|
|
Post by bradleysbest on Aug 27, 2014 22:41:35 GMT -5
How about commercials during the AFC & NFC conference championships? Less expensive but huge ratings for those 2 games as well.....just saying
|
|
|
|
Post by vantech7 on Aug 28, 2014 10:09:34 GMT -5
"Walk B4 we run"
|
|
|
|
Post by mannmade on Aug 28, 2014 14:13:01 GMT -5
How about commercials during the AFC & NFC conference championships? Less expensive but huge ratings for those 2 games as well.....just saying Not about ratings as much as it is about targeting right audiences so more cost effective media... and then their are the doctors and associations... |
|
|
|
Post by zieg on Aug 28, 2014 14:47:47 GMT -5
As crazy as it sounds, in college I started a biz advertising above urinals.
When you are standing there, you can only look straight forward. It did pretty well.
Maybe we should advertise pre launch above every urinal in every major NFL and College stadium. That way, every football going, beer drinking, pizza eating, hotdog scarfing male (or female) will become aware prior to launch.
Cost is minimal compared to television. Crazy, but it gets eyes!
|
|
|
|
Post by mannmade on Aug 28, 2014 18:20:04 GMT -5
Actually I find it brilliant... And now it is done in almost every restaurant bathroom I go too. Considering frequent urination is one sign of diabetes it may not be such a bad thought... LOL!  |
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Aug 28, 2014 21:39:40 GMT -5
Glad that none of you marketing geniuses are working for Sanofi or their ad agency. We want Sanofi to spend millions and millions and more millions on advertising. Besides, we are only sharing 35% of the costs. For sure Afrezza's competitors will be spending tons of money to protect their market share. Super Bowl is perfect.
Trend
|
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Aug 29, 2014 3:56:05 GMT -5
I have a hard time understanding why MannKind chose not to include children's studies in the trials. Did they suspect that the forces aligned against them would have used risks to children to deny/delay approval? Sanofi, as I understand it, has made FDA approval for under 18's a priority.
A child's terror of needles would be a powerful message to consumers, whether by Super Bowl ad or otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by liane on Aug 29, 2014 4:26:32 GMT -5
mnholdem
Bottom line - $$$ and risk. They didn't have the money for additional studies. And it's risky to try something on kids that has not been proven safe and effective in adults. Smartest move - get it approved in adults and worry about everything else later. Besides, as has been extensively discussed on this board, it won't be long before it gets used off-label in kids.
|
|
|
|
Post by jpg on Aug 29, 2014 4:29:05 GMT -5
I have a hard time understanding why MannKind chose not to include children's studies in the trials. Did they suspect that the forces aligned against them would have used risks to children to deny/delay approval? Sanofi, as I understand it, has made FDA approval for under 18's a priority. A child's terror of needles would be a powerful message to consumers, whether by Super Bowl ad or otherwise. Hi mnholdem, Not to say that Afrezza wouldn't be a huge hit in the small but important under 18 market but the reality is that children's medication are often if not usually prescribed off label and studies are a lot more difficult/ complicated/ expensive (for a smaller market) then for adults. It would seem rational to me to do as MNKD, with limited resources, did and keep these studies for phase 4. Some of the artificial pancreas studies were done in the below 18 age group though. The 'up side', if we can sadly call it that, is that children using Afrezza will probably be using insulin for a very long time as diabetic kids now have longer and longer life expectancies. Based on gestational diabetic studies and post prandial glucose control vs foetal outcome I would guess Afrezza could potentially improve development in children. It could possibly increase life expectancy although we will be really old when that is proven... Afrezza in kids would and will also give them more 'normality and simplicity'. This alone could be a much bigger factor favoring Afrezza (in children and adults) then most analysts think. As you also correctly point out The marketing of Afrezza in children could be priceless for the overall uptake of Afrezza. JPG |
|
|
|
Post by mannmade on Aug 29, 2014 9:34:25 GMT -5
Glad that none of you marketing geniuses are working for Sanofi or their ad agency. We want Sanofi to spend millions and millions and more millions on advertising. Besides, we are only sharing 35% of the costs. For sure Afrezza's competitors will be spending tons of money to protect their market share. Super Bowl is perfect. Trend Actually Trend, with all due respect, we don't want them to spend millions without a real plan to target and reach the right audiences... as we do not yet know how the budgets are allocated... Will media dollars take away from direct to doc reps and the support they will need if spend too much on media, etc... And believe me these budgets will be capped as that will be the main way to control costs against the profit split of the deal. First they will need to define their target audiences which could be as follows: 1.) Doctors (media will help create awareness for doctors directly and also thru patents/viewers asking about Afrezza), 2.) Viewers whose subsets are as follows: diabetics, parents/family of someone with diabetes, overweight/obese and then the various associations. Am sure there are others but this is just for example. Then the next question should be; where does the highest per capita/density (and also population size) of audience pools live? NY, LA, CHI, MIA, American Samoa, etc? Why not concentrate on making a bigger and more concentrated media splash in these areas... Followed with more intensive ground support with the reps. After all, while the patient population will ultimately drive Afrezza sales, there are still a lot of legitimate questions as with any new technology and/or medicine (especially one that is new and not simply an extension of a previous product as say U300) and doctors are the gate keepers who ultimately patients will listen to until such questions with the passage of time (and usage) have been answered. So my contention is that the doctors, in the beginning will be the real target audience and the patient's will be secondary for the first 6 to 12 months (even though this is all about better patient protocols, health and lifestyles). With that said, simply put a Super Bowl Ad is not perfect... it is a vanity play left for companies who can develop funny and creative content to sell commodities such as beer, cars and mobile phones... Nothing funny about diabetes... And let's face it why is the SB one of the few programs people like to watch the commercials? It's because they are very entertaining and when they are not entertaining people are disappointed. So I don't think this is the right environment to launch a product like diabetes as there is nothing entertaining about diabetes. Perhaps for Allegra, (which is not developed to treat a life threatening disease) you could make fun of people or situations where they have a runny noise from allergies...
