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.

Imagine if Viagra was produced by an obscure pharmaceutical company, without a decent track record and without a respected corporate image. Would you really think those blue pills would have as much confidence from consumers as they did under Pfizer? I don't think so.

Fact is, since it's generally accepted that most drugs would have some side effects one way or another, consumers will feel more secure buying a drug, especially a new one on the market, if it comes from a company of high reputation. Moreover, consumers, in my mind, would want to have some degree of "security" that in case anything goes wrong, the company behind the drug would have a supposed greater sense of responsibility and accountability.

Brand names imbue their products with meaning which creates an emotional affinity so that the customer can decide whether a product feels right and is suitable for the particular purpose. Ultimately the function of the brand name is also to drive demand.

The meanings pharmaceutical brands hold are like primal assets that must be managed carefully and can be categorized according to target-oriented archetypes. For instance archetypes such as 'creator' or 'explorer' are to be conveyed if physicians decide on the medication and thus can be considered to be the main target for the (prescription) drug marketing, while archetypes such as 'caregiver' or 'sage' are more appropriate for consumer-style branding. For the physician usually the corporate brand name stands for a certain reputation, commitment to R&D, quality control and availability, while for the patient the product name plays a more important role in terms of effectiveness and improved health conditions than the corporate name.

Archetypes are quite important because they provide the missing link between customer motivation and product sales by triggering an intangible experience of meaning expressed by the name and certain visual attributes. The archetypal meaning of a product becomes usually instrumental simply by evoking an image or a concept that calls forth the customer’s instinctual recognition of some fundamental, recognizable truth inherent in it, almost as if it were a ritual object. It has to address timeless and universal human needs in a way that guarantees commercially effective and psychologically manageable brands.

For selling to the private sector, there are clear benefits for the product to be the hero of the piece. Where consumers pay for their health services, they can demand the treatment they want, and may well be influenced by product advertising. Features, benefits, testimonials, side effects, price, efficacy are all part of the arsenal of the product sales force. Private clinics are clearly targets for branded products.

Although here too, a salesman whose opening words are: ‘Hi, I’m XYZ from Pfizer, and I’d like to talk to you about our new wonder drug’, is likely to get a better reception than one who says: ‘Hi, I’m XYZ from Acme Pharmaceuticals Limited of Papua New Guinea…’

The value of the corporate brand is seen most clearly in relations with the investment community. Consider this scenario: Something goes 'wrong' with products from two companies, and both try to quell the panic by assuring the market that they'll fix the problem. One company is Pfizer; the other is Acme Pharmaceuticals Limited of Papua New Guinea. Who would investors believe? Would your evaluation change if the choice was between trusting Pfizer or Johnson & Johnson?

But here’s another consideration: In the UK’s National Health Service, where best value is the driving force, the medicines available to treat a particular disorder undergo rigorous comparative assessments. And the ones that offer the greatest efficacy with the lowest side effects, at the best price get onto the shortlist of usable drugs. It doesn’t matter how much money is thrown at advertising the product. And the corporate brand is also largely irrelevant. The assessment team will always choose generics over branded products where possible, and their buying strategy will be strongly influenced by the demographics of their region – different demographics result in different therapeutic needs that shape prescription strategy that needs to be met from a fixed budget.

The end consumer wants a cure for their illness at the time of the illness and this is delivered via the product brand. On web sites end consumers will look up their illness and be given a solution which is usually in the form of product solutions.

The trust in who makes it has been abducated to the doctor who is prescribing or to the Pharmacist or through NICE. These are the people where the corporate brand is more powerful. Therefore the individual brand is known in the market, and as has been said will live and die as a brand.

The problem I hade with trying to build a Pharmaceutical company brand is that firstly there was a legal issue with direct to consumer marketing, but even when the brand marketing was more subtle, the company could not cover all of the requirements of the end consumer.

The reason we are so exposed to internal and external finger-pointing, is that, over-simple as it may sound, we may know what we stand for, but no one, least of ourselves, knows what we stand UP for.

In other words, what is the meaning of pharma? When the meaning returns, the trust will emerge, and after that (and it will only happen in this order) the value will become tangible once again. Without that compass, any journey will be chaotic, risky, and unhappy.

Pharmaceutical companies merge so regularly that any affiliation a company had tried to establish will be lost in the next mega-merger. Who would remeber Hoechst or Marion or Merrell Dow or Roussel or Fisons that are now all wrapped into Aventis. Aventis actually attempted a corporate campaign when this merger happened but it failed. I conducted some research 6 months after the merger once the campaign had finished here in New Zealand and 90 percent of respondents thought Aventis was some kind of church!

