Pharmaceutical Opinion Leader Management: Cultivating Today's Influential Physicians for Tomorrow (PH109)

Explore detailed segmentation data, budgets and headcounts for thought leader management and MSL programs:

Identifying and recruiting key opinion leaders is a challenging task in and of itself. But what are the best strategies to retain those relationships once companies have established them? Cutting Edge Information answers this question and more in its latest study on key opinion leader management organizations.

Pharmaceutical Opinion Leader Management includes detailed strategies for identifying, recruiting, building and maintaining thought leader relationships. The study guides opinion leader management executives with best practices for physicians in all tiers, including local, regional, national and global influencers.

Backed with real-world metrics from more than 40 companies, this study is the perfect guide for:

* Setting thought leader management and MSL program budgets and headcounts

* Identifying and segmenting opinion leader candidates by tier

* Building thought leader relationships through new opportunities

* Tracking the number of KOL relationships already established

* Documenting KOL activities

Study participants included vice presidents and directors of medical affairs, product directors and managers, marketing consultants, thought leader development managers and MSL team leaders. The fair-market value benchmarks contained in this study are aggregate data collected directly from executives at participating companies.

Research Methodology

Data Collection

Analysts developed the information upon which this study is based through both primary and secondary sources. Cutting Edge Information’s process for collecting and analyzing information encompasses two distinct tools: quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews. Both tools are necessary for understanding not only the hard metrics included in this study, but also the reasoning behind the metrics. Cutting Edge Information aims to answer why some companies spend more than others.

Analysts began developing the quantitative survey tool by working closely with pharmaceutical industry executives. These executives proved to be invaluable resources, guiding the survey design team to ask more specific questions than in Cutting Edge Information’s 2006 survey on thought leader fair-market value. By taking the initial survey from the 2006 study, analysts were able to build upon its solid foundation and expand it to include more detailed and refined data segments.

Once the research team completed the survey design, analysts recruited participants from pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies and third-party providers to collect data on fair-market compensation. The research team collected the fair-market value benchmarks, as well as all survey data, through primary research with front-line thought leader development experts. All together, Cutting Edge Information collected and analyzed fair-market value benchmarks from more than 500 data sets, including data from more than 40 pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies of all sizes, as well as third-party vendors. The data sets included in the appendix in this report encompass 20 therapeutic areas. Study participants included vice presidents and directors of medical affairs, product directors and managers, marketing consultants, thought leader development managers and MSL team leaders.

Once participants submitted a survey, analysts used qualitative interviews to uncover more detailed information. Cutting Edge Information used the telephone interviews with pharmaceutical executives to understand compliance challenges in the current regulatory environment. Not all participants submitted to telephone interviews. However, Cutting Edge Information gathered enough information from its completed interviews to properly interpret the data. In return for these parties’ contributions, Cutting Edge Information distributed the study results to all participants. Secondary research focused on public information related to specific companies and OIG guidelines.

Company Blinding

To ensure that Cutting Edge Information protects the identities and privacy of all study participants, this research does not name the companies or products it examines, nor does it link specific companies with therapeutic areas. Company blinding is a critical device that allows survey respondents to comfortably provide accurate data for studies such as this one.

Sample Content

Excerpted from Chapter 1, Section 3: Opinion Leader Documentation Systems:

From Development To Commercialization: Early-Stage Activities

In the early stages of product development, thought leader activities are typically science-oriented, and the thought leaders will often serve as advisors to the product team. At Company 13, the business development and the new product development groups work together to develop a new product. New product development performs its own market research for potential products and calls on thought leaders to help identify true market needs. The department hosts meetings where pipeline products are discussed, and thought leaders are invited to suggest products or types of products they would like to see developed.

The insight gained from practicing, thought-leading physicians can be instrumental in the early development of a compound. At Company 33, thought leaders are involved throughout the entire product development process. In the early stages of a product’s lifecycle, Company 33’s thought leaders help select indications based on their market viability. The company seeks thought leader input on which indications to develop and which areas of the market it should pursue if a product has the potential to be active in different areas. Regarding potential safety issues that have nothing to do with a product’s indication, companies will bring in experts to develop risk management plans. Thought leaders at many companies also assist with study design and planning for Phases 1 to 4 or with in-licensing products or compounds.

Excerpted from Chapter 2, Section 2: Criteria for Segmenting Thought Leader Candidates:

Tier 2 Thought Leader Profile

While Tier 2 thought leaders do not have quite the level of recognition that Tier 1 thought leaders attain, they remain important influencers, as they carry years of clinical experience, give speeches and write for publication. Tier 2 thought leaders at surveyed companies have an average of XX years of clinical experience. They produce an average of XX publications per year and give an average of six promotional speeches per year.

Tier 2 thought leaders lag noticeably behind their top-tier counterparts in the frequency of their high-profile activities; however, Tier 2 thought leaders maintain a professional presence through still-frequent speeches and publications.

Tier 2 thought leaders are similar to Tier 1 thought leaders in that neither segment includes any local thought leaders, highlighting the importance of geographic influence at the highest levels of thought leader segmentation. However, while surveyed companies reported that, on average, XX% of their Tier 1 thought leaders held global influence, only XX% of companies reported Tier 2 thought leaders with global influence. The largest portion of Tier 2 thought leaders belongs to the nationally influential group. XX% of companies believe that their Tier 2 thought leaders have national influence in the United States, and another XX% of companies see Tier 2 thought leaders carrying national-level influence in another country.

Published 2007

239 Pages

500+ Metrics

159 Charts and Graphics

Format PDF
Table of Contents
Price: $7,695.00 / GBP3,847.50