|
Post by greg on Jan 12, 2016 11:48:37 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. You really ought to stay away from numbers. First you had that ridiculous $500 million in revenues to breakeven. Now it's $400 mln on the launch. $200 million was upfront and milestone payments. Exclude all of the other non-marketing costs and you'll come up with a more meaningful number for what was actually spent on making the launch a success. Anyway, you're now the second person on ignore. It's always good to know what others are thinking but almost everything you've posted shows that doesn't apply to you.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 12, 2016 11:51:05 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. 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. I doubt any of us can. I suspect MNKD might not even be able to. I'm pretty certain Goldman Sachs would have some precise data for you.
|
|
|
Post by taylor810dn on Jan 12, 2016 11:51:14 GMT -5
The only thing "full" about the launch is that it was "full of it" as compared to a dedicated and committed launch.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2016 11:52:47 GMT -5
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? When you're competing in the diabetes space. Come on! How to differentiate your product? Limit it to a few mags. Avoiding social media, tv, radio. Afrezza is considered a paradigm shift in diabetic care. An equally impressive FULL launch should have taken place. But DID NOT.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2016 11:55:14 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. You really ought to stay away from numbers. First you had that ridiculous $500 million in revenues to breakeven. Now it's $400 mln on the launch. $200 million was upfront and milestone payments. Exclude all of the other non-marketing costs and you'll come up with a more meaningful number for what was actually spent on making the launch a success. Anyway, you're now the second person on ignore. It's always good to know what others are thinking but almost everything you've posted shows that doesn't apply to you. Greg. Mannkindlong is probably one of his various aliases here. My god only here 3 weeks and already 3 stars. This board has been great but could use colon cleanse occasionally!
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Jan 12, 2016 12:02:44 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.
Your point that Sanofi started with a full launch is contradicted by Sanofi themselves in their 2014 presentation laying out their initial commercialization strategy (aka Phase 1) for Afrezza.
By their own admission, Sanofi's target was patients with early diabetes who either needed insulin initiation or insulin intensification. These are facts, which have been presented by Sanofi.
Sanofi's multi-$million commercialization efforts did NOT target existing prandial users. Most of the excellent results you hear by Type 1 diabetics like Sam & Eric were the result of social media and NO Sanofi marketing whatsoever toward that population, whether you consider it directed at the endos or the patients.
In this respect, perhaps your analogy of Pickett's charge is a fair representation of what happened:
- Sanofi targeted the CHEAPEST diabetes treatment - oral anti diabetes (OAD) medications
- Sanofi overpriced Afrezza (30%-50% premium to RAA insulin) - any wonder 3rd Party Payers refused to cover?
- Sanofi did NOT target existing prandial users - they didn't even meet with them until last month!
If Sanofi wanted 3rd Party Payer reimbursement for Afrezza, then they chose the absolute WORST target to go after, pitting $285/month Afrezza against $4 to $100/month metformin in their initial commercialization.
If Sanofi wanted patient acceptance for Afrezza, then they chose the absolute WORST target to go after, which are the early diabetics who are resistant to the idea of having to start insulin therapy. Both MannKind and Sanofi may have thought that excluding the needle from the equation would make all the difference.
We'll probably never know, because there was no way health plans would approved prescribing early diabetics to basal+prandial when the prandial in question - Afrezza - has not been empirically proven to be superior, yet carries a 50% premium price tag.
Sanofi's "Pickett Charge" hit a brick wall. Instead of realizing they should re-direct and attack the RAA-injectables market with a comparable or lower pricing strategy, MannKind's ally chose to retreat and set sail back to France.
---
I think that Sanofi's strategy of targeting early diabetics may have actually succeeded (assuming, that is, Sanofi wanted Afrezza to succeed) if they had immediately initiated a superiority study and had priced Afrezza correctly. Without any clear proof of superiority over RAA insulin, they chose the worst strategy possible of trying to convince skeptical 3rd Party Payers convert patients from cheap OAD treatments to an inhaled insulin therapy that cost 10x-30x what metformin costs and 50% more than the cost of existing prandials.
Flawed pricing guaranteed failure. No amount of needle-phobia will convince 3rd Party Payers to assign Tier 2 coverage to Afrezza at its current price. Patients, even those who are deathly afraid of needles, chose to stick with orals rather than have to pay that much money out of their own pockets.
