|
Post by babaoriley on Sept 26, 2014 1:00:52 GMT -5
I'm not sure if label restrictions will prevent Sanofi from showing how Afrezza mimicks a healthy pancreas, but my catch phrase would be "Afrezza for mealtimes. As easy as taking a breath." very "Mad Men."
|
|
|
Post by hopetoretire on Sept 26, 2014 2:50:03 GMT -5
I will stick my neck out and predict no TV advertising. The need for FDA review will give them another chance to take a swing at Afrezza and will force too many scary warnings to be included in the ad (with no opportunity to put in context). At least for me, when I see any ad for a drug, and hear that it may cause all kinds of horrible things, (like maybe having to go to the emergency room with a 4 hour erection, having suicidal thoughts, sudden heart attack, kidney failure, cancer, etc) I am less likely to go out and get me some.
On the other hand, I bet I'm like most people, and don't read the warning labels on or in the box when prescribed. Nor do I ask my doctor to recite every warning. I think Sanofi knows nearly ever Doctor in the country (world) that prescribes to diabetics, and they won't depend on TV ads (maybe interview settings) to get the word out. Just my opinion as of this date.
|
|
|
Post by cybergym66 on Sept 26, 2014 5:36:26 GMT -5
I will stick my neck out and predict no TV advertising. The need for FDA review will give them another chance to take a swing at Afrezza and will force too many scary warnings to be included in the ad (with no opportunity to put in context). At least for me, when I see any ad for a drug, and hear that it may cause all kinds of horrible things, (like maybe having to go to the emergency room with a 4 hour erection, having suicidal thoughts, sudden heart attack, kidney failure, cancer, etc) I am less likely to go out and get me some. On the other hand, I bet I'm like most people, and don't read the warning labels on or in the box when prescribed. Nor do I ask my doctor to recite every warning. I think Sanofi knows nearly ever Doctor in the country (world) that prescribes to diabetics, and they won't depend on TV ads (maybe interview settings) to get the word out. Just my opinion as of this date. I'm thinking just the opposite about TV advertisement. What will drive sales? Diabetic patients...when they hear about the option to inhale their insulin, the rapid affects, the much better control of hypos, then the trivial "cough" issue they will be at their doc's office DEMANDING Afrezza!
|
|
|
Post by rockstarrick on Sept 26, 2014 7:16:42 GMT -5
To the person who asked about the 6 month time frame, I didn't get time to read the entire article, but was talking to a friend who has been involved in several FDA approval processes, he told me the first commercial would hit the TV on December 27th, and he did state they are required to wait 6 months to advertise at least on TV. I trust what he says, and I know without a doubt he has been there done that. I'll try to find that regulation and post the link, I thought it would be in this link, but was on my way to a Dr appointment and didn't get to read it. I guess the main point is the 45 day submission to the FDA, if they plan on a December 27 TV Ad, the finished Ad will bee at the FDA in 4 to 6 weeks. Pretty exciting. RSR
|
|
|
Post by mannmade on Sept 26, 2014 8:11:36 GMT -5
I will stick my neck out and predict no TV advertising. The need for FDA review will give them another chance to take a swing at Afrezza and will force too many scary warnings to be included in the ad (with no opportunity to put in context). At least for me, when I see any ad for a drug, and hear that it may cause all kinds of horrible things, (like maybe having to go to the emergency room with a 4 hour erection, having suicidal thoughts, sudden heart attack, kidney failure, cancer, etc) I am less likely to go out and get me some. On the other hand, I bet I'm like most people, and don't read the warning labels on or in the box when prescribed. Nor do I ask my doctor to recite every warning. I think Sanofi knows nearly ever Doctor in the country (world) that prescribes to diabetics, and they won't depend on TV ads (maybe interview settings) to get the word out. Just my opinion as of this date. I agree but for other reasons... Remember the words from GS CC, "this will be a controlled launch." As I mentioned in a previous post a controlled launch makes sense for a variety of reasons. Also having been in advertising for many years, it takes quite a bit of time to put together a complete advertising campaign and integrate it into a comprehensive marketing and media strategy (which is likely still being researched and developed)... Am sure they will do so in time... but I personally think for the launch they will be watching the doctor patient reactions much more closely and be concerned with their initial feedback during the "controlled launch" period than by putting product "on the shelves" in mass as this is not a new soft drink... After initial patient/doctor feedback indicating positive responses to Afrezza use and the knowledge that their internal production and distribution supply/demand chain is under control then imho it will make sense to expand the presence of Afrezza in the marketplace. The worst thing for a new product is to launch a new product that either gets recalled or cannot keep up with demand (outside of the planned/artificial demand that Apple does for it's product launches which I would argue are actually part of their marketing strategy) Apple's strategy to create artificial demand is different because once you buy your product you have it. With Afrezza once you are on it you will need to continue to buy so every new patient (customer) would add to an ever increasing cycle of demand instead of working off the typical bell curve for the product demand/life cycle of a one time purchase product such as an iPhone.