As I previously mentioned, imho there is a better way to target the audience referenced above. A Super Bowl Ad this season (2015) is likely to cost close to 4m per 30 sec. What could you do with 4m?
Hmm... you could buy a lot of cable programs, radio, Network TV on a national or local level... And run multi-week campaigns against all of the them. You could also hire a great PR firm who could get a lot of "noise" by tying into prominent events and personalities. You could for example sponsor Dr. Nancy Snyderman of the Today Show, perhaps w Al Roker during National Diabetes Month and maybe include them in a "The More You Know" campaign which could run for several weeks at half the cost of one SB Ad. Also the internet is valuable. Among other ways to promote, I know a very popular internet personality who's just 18 with T1. He has a following of over 5m regular viewers and has offered to promote Afrezza for free. Also there are various other forms of advertising and marketing thru the internet that can be extremely effective and highly targeted.
My point is that they need (and will have) developed a media plan that supports targeting their prime population through various channels and with proper support before they do anything else. And it is all done by setting priorities and then reviewing within the context of the budget. At any rate this conversation can go on and on and all I am trying to say is that they will develop a plan and if I were a betting man (which I guess I am since I have bet on Afrezza) I would not bet on Sanofi running a SB ad.
|
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Aug 29, 2014 10:08:07 GMT -5
Perhaps echoing what Mannmade has said... I have a hard time imagining a TV ad that would be something people would talk about at the water cooler the day after the super bowl. Afrezza is a great product but watching someone take a puff, or the generic drug ad implying with images that you'll live the perfect life of leisure while the audio reels off the side effects and contraindications, hardly seems super bowl.
Personally I think a LOT of online ads could be extremely effective. Those image ads are quite cheap and can be targeted as we all know from having things follow us after a single google search. The image of a dreamboat with a simple statement about "no needle at mealtime" seen over and over by diabetics is likely to get people to remember to ask their doctor the next time they go in. TV ads for drugs are probably much more important when there isn't an established patient base than can be targeted... where you're trying to convince a new patient population to emerge... e.g. "if... you may have restless ear syndrome".
|
|
|
|
Post by savzak on Aug 29, 2014 14:10:00 GMT -5
dreamboat, I do not think marketing dollars should be spent on an overpriced Super Bowl ad. But there's no reason to think such an ad would be boring or unworthy of water cooler talk on Monday. The creative ideas for a commercial involving an insulin inhaler (a product previously completely unknown to the vast majority of the audience) are endless. I'm sure good marketers could come up with a very entertaining and memorable commercial. |
|
|
|
Post by gamblerjag on Aug 29, 2014 16:00:56 GMT -5
agreed.. I rather see more commercials on cable channels then one big commercial where 1/2 of the people watching are drunk and won't remember the commercial.
|
|
|
|
Post by trenddiver on Aug 29, 2014 16:44:24 GMT -5
I just wonder how many of you marketing geniuses have ever marketed any product let alone a new conceptual medical device. Having marketed consumer type health products before, I can tell you it will take (and Sanofi should spend) many mllions of dollars to get this product launched. I am sure Sanofi and it's advertising experts know how to do this. I guess some people on this board have nothing better to do then hash out some futuristic marketing plan. I say, who cares. It doesn't really add to the discussion of the Mannkind investment. If Sanofi had released the marketing plan, that would be fertile grounds for comment.
That being said, I think the SuperBowl, with its huge viewing audience would be one of the best advertising vehicles to start to educate America and the world about our revolutionary product, the money spent will be small compared to the huge bump in the market cap of Mannkind that will result from the buzz generated by the ad.
Trend
|
|
|
|
Post by BD on Aug 29, 2014 17:55:58 GMT -5
trend, there are no board rules about every topic having to satisfy every member's definition of what adds to the discussion of the investment and what does not. If you think a topic is irrelevant, please ignore it.
The staff cares that members should feel free to discuss whatever they collectively find interesting without having judgment passed on them for it.
Thanks.
|
|