There's more to the story, and Alfred Mann fits into it as well, but the bottom line, IMHO, is that demand for Afrezza never materialized because Sanofi's initial commercialization strategy for Afrezza was deeply flawed, virtually guaranteeing that Sanofi CEO Olivier Brandicourt would pull the plug. He did.
---
You simply cannot fix a situation where you have a bad product with poor marketing strategy (Exubera).
But you can easily fix a situation where you have a terrific product that was poorly marketing (Afrezza).
---
My failure in all of this was in not listening to those who advocated that Sanofi is NOT the best at launching diabetes drugs. They did it right with Lantus, but have failed many times since.
Some say that Sanofi has tainted Afrezza's name. I suggest that another pharmaceutical company may win the prize because, frankly, Sanofi never got Afrezza's name out into the market in any meaningful fashion. Not even close.
|
|
|
Post by mindovermatter on Jan 12, 2016 12:04:51 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. 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. first, you are right. Many doctors never heard of it. Pharmacists too. And people have to remember that $400 million people throw around includes more than half of that going to MNKD in payments. That's not money for marketing or sales.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2016 12:06:40 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.
Your point that Sanofi started with a full launch is contradicted by Sanofi themselves in their 2014 presentation laying out their initial commercialization strategy.
By their own admission, Sanofi's target was patients with early diabetes who either needed insulin initiation or insulin intensification. These are facts, which have been presented by Sanofi.
Sanofi did NOT target existing prandial users. Most of the excellent results you hear by Type 1 diabetics like Sam & Eric were the result of social media and NOT and Sanofi marketing whatsoever, whether you consider it directed at the endos or the patients.
In this respect, perhaps your analogy of Pickett's charge is a fair representation of what happened:
- Sanofi targeted the CHEAPEST diabetes treatment - oral anti diabetes (OAD) medications
- Sanofi overpriced Afrezza (30%-50% premium to RAA insulin) - any wonder 3rd Party Payers refused to cover?
- Sanofi did NOT target existing prandial users - they didn't even meet with them until last month!
If Sanofi wanted 3rd Party Payer reimbursement for Afrezza, then they chose the absolute WORST target to go after, pitting $285/month Afrezza against $4 to $100/month metformin in their initial commercialization.
If Sanofi wanted patient acceptance for Afrezza, then they chose the absolute WORST target to go after, which are the early diabetics who are resistant to the idea of having to start insulin therapy. Both MannKind and Sanofi may have thought that excluding the needle from the equation would make all the difference.
We'll probably never know, because there was no way health plans would approved prescribing early diabetics to basal+prandial when the prandial in question - Afrezza - has not been empirically proven to be superior, yet carries a 50% premium price tag.
Sanofi's "Pickett Charge" hit a brick wall. Instead of realizing they should re-direct and attack the RAA-injectables market with a comparable or lower pricing strategy, MannKind's ally chose to retreat and set sail back to France.
---
I think that Sanofi's strategy of targeting early diabetics may have actually succeeded (assuming, that is, Sanofi wanted Afrezza to succeed) if they had immediately initiated a superiority study and had priced Afrezza correctly. Without any clear proof of superiority over RAA insulin, they chose the worst strategy possible of trying to convince skeptical 3rd Party Payers convert patients from cheap OAD treatments to an inhaled insulin therapy that cost 10x-30x what metformin costs and 50% more than the cost of existing prandials.
Flawed pricing guaranteed failure. No amount of needle-phobia will convince 3rd Party Payers to assign Tier 2 coverage to Afrezza at its current price. Patients, even those who are deathly afraid of needles, chose to stick with orals rather than have to pay that much money out of their own pockets.
There's more to the story, and Alfred Mann fits into it as well, but the bottom line, IMHO, is that demand for Afrezza never materialized because Sanofi's initial commercialization strategy for Afrezza was deeply flawed, virtually guaranteeing that Sanofi CEO Olivier Brandicourt would pull the plug. He did.
---
You simply cannot fix a situation where you have a bad product with poor marketing strategy (Exubera).
But you can easily fix a situation where you have a terrific product that was poorly marketing (Afrezza).
---
My failure in all of this was in not listening to those who advocated that Sanofi is NOT the best at launching diabetes drugs. They did it right with Lantus, but have failed many times since.
Some say that Sanofi has tainted Afrezza's name. I suggest that another pharmaceutical company may win the prize because, frankly, Sanofi never got Afrezza's name out into the market in any meaningful fashion. Not even close.