|
|
|
Post by liane on Sept 26, 2014 8:22:07 GMT -5
I foresee initial advertising in the medical trade journals. Then, several months down the road, maybe 6-12 months, DTC advertising. The last thing you want is patients clamoring their doctors for this new medication when the doctors themselves are not familiar with it.
|
|
|
Post by kc on Sept 26, 2014 10:16:53 GMT -5
I hope your wrong. The only warnings that can be on the product are the warnings that the FDA already required. I think that the TV commercials will be very clean and easy compared to others for drugs with a lot of contradictions. I will stick my neck out and predict no TV advertising. The need for FDA review will give them another chance to take a swing at Afrezza and will force too many scary warnings to be included in the ad (with no opportunity to put in context). At least for me, when I see any ad for a drug, and hear that it may cause all kinds of horrible things, (like maybe having to go to the emergency room with a 4 hour erection, having suicidal thoughts, sudden heart attack, kidney failure, cancer, etc) I am less likely to go out and get me some. On the other hand, I bet I'm like most people, and don't read the warning labels on or in the box when prescribed. Nor do I ask my doctor to recite every warning. I think Sanofi knows nearly ever Doctor in the country (world) that prescribes to diabetics, and they won't depend on TV ads (maybe interview settings) to get the word out. Just my opinion as of this date.
|
|
|
Post by BlueCat on Sept 26, 2014 11:57:18 GMT -5
From the above-
hopetoretire: Yea, I don't think the automobile-sale-style warnings will scare anyone off. All of the drug commercials have them, and most of them probably more terrifying than Afrezza. And for diabetics, not taking the insulin is really dangerous too - so less 'voluntary' than say, viagra. (aka: do I really want to risk death to save my hairline, or ....?)
cybergym66. Agreed. This will be a heavy consumer-driven medication. Very effective for marketing.
mannmade and liane: Excellent points. Agreed - don't think they will roll the commercial until they have the supply and doctor education lined up first.
On the other hand, ***if they perceive potential for high demand and can solve the supply issue*** - in marketing we also see the "good-fast-cheap" axis (you get 2 only) - they can accelerate the media campaign and handling the demand gen pretty quickly with extra investment - if they see the ROI. I'm assuming they have a world class agency and team, and have been sketching this up for some time - per Mann's comments in last interview.
But the idea of effectively a 'pilot' (controlled) launch is also very likely in the plan - as you say - collect feedback and adjust accordingly. Prudent.
BUT- if that is the plan - I'm hoping that approach - if even shared with public - doesn't throw water on the momentum (eventually?) fire, so to speak...
