by Paul Peixoto on February 5, 2010
A good deal as has been written, discussed, and postulated over the last five years about the trust deficit that exists in the pharmaceutical space (see Jane Parker’s article). Although many of the ideas suggested have been implemented, we still have a long way to go. Much of that has to do with the intrinsic nature of trust. All of us know that trust is earned. This means it’s a process in which we must participate in order to build it.
Trust is built between two parties when the mutually approved values and behaviors of each are evidenced over time. In the pharmaceutical communications industry, we have to decide what we really value first before we can begin to build trust. The foundations of trust are our values, communicated to those with whom we interact.
But real trust goes way beyond the communication of values. Trust is based also on the experiential evidence of our actions toward one another over time, our behaviors. Once values have been clarified, behaviors need to change—and the sooner the better. Nothing is worse than someone communicating a new value and not backing it up with the appropriate behavior. This in fact breaks the trust bond even further and does more damage than if we never acted in the first place.
In regard to building advocates for our products, this means that physicians need to feel comfortable with the messages they are asked to communicate to their colleagues and patients. It means that they need to feel secure in the fact that they will not be put in compromising positions with their patients; equally, they will not jeopardize the respect they’ve earned from their peers. If we want physicians to carry our messages to both the medical and patient communities, building trust between pharma and physician needs to be Job One.
The bottom line is that trust is built through open and honest dialogue between the two parties. As I facilitate various types of medical meetings (ad boards, training sessions, investigator meetings, etc.) I find that, to the extent that I am able to open up dialogue, trust develops. When physicians and pharmas come together with the common value of providing the best healthcare solution to the patient, successful outcomes result in this atmosphere of mutual trust.
At a recent series of ad boards that I led, one comment was common in the feedback we received: “You listened to us.” That sentiment was evident throughout the meeting as trust was building. The attendees felt validated and not used; the pharma felt that they had gotten some valuable input and dramatically changed their marketing efforts going forward. The interesting thing was that when I asked for pilot study volunteers to gather data regarding those changes, almost all responded affirmatively. Why? Because they were part of a dialogue, not a pitch. They were part of a process and, having played a part, they wanted to take the next step and participate further in partnership with the company.
Building trust is the process of sharing values and exhibiting behavior consistent with those values over time. Honest communication is the primary tool used to get that process going in the right direction.
by Paul Peixoto on February 3, 2010
Recently I was asked to design some programs for a drug-launch meeting. The client wanted the doctors participating to have a clear understanding of the new product’s key messages without resorting to the standard slide review type of training session that they have been subjected to so many times. Oh, and could I make it fun and creative.
The request was actually nothing new; several clients had asked the same thing in the past. But oftentimes, after presenting my ideas, the designs were perceived as too far out of the box to garner support from conservative marketing teams, and so we’d usually retreat back to the team’s comfort zone—standard slide review or speaker training sessions.
The difference this time was that the client was thrilled with the ideas I had presented and wanted to move forward with them for launch.
What I had suggested was to draw out the key messages by making the doctors hunt for them—forcing them to dig deeper into the data. This would be done by taking them through a series of games—yes, games—in which we would challenge their knowledge of the data while at the same time reinforcing their understanding of the key messages covered in the scientific sessions.
What’s of interest to me here is not the games themselves, but the leap of faith that the client took to break out of the box and go with something new. Taking that leap is tough for many clients. We live in the very conservative world of the pharmaceutical universe; most people just want to stay in a safe orbit. The problem is that our times demand innovation—innovation in all phases of the business, from new compound and device development to communication strategies that support the marketing of those new compounds and devices.
I knew when I brought my communications career into the pharma space over 10 years ago that the standard speaker training session had a limited lifespan. Doctors, at some point, would be unwilling to sit in session after session of best practices in presentation skills. I mean how many times do you want to hear that you need to make some solid eye contact and project your voice to get your message across with impact. Don’t get me wrong—these things are still necessary—as long as we’re using our bodies to communicate our message, we’ll need disciplined skills. But these times demand a different approach to communications training, one that’s not so “head on,” so pedantic.
Without motivation being reinforced no amount of behavioral skills training will be carried out to the field. We will forever be stuck in a loop, attempting to train behavior without affecting the root causes for that behavior, which are motivation and belief. But coming at the problem with a new approach, a back door approach if you will, has the potential to increase that motivation and thereby change the outcome in the field.
What I like about the games we are playing in these sessions is that they surreptitiously strengthen the motivation for speaking by drawing the speaker deeper into the key messages. We all know that we communicate much more clearly and, more importantly, are more persuasive when we are motivated and inspired to communicate a particular message. Good training speaks to the root causes of our behavior and modifies it by offering a different motivation or inspiration. By coming through the back door of motivation and inspiration we arrive at our original objective: speakers who are well prepared to communicate our healthcare message. The exciting thing is that this is accomplished without ever once reminding them to make solid eye contact or project their voice.
A good deal as has been written, discussed, and postulated over the last five years about the trust deficit that exists in the pharmaceutical space (see Jane Parker’s article). Although many of the ideas suggested have been implemented, we still have a long way to go. Much of that has to do with the intrinsic nature of trust. All of us know that trust is earned. This means it’s a process in which we must participate in order to build it.
