Pfizer and Merc brands mean a great deal more to medical practitioners who generally can list a half dozen or more products in an ethical drug manufacturers formulary, but to the laymen this simply is not the case. A physician may make a decision about pharmaceutical treatment for penile dysfunction, vaginal dryness or high cholesterol several times a day, a consumer once in a lifetime. And in the US each decision carries the opportunity for a malpractice suit.
In these situations the cumulative values attached to the manufacturer's brand may be even greater than that of a product brand, especially with new product introductions where for a physician mitigation of risk is not a small influence.
In the OTC market for lucky players like Bayer the question is moot. However if you were to check with the product managers Johnson and Johnson, they would likely tell you it is foolish to debate such a question; where would the house of J and J be without either the Johnson and Johnson brand for Baby Shampoo or the Band-Aid brand?
Steven Graff, Senior Consultant, Foreign Thought - April 6, 2004