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Sept 26, 2014 13:19:04 GMT -5
I will stick my neck out and predict no TV advertising. The need for FDA review will give them another chance to take a swing at Afrezza and will force too many scary warnings to be included in the ad (with no opportunity to put in context). At least for me, when I see any ad for a drug, and hear that it may cause all kinds of horrible things, (like maybe having to go to the emergency room with a 4 hour erection, having suicidal thoughts, sudden heart attack, kidney failure, cancer, etc) I am less likely to go out and get me some. On the other hand, I bet I'm like most people, and don't read the warning labels on or in the box when prescribed. Nor do I ask my doctor to recite every warning. I think Sanofi knows nearly ever Doctor in the country (world) that prescribes to diabetics, and they won't depend on TV ads (maybe interview settings) to get the word out. Just my opinion as of this date. I think logic would dictate that you must be in the minority. Drug companies are spending billions on such ads and have been for a long time now. I don't think it is out of ignorance. I think regarding warnings it is more than a chance... it is a requirement. Drug companies are very good at countering the dry verbal warnings with images that convey the opposite. Something "may" cause depression and suicidal thoughts but you see the person playing with their kids on the beach while that news is slipped into the background in a lulling monotone.
|
|
|
Post by cybergym66 on Sept 26, 2014 13:40:39 GMT -5
I will stick my neck out and predict no TV advertising. The need for FDA review will give them another chance to take a swing at Afrezza and will force too many scary warnings to be included in the ad (with no opportunity to put in context). At least for me, when I see any ad for a drug, and hear that it may cause all kinds of horrible things, (like maybe having to go to the emergency room with a 4 hour erection, having suicidal thoughts, sudden heart attack, kidney failure, cancer, etc) I am less likely to go out and get me some. On the other hand, I bet I'm like most people, and don't read the warning labels on or in the box when prescribed. Nor do I ask my doctor to recite every warning. I think Sanofi knows nearly ever Doctor in the country (world) that prescribes to diabetics, and they won't depend on TV ads (maybe interview settings) to get the word out. Just my opinion as of this date. I think logic would dictate that you must be in the minority. Drug companies are spending billions on such ads and have been for a long time now. I don't think it is out of ignorance. I think regarding warnings it is more than a chance... it is a requirement. Drug companies are very good at countering the dry verbal warnings with images that convey the opposite. Something "may" cause depression and suicidal thoughts but you see the person playing with their kids on the beach while that news is slipped into the background in a lulling monotone. So you're saying we need Ben Stein to provide the background, monotone warnings?! If so, then the warnings will be TOTALLY missed!
|
|
|
Post by rockstarrick on Sept 26, 2014 15:13:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BlueCat on Sept 26, 2014 23:27:34 GMT -5
Ok. But if you were SNY and MNKD looking at 74 mil short interest in the stock just begging for a reason to deep six this .... perhaps a good idea to ask for review for CYA?
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Sept 27, 2014 13:58:12 GMT -5
Great thread, people! Lots of interesting takes on the advertising thing. The warnings with Afrezza should be no worse than diabetics are already used to hearing from their docs or from reading labels on their insulin, so don't think the warnings will be awful. Of course, some will be freaked, that's always the case. And, if their initial target is current non-insulin users, then hopetoretire could be on the money, as more of them would not be familiar, as they may not know the specifics of the side effects as do users. In fact, hearing the warnings could reinforce their decision not to begin taking insulin. All very interesting!
|
|
|
Post by rockstarrick on Sept 28, 2014 13:25:46 GMT -5
Ok. But if you were SNY and MNKD looking at 74 mil short interest in the stock just begging for a reason to deep six this .... perhaps a good idea to ask for review for CYA? As far as I can tell, the FDA doesn't review all new drug Ads, but do review some, and definitely set the guidelines for the Ads. There is a lot of conflicting information, I'll be checking the FDA site throughout November for anything related to Afrezza. I agree with you, I would definitely advertise on TV, and I would want the FDA to give the Ad their stamp of approval. RSR
|
|
|
Post by rockstarrick on Sept 28, 2014 13:32:36 GMT -5
|
|