logo

Monthly Archives: June 2012

Strategy Before Action

Carlton Hoyt 7:58 am , June 28, 2012

Life science strategyAt BioBM, we interact with a lot of start-ups. Most often these start-ups consist of a team of scientists and / or engineers, sometimes with little to no start-up experience on the team. Marketing experience is often lacking entirely. Because of this, we run into the same problem over and over – young, ambitious companies who, knowingly or not, wager their success by putting action before strategy.

Having a great product or service is the #1 factor in a young company’s success. You’ll never catch me saying otherwise. However, a great product alone isn’t sufficient to be successful. By rushing to market without thinking strategically about anything other than product development and prior to having strategy-backed plans in place for marketing, sales / distribution, support, and a multitude of other factors is, plain and simple, a bad idea. You are very unlikely to hit your target if you’re shooting blind, regardless of how big your gun is.

Furthermore, there is often an assumption among scientists that their experience in the field makes them sufficiently knowledgeable about the needs of the marketplace that little to no outside information is necessary. While experience being a member of a market certainly conveys some knowledge about the broader marketplace, and if you were to ask one person to explain a market in great detail it would naturally be someone within that market, it should never be assumed that this knowledge is sufficiently accurate. Start-ups should never rely solely on their own opinions and views for the same reason that you would never want to do a market research study with only a small handful of individuals. Opinions and perceptions vary. Just like anyone else, scientists are perfectly capable of being biased by their own opinions. As the saying goes, the plural of anecdote is not data.

Companies would be far better served by doing their homework. The time and resources required to properly strategize and plan should be incorporated into the estimates of start-up costs (not to mention the costs of initial marketing campaigns, which are again frequently underestimated or overlooked by individuals with little or no functional expertise in marketing) and resourced appropriately. The product(s) may be the heart of your company, but a heart alone doesn’t sustain life. If you want to ensure that you’ll be successful, make sure you have all the other pieces in place before you rush to market.

"Are you a young company developing a life science tool or service? Maximize your chances of success by working with the right experts from the beginning. Call BioBM Consulting before you have a market-ready product. Our life science strategy experts will ensure that when your product is market-ready, so are the rest of your capabilities. You develop great products, now let BioBM develop you a great company."
Blog / Marketing Strategy 7:58 am , June 28, 2012

Distributors: Not for Marketing

Carlton Hoyt 10:08 am , June 21, 2012

Life science tools manufacturers should retain control over demand generation rather than leave it to distributors.Many life science tools manufacturers, especially smaller companies, have a tendency to push a lot of marketing responsibility on to their distributors. In most such cases, the manufacturer often retains some broad marketing responsibilities which are usually focused on branding or awareness (for example, advertising in scientific journals or websites) and leaves their distributors responsible for most or all aspects of lead generation and nurturing. Allow me to take a very clear stance: this is a massive mistake – one that costs life science tools companies and their distributors incredible amounts of lost potential product demand (and, in turn, revenue).

Your distributors strong point is not marketing your products. It’s selling your products. It doesn’t matter who your distributors are – they are salesmen first and marketers second. There is a very good reason for this.

Creating and distributing individual marketing communications is relatively cheap. Developing a highly effective content-oriented marketing strategy, framing the campaign architecture, then building and deploying such a campaign is a very laborious process that can require a very significant time commitment by highly skilled marketers. A distributor, with maybe dozens or hundreds of product lines, can not realistically be expected to take on that burden. Additionally, distributors’ internal competencies often strongly favor sales to marketing, and many smaller distributors lack sufficient in-house marketing skill to perform deep analyses on products (and, perhaps, markets) that are novel to them. As distribution contracts may be tenuous and temporary, distributors are rightfully hesitant to devote such resources to marketing.

Life science tools manufacturers would be far better served by creating holistic marketing strategies that map out how to take prospective customers through lead generation to the point of sale, defining what will be performed by themselves and what will be handed off to the distributor (if any). If the distributors will be responsible for any aspects of marketing, there should be a high degree of collaboration to ensure that the marketing efforts are synergistic and build a single, coherent campaign rather than a set of discreet, loosely-related components. In other words, it is acceptable for your distributors to execute parts of your marketing campaign, and indeed they may have marketing resources which can help manufacturers generate demand beyond what the manufacturers could generate on their own, but they should not be left to design the campaigns or key marketing messages.

While salesmen are certainly capable of generating leads, marketing is a much more efficient and effective tool for this purpose. Because life science tools manufacturers often leave lead generation to their distributors, who are heavily sales-oriented and almost always have a very limited incentive to invest heavily in marketing for any single product line, a lot of potential demand is never realized and both manufacturers and distributors suffer from sub-par sales.

