|
Post by tchalaa on Jan 12, 2016 10:06:40 GMT -5
Simply because where we are now MNKD has spent far less on marketing than Pfizer on Exubera. Also Afrezza, inhaled insulin should not be compared to something of less efficacy.
The real valuation of MNKD has changed, only the perception has changed. Ask yourself this question: Do I invest in the new delivery technology, Technosphere, with Afrezza using the only monomer insulin on the market or am I following the volatility of Psycho-Investor.
The new CEO of SNY was the one in charge of Exubera, which failed, so the question was am I still taking the risk or do I stay with what i know best? Today we all know his position.
The perception of MNKD valuation has diminished but Technosphere technology is still intact and the launch of Afrezza wasn't effective since it was a Pre-launch but very informative giving us access data which will enable us to not just perform better but also better liver experience for diabetics.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdmorelong on Jan 12, 2016 10:29:01 GMT -5
Simply because where we are now MNKD has spent far less on marketing than Pfizer on Exubera. Also Afrezza, inhaled insulin should not be compared to something of less efficacy. The real valuation of MNKD has changed, only the perception has changed. Ask yourself this question: Do I invest in the new delivery technology, Technosphere, with Afrezza using the only monomer insulin on the market or am I following the volatility of Psycho-Investor. The new CEO of SNY was the one in charge of Exubera, which failed, so the question was am I still taking the risk or do I stay with what i know best? Today we all know his position. The perception of MNKD valuation has diminished but Technosphere technology is still intact and the launch of Afrezza wasn't effective since it was a Pre-launch but very informative giving us access data which will enable us to not just perform better but also better liver experience for diabetics. Here we go again. SNY spent a lot of money on a full launch of Afrezza. It was not a marketing study. It was not a partial launch. MNKD did not go on a date with a chaperone. They wanted to and needed to bang the gong. A company does not fly hundreds of people around the country to learn how to sell a product when all they want is data. Why would SNY spend $400 mln to just get data and then cancel the contract so they cannot use the data. Makes no sense. The launch of Afrezza using SNY's sales and marketing resources failed miserably. Only $8 mln in sales. Total disaster which has tarnished the value of the Afrezza franchise and TS technology. FYI: Perception is reality when the optics are sooooo bad.
|
|
|
Post by mindovermatter on Jan 12, 2016 10:44:42 GMT -5
Simply because where we are now MNKD has spent far less on marketing than Pfizer on Exubera. Also Afrezza, inhaled insulin should not be compared to something of less efficacy. The real valuation of MNKD has changed, only the perception has changed. Ask yourself this question: Do I invest in the new delivery technology, Technosphere, with Afrezza using the only monomer insulin on the market or am I following the volatility of Psycho-Investor. The new CEO of SNY was the one in charge of Exubera, which failed, so the question was am I still taking the risk or do I stay with what i know best? Today we all know his position. The perception of MNKD valuation has diminished but Technosphere technology is still intact and the launch of Afrezza wasn't effective since it was a Pre-launch but very informative giving us access data which will enable us to not just perform better but also better liver experience for diabetics. Here we go again. SNY spent a lot of money on a full launch of Afrezza. It was not a marketing study. It was not a partial launch. MNKD did not go on a date with a chaperone. They wanted to and needed to bang the gong. A company does not fly hundreds of people around the country to learn how to sell a product when all they want is data. Why would SNY spend $400 mln to just get data and then cancel the contract so they cannot use the data. Makes no sense. The launch of Afrezza using SNY's sales and marketing resources failed miserably. Only $8 mln in sales. Total disaster which has tarnished the value of the Afrezza franchise and TS technology. FYI: Perception is reality when the optics are sooooo bad. If you call not one radio ad, not one TV ad, not a full force of reps contacting all doctors that treat diabetes but just a handful of reps and advertising in Time and specific diabetes magazines, then yes you are right. It was a full launch.
|
|
|
Post by figglebird on Jan 12, 2016 10:50:58 GMT -5
First of all the key point here is comparing MANNKIND to PFIZER - not MANNKIND TO NEKTAR.
BC Mannkind is the rights holder, much of that privy info/data collecting on Sanofi's end belongs to MANNKIND - anything disputed(data wise) will in most cases go back to rights holder.