Pharma is an innovation industry, where the product is the king. The superior drug will sell for a specific period of time, until a better one comes along. Unlike the corporation, it is going to be there, even if acquired or merged. If the corporate brand was valuable enough, it will be part of the deal. The company's value will be higher and the name will be incorporated into the new name. I see that investing in the corporate brand is not a waste, it is an investment.

1. Corporate branding on any "safe" product (when I say safe I mean with an almost zero chance to cause injuries); OTC products can be approached in this way.

2. Just product brands for "risky" products (those where side effects and litigations may occur with a "non-zero" chance); in this way the company may avoid negative effects on other products' sales.

This is a pragmatic approach that can meet two objectives:

1. Higher economies of scale on advertising;

We all remember the Tylenol mishap in the 80s. If the brand name is the same as the company name, this type of problem could be greater than you'd like it to be, because all of a sudden both product and parent are under srutiny and highly criticized via the media; and this gets around rather quickly, especially in today's electronic or digital arena where we can chat about it to anyone in the world, and so on, and so on...

If the product name is different from that of its parent name/company, which in certain cases, can remain ever-elusive or forever unknown, (did you know that Coca-Cola has an alchoholic beverage named "Clubbers"?... they effectively, intelligently and strategically go out of their way to not associate it with the brand we all know: Coke, the soft drink) then your chances of saving your company from negative exposure is greater, so long as the product at hand doesn't happen to be your cash cow or maybe your only product, for that matter. If it is, in terms of economics, you may bleed to death, just as well.

In closing, if both names are the same, positioning, PR and advertising/marketing in support of your brand-building initiative is, needless to say,vital.

The product brand is most important for many of the reasons described above. We don't sell products based on the company brand. Any attempt to do so creates confusion.

The company brand is important for generating trust from the medical professionals. The company brand is also important is attracting the right people, getting a sense of purpose in the organisation and ensuring a realistic stock price.

That said, I don't think we do a very good job of generating trust. One of the reasons for this is that our outreach to doctors isn't always sophisticated. What kind of service do we provide on top of free pens and mugs? What kind of relationship do we develop with doctors? Do we listen? How can we develop quality relationships every time? These are questions that we are very interested in at Nycomed.

Name companies in the following industries:

1. Automotive

2. Computer Hardware Equipment

3. Pharmaceutical"

The answers given by consumers (not insiders) are going to be:

1. Automotive: well I know Ford, GM, Mercedes, BMW, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, etc..(hardly an average consumer could mention less than 10 names);

2. Computer: "Certainly IBM, Dell, Compaq, HP, etc..(easy to mention at least 4/5 companies);

3. Pharma: 'well, uhmm....let me think' (hardly anyone will mention a name...maybe Bayer because of longlife success of Aspirina).

Corporate branding, per se, is a little thing in the pharma industry. Personally, I do not recall any corporate brand but only product brands (the only exception being Bayer for the making of Aspirina).

This simple (and extremized) reasoning should alarm pharma companies which are too often worried in lobbying activities (certainly fundamental) but lobbying is not the only marketing strategy they should pursue... there is another concept that they should care about and their brand equity could be much stronger (in terms of value) if they properly used corporate branding as an umbrella.

Patented products can be successfully branded without competition during the patent's life period.

Secondly, consumers are not buying (prescription) drugs from the company, but from the doctors. This means that the company can leave the expert function to doctor's.

This means that product branding is essential for these companies. When the patent expires the company can keep up the sales figures even when competitors enter the market. Lower margins, yes, but still good figures.

1. I agree that "trade relationships" (i.e. doctors) are important but through proper branding pharma companies could add a "pull" factor instead of relying on "push strategies" such as those involving doctors "partnerships" (let's call it in this way);

2. Branding always works (let's be religious fanatics because it deserves being)..the fact that drugs patents sooner or later expire, it is actually a reason to build brand equity (how are you going to defend your "commodity drug" sales without a brand equity properly endorsed through the years?).

If you look around, you'll find that to be a case in many if not most disease categories. Examples- Rofecoxib/Valdecoxib. Lipitor/ Zocor. Rosiglitazone/ Pioglitazone. Calcium channel blockers. Anti HIV drugs. Osteoporosis. Whatever differentiation occurs, would occur through better Product branding and/or abundance of studies. Therefore, by derivation, Product Branding would enjoy priority in current times with overlapping pipelines.

However, you need to focus the priorities when you have a limited pot of money. The Rx market is driven by R&D. New molecules are discovered and marketed as major breakthroughs under patent protection. As patents expire and generic equivalents enter the market, the R&D pharma companies launch newer better molecules under new brand names to maintain or grow market share. In most cases, the previous brand name becomes redundant because regulatory reasons prevent companies from marketing different molecules under the same brand name.