"If you are looking to get better performance from your distributors, sometimes the best place to look is inside your own company. BioBM Consulting offers life science marketing services that enable companies to generate demand across all geographies. We also offer distribution partnering and distribution management services that ensure your company’s distributors are committed to your shared success."
Blog / Distribution / Marketing Strategy 10:08 am , June 21, 2012

Creating Balance in Marketing

Carlton Hoyt 12:20 pm , June 12, 2012

Creating Balance in Life Science MarketingLife science marketing requires a degree of balance between two opposing factors: information (content) and simplicity. On one hand, life science marketers want the scientist-customer to be able to access all of the information that they may need or want in order to make a purchasing decision. On the other hand, marketers and salespeople want to efficiently guide the customer to the point of making a purchasing decision, and want to create simplicity such that the customer is efficient in his or her own decision making. These needs are often in opposition: providing more information than any particular scientist wants can complicate the purchasing decision, lengthening the sales cycle and creating “stress points” in the campaign where scientists may lose interest, while oversimplifying their decision-making process may leave scientists without enough information and feeling as if they are being forced into a decision.

So how do we balance these two opposing forces? It is not simple. Any given scientist-customer may have different information demands. A single marketing flow will provide poor results in life science tools sectors where such demands may significantly differ (as is true in most sectors). The key lies in planning and foresight.

Through both internal knowledge and interviews with members of your target market, life science marketers should be able to gather all possible information requirements of a prospective customer, classify this information into “essential” and “non-essential” information, and determine what information may be needed at what point in their purchasing decision. Essential information will form the backbone of the marketing campaign architecture – the content designed to “touch” all prospective customers. Non-essential information should be offered but not placed directly in front of all customers. Consider these factors along with when certain pieces of content will be required or beneficial and draw out a content roadmap. The content roadmap should provide life science marketers with a clear view of the informational requirements and will implicitly guide marketers towards deciding the optimal channels for delivering any particular piece of content.

Through understanding the information requirements of the audience and development of a content roadmap, life science marketers can develop a marketing campaign architecture that balances content and decision simplicity to customize and self-optimize the campaign for each individual prospect.

"Looking to greatly improve demand for your products? BioBM develops marketing strategies for small and mid-sized life science tools companies that are both powerful and practical. In addition to leveraging the best practices in life science marketing, our smaller-company focus takes budget into strict consideration and delivers campaigns that perform at a big-company level while meeting small-company budgetary restrictions. Call us to learn more about our services."
Blog / Demand Generation / Digital Marketing / Marketing Communications 12:20 pm , June 12, 2012

State of LS Tools Survey Results

Carlton Hoyt 11:33 pm , June 5, 2012

In mid-April, we discussed how despite the presence large amounts of negativity in the life science tools market, things actually appeared to be getting better. To follow that up, we conducted a brief 6-question survey last month to determine if people within the sector felt similarly and try to gauge if companies were preparing for better times or worse times ahead.

The survey was open from May 1st through May 31st. 22 respondents completed the survey. One respondent’s set of responses was removed from the survey due to not responding in the affirmative to the qualifying question which asked respondents if they worked within the life science tools and services market. Based on IP, 14 respondents were from North America, 6 were from Europe, and one was from Asia.

The questions (aside from the qualifying question) and responses are below:

1) Complete the following statement: “Thus far in 2012, my company’s sales have _____.”

2) Complete the following statement: “Compared to the last quarter of 2011, I feel _______ about the life science tools market”

3) Compared to the first half of 2012, how much does your company intend to spend on the following functions in the second half of 2012?

More Same Less
R&D 33.3% 57.1% 9.5%
Marketing 38.1% 47.6% 14.3%
Sales 57.1% 33.3% 9.5%

 

4) Which of the following is presently true about your company?

Additionally, two respondents left comments at the end of the survey. One noted “The market seems stable at the moment. We are mildly optimistic about the future.” The other stated “There are significant cuts in the research budgets.” The latter statement allows for some confusion as to whether “research budgets” referred to mean the academic research budgets or the budgets for internal R&D, although use of the plural leads us to believe the respondent most likely meant academic research budgets.

We find these results very interesting. While year-to-date performance in the respondents’ companies tends towards under-performance, perceptions compared to the previous year are roughly flat but companies are hiring and will be spending more. This could be due to any of multiple factors. For example, companies could be re-hiring and increasing budgets as a rebound from previous, overly conservative budget cuts. In other words, companies may have planned for a situation that was worse than the present, and therefore even though the present situation may not be good, hiring and increased spending have become necessary. Another common macroeconomic cause for increased hiring is decreasing workforce productivity. Additionally, some companies may increase spending in response to increases in spending at competitors in order to “keep up with the competition.” This discrepancy could also simply be a flaw in the survey, or perhaps a real difference in perception between the overall attitudes of life science tools companies and individual employees. There are many possible explanations, and we simply do not have enough data to evaluate all of the possible causes. All are free to draw their own conclusions.

Regardless, while the responses about company performance and the perception of the overall life science tools market are tepid, we are encouraged by the trend towards hiring and increased spending, and hope that companies rightfully see a reason to continue to invest in future growth.

Blog / Marketing Strategy 11:33 pm , June 5, 2012