Sanofi, thus far in their actions, does not seem to understand this arrangement and may have confused their milestone payments with rights payments(as few if any small biotechs are able to set up this kind of arrangements). Their R&D(for whatever it is worth) was spent on a product they no longer have rights to - furthermore, their obligation to transfer operations, pertinent data is one that if handled in the same careless manner that the launch was handled, will only add to their extensive liability with respect to a potentially unrealized future valuation of TS.
Going forward, if Mannkind is unable to find a viable path to market, based on anything relating to Sanofi including their prior mishandling of their obligations with respect to both the liscencing and supply agreements, Sanofi is liable for damages based on future valuation.
And when you assess future valuation, you must take into account the sort of companies that are prior and currently forming these kind of partnerships to launch their propritary systems.
REGN
CELG
GILD
Had we simply sold off rights like Nektar, sanofi would or could have easily crushed any chance going forward - partnership was always the uncelebrated symbol of Al's leverage - clear as day.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdmorelong on Jan 12, 2016 10:59:04 GMT -5
Here we go again. SNY spent a lot of money on a full launch of Afrezza. It was not a marketing study. It was not a partial launch. MNKD did not go on a date with a chaperone. They wanted to and needed to bang the gong. A company does not fly hundreds of people around the country to learn how to sell a product when all they want is data. Why would SNY spend $400 mln to just get data and then cancel the contract so they cannot use the data. Makes no sense. The launch of Afrezza using SNY's sales and marketing resources failed miserably. Only $8 mln in sales. Total disaster which has tarnished the value of the Afrezza franchise and TS technology. FYI: Perception is reality when the optics are sooooo bad. If you call not one radio ad, not one TV ad, not a full force of reps contacting all doctors that treat diabetes but just a handful of reps and advertising in Time and specific diabetes magazines, then yes you are right. It was a full launch. The pivotal point in the US Civil War was the battle of Gettysburg and specifically Pickett's charge. General Lee sent a brigade (12k men) directly against the Union center lead by General Pickett. The charge failed so badly (over 50% Confederate losses) that the grey coats withdrew back to Virginia. The same is true with Afrezza. SNY did a full launch and expected the early adopters to demand Afrezza. Who cares if it cost more? I want Afrezza! This happened to a very limited degree. As the market pushed back on SNY, they tried some DTC ads in magazines. There was no response to the ads. Zero! I think it was then that SNY gave up. What we saw as spotty marketing in the last few months was a manifestation of SNY doing as little as possible. Similar to General Lee, SNY withdrew back to Paris, so to speak, and waiting for the first opportunity to dump MNKD. My point is that SNY started with a full launch and ended up in full retreat. It was not just a marketing study.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 12, 2016 11:10:34 GMT -5
Simply because where we are now MNKD has spent far less on marketing than Pfizer on Exubera. Also Afrezza, inhaled insulin should not be compared to something of less efficacy. The real valuation of MNKD has changed, only the perception has changed. Ask yourself this question: Do I invest in the new delivery technology, Technosphere, with Afrezza using the only monomer insulin on the market or am I following the volatility of Psycho-Investor. The new CEO of SNY was the one in charge of Exubera, which failed, so the question was am I still taking the risk or do I stay with what i know best? Today we all know his position. The perception of MNKD valuation has diminished but Technosphere technology is still intact and the launch of Afrezza wasn't effective since it was a Pre-launch but very informative giving us access data which will enable us to not just perform better but also better liver experience for diabetics. The real long term prospects of Afrezza may not have changed. It is shear folly to think the real valuation of MNKD did not change based on the ill-fated time spent with SNY. Significant dilution, and even possibly bankruptcy, are real prospects. I suppose you don't acknowledge that the CRL's changed MNKD stock real valuation, despite them causing significant real dilution. Even if MNKD avoids bankruptcy, the longer it spends with REAL expenses and no REAL profit, the more the valuation will get eroded by debt or dilution.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 12, 2016 11:21:33 GMT -5
mnkdmorelong... fact of the matter is, none of us know what SNY's real intentions were and whether they were the same from day one or changed at some point. We have no idea when they lost faith if they ever had it. We have no idea what actions taken they truly believed would pay off vs what they felt they needed to do to cover their butt based on obligations they had in the agreement. I certainly would not consider what happened a "marketing study" and would be surprised if what they did was conveyed as such to MNKD, since MNKD's statements to shareholders would certainly leave them open to legal action if they knew SNY was only doing a marketing study and then acted surprised by lack of sales traction. On the other hand we know that SNY has not taken steps (TV ads, starting required follow on trials) in the same time frame they have for other new drugs... so it is also difficult to claim they were charging ahead like an army massed behind Afrezza.
|
|
|
Post by mindovermatter on Jan 12, 2016 11:26:14 GMT -5
If you call not one radio ad, not one TV ad, not a full force of reps contacting all doctors that treat diabetes but just a handful of reps and advertising in Time and specific diabetes magazines, then yes you are right. It was a full launch. The pivotal point in the US Civil War was the battle of Gettysburg and specifically Pickett's charge. General Lee sent a brigade (12k men) directly against the Union center lead by General Pickett. The charge failed so badly (over 50% Confederate losses) that the grey coats withdrew back to Virginia. The same is true with Afrezza. SNY did a full launch and expected the early adopters to demand Afrezza. Who cares if it cost more? I want Afrezza! This happened to a very limited degree. As the market pushed back on SNY, they tried some DTC ads in magazines. There was no response to the ads. Zero! I think it was then that SNY gave up. What we saw as spotty marketing in the last few months was a manifestation of SNY doing as little as possible. Similar to General Lee, SNY withdrew back to Paris, so to speak, and waiting for the first opportunity to dump MNKD. My point is that SNY started with a full launch and ended up in full retreat. It was not just a marketing study. how do you know what Sanofi expected or what their plan was? Do you know what was discussed with Mannkind prior to the CEO getting fired and if the plan remained the same after the NEW CEO took over? You have no clue what Sanofi decided to do or not to do. I don't either. But what we do know is that their so called full launch was weak and would have never been done with any drug the company developed themselves. Their launch was one of trepidation and half measures when compared to other full launches.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2016 11:27:47 GMT -5
Simply because where we are now MNKD has spent far less on marketing than Pfizer on Exubera. Also Afrezza, inhaled insulin should not be compared to something of less efficacy. The real valuation of MNKD has changed, only the perception has changed. Ask yourself this question: Do I invest in the new delivery technology, Technosphere, with Afrezza using the only monomer insulin on the market or am I following the volatility of Psycho-Investor. The new CEO of SNY was the one in charge of Exubera, which failed, so the question was am I still taking the risk or do I stay with what i know best? Today we all know his position. The perception of MNKD valuation has diminished but Technosphere technology is still intact and the launch of Afrezza wasn't effective since it was a Pre-launch but very informative giving us access data which will enable us to not just perform better but also better liver experience for diabetics. Here we go again. SNY spent a lot of money on a full launch of Afrezza. It was not a marketing study. It was not a partial launch. MNKD did not go on a date with a chaperone. They wanted to and needed to bang the gong. A company does not fly hundreds of people around the country to learn how to sell a product when all they want is data. Why would SNY spend $400 mln to just get data and then cancel the contract so they cannot use the data. Makes no sense. The launch of Afrezza using SNY's sales and marketing resources failed miserably. Only $8 mln in sales. Total disaster which has tarnished the value of the Afrezza franchise and TS technology. FYI: Perception is reality when the optics are sooooo bad. Yup full launch. Some mags, a few ads on google. Jesus man a you truly this retarded?
|
|
|
Post by mnkdmorelong on Jan 12, 2016 11:33:13 GMT -5
Yup full launch. Some mags, a few ads on google. Jesus man a you truly this retarded? Who is retarded? SNY spent $400 mln on the launch. If you know anything about pharma, the sell is to the doc who writes the scripts. DTC is to get the patients to talk to the doc about a new drug.
|
|
|
Post by kbrion77 on Jan 12, 2016 11:34:14 GMT -5
The pivotal point in the US Civil War was the battle of Gettysburg and specifically Pickett's charge. General Lee sent a brigade (12k men) directly against the Union center lead by General Pickett. The charge failed so badly (over 50% Confederate losses) that the grey coats withdrew back to Virginia. The same is true with Afrezza. SNY did a full launch and expected the early adopters to demand Afrezza. Who cares if it cost more? I want Afrezza! This happened to a very limited degree. As the market pushed back on SNY, they tried some DTC ads in magazines. There was no response to the ads. Zero! I think it was then that SNY gave up. What we saw as spotty marketing in the last few months was a manifestation of SNY doing as little as possible. Similar to General Lee, SNY withdrew back to Paris, so to speak, and waiting for the first opportunity to dump MNKD. My point is that SNY started with a full launch and ended up in full retreat. It was not just a marketing study. how do you know what Sanofi expected or what their plan was? Do you know what was discussed with Mannkind prior to the CEO getting fired and if the plan remained the same after the NEW CEO took over? You have no clue what Sanofi decided to do or not to do. I don't either. But what we do know is that their so called full launch was weak and would have never been done with any drug the company developed themselves. Their launch was one of trepidation and half measures when compared to other full launches. I just don't think Sanofi wanted to continue to spend the time, resources and money on a product (which they only own 65%) that still has many hurdles to overcome and a very slow sales ramp up. Their existing diabetes portfolio is already seeing a decline so their primary focus needs to be on that and quite frankly Afrezza was probably more of a threat to their existing portfolio than a benefit. I still believe the strategy changed when Viehbacher was canned, he was extremely innovative and wanted to take the company in a new direction while it seems this current CEO is sticking to their existing business units.
|
|
|
Post by goyocafe on Jan 12, 2016 11:39:27 GMT -5
Yup full launch. Some mags, a few ads on google. Jesus man a you truly this retarded? Who is retarded? SNY spent $400 mln on the launch. If you know anything about pharma, the sell is to the doc who writes the scripts. DTC is to get the patients to talk to the doc about a new drug. After a year of marketing, how many doctors know anything about Afrezza? Can anyone answer this question? There seems to be a lot of dispute over this, but from what I've heard Matt say and others on this board (albeit anecdotal), a whole lot of them still don't know a thing about it. Look at the compiled list of prescribing doctors, it amounts to about 100. If you even double that number for lack of complete information gathering on our boards, that is a paltry number. If SNY spent $400 MM getting doctors on board, they have a lousy process no matter how you slice it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2016 11:39:53 GMT -5
Yup full launch. Some mags, a few ads on google. Jesus man a you truly this retarded? Who is retarded? SNY spent $400 mln on the launch. If you know anything about pharma, the sell is to the doc who writes the scripts. DTC is to get the patients to talk to the doc about a new drug. And how much was spent on Exburea? Please. Can you honestly say a full launch contains no TV or radio advertising? A full launch it was not!
|
|
|
Post by mnkdmorelong on Jan 12, 2016 11:43:54 GMT -5
how do you know what Sanofi expected or what their plan was? Do you know what was discussed with Mannkind prior to the CEO getting fired and if the plan remained the same after the NEW CEO took over? You have no clue what Sanofi decided to do or not to do. I don't either. But what we do know is that their so called full launch was weak and would have never been done with any drug the company developed themselves. Their launch was one of trepidation and half measures when compared to other full launches. Let's make this simple as we can argue until the cows come home. The OP said that SNY's intent was just to get marketing data on Afrezza. Meaning, how to market Afrezza. I contend that SNY fully launched Afrezza with intent to gain revenue. SNY did not intend to just get marketing data. The fact that the launch failed brings into question the quality of the launch. This is true. But the failure in no way changes the original intent from revenue growth to just marketing data.One cannot change one's horse in the middle of the stream.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdmorelong on Jan 12, 2016 11:46:16 GMT -5
Who is retarded? SNY spent $400 mln on the launch. If you know anything about pharma, the sell is to the doc who writes the scripts. DTC is to get the patients to talk to the doc about a new drug. And how much was spent on Exburea? Please. Can you honestly say a full launch contains no TV or radio advertising? A full launch it was not! Yes, I can say a full launch does not need to contain TV or radio, or print ads! How many drugs are launched each year? How many of these drugs use media advertising?
|
|