Wait for it. Here comes the your so wrong rebuttal. Oh lordy.
|
|
|
Post by mindovermatter on Jan 12, 2016 12:08:04 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. 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. I wouldn't be surprised if Sanofi's attempted to buy MNKD for a figure that Al was not willing to sell it for and that Sanofi realized it didn't make sense to spend money on something they would only get 65% for. And SNY diabetes business is in a tail spin. AFrezza wasn't going to help it without cannibalizing it.
|
|
|
Post by mindovermatter on Jan 12, 2016 12:10:21 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. How much of that $400 million was given to MNKD in up front and milestone payments?
|
|
|
Post by mnkdmorelong on Jan 12, 2016 12:13:52 GMT -5
You really ought to stay away from numbers. First you had that ridiculous $500 million in revenues to breakeven. Now it's $400 mln on the launch. $200 million was upfront and milestone payments. Exclude all of the other non-marketing costs and you'll come up with a more meaningful number for what was actually spent on making the launch a success. Anyway, you're now the second person on ignore. It's always good to know what others are thinking but almost everything you've posted shows that doesn't apply to you. Greg. Mannkindlong is probably one of his various aliases here. My god only here 3 weeks and already 3 stars. This board has been great but could use colon cleanse occasionally! This Board could use a dose of reality. The Afrezza Luddites want to whitewash the failure of Afrezza and blame SNY. Anyone who breaks the cocoon of invincibility you have on AFrezza is demonized. The failure of Afrezza is complex and there is plenty of blame to go around. But to say SNY only wanted Afrezza marketing data in 2015 so they could do the launch right is pure BS. And then SNY terminates the contract after acquiring the data they need at a cost of $400 mln. Does this make any sense?
|
|
|
Post by mindovermatter on Jan 12, 2016 12:21:26 GMT -5
Greg. Mannkindlong is probably one of his various aliases here. My god only here 3 weeks and already 3 stars. This board has been great but could use colon cleanse occasionally! This Board could use a dose of reality. The Afrezza Luddites want to whitewash the failure of Afrezza and blame SNY. Anyone who breaks the cocoon of invincibility you have on AFrezza is demonized. The failure of Afrezza is complex and there is plenty of blame to go around. But to say SNY only wanted Afrezza marketing data in 2015 so they could do the launch right is pure BS. And then SNY terminates the contract after acquiring the data they need at a cost of $400 mln. Does this make any sense? It does makes sense. You have made your point. Why not move on to another stock that you feel is more worthy to discuss as you have made it crystal clear that you believe Mannkind is toast? No sense in beating a dead dreamboat, right? Let those who don't agree with you continue to post their nonsense. You'll never be able to convince of your view point. BTW, no message board ever engages in reality. You must want to be a Don Quixote trying to make sense of senseless message boards.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdmorelong on Jan 12, 2016 12:28:13 GMT -5
The pivotal point in the US Civil War was the battle of Gettysburg and specifically Pickett's charge. General Lee sent a brigade (12k men) directly against the Union center lead by General Pickett. The charge failed so badly (over 50% Confederate losses) that the grey coats withdrew back to Virginia. The same is true with Afrezza. SNY did a full launch and expected the early adopters to demand Afrezza. Who cares if it cost more? I want Afrezza! This happened to a very limited degree. As the market pushed back on SNY, they tried some DTC ads in magazines. There was no response to the ads. Zero! I think it was then that SNY gave up. What we saw as spotty marketing in the last few months was a manifestation of SNY doing as little as possible. Similar to General Lee, SNY withdrew back to Paris, so to speak, and waiting for the first opportunity to dump MNKD. My point is that SNY started with a full launch and ended up in full retreat. It was not just a marketing study.
Your point that Sanofi started with a full launch is contradicted by Sanofi themselves in their 2014 presentation laying out their initial commercialization strategy (aka Phase 1) for Afrezza.
By their own admission, Sanofi's target was patients with early diabetes who either needed insulin initiation or insulin intensification. These are facts, which have been presented by Sanofi.
Sanofi's multi-$million commercialization efforts did NOT target existing prandial users. Most of the excellent results you hear by Type 1 diabetics like Sam & Eric were the result of social media and NO Sanofi marketing whatsoever toward that population, whether you consider it directed at the endos or the patients.
In this respect, perhaps your analogy of Pickett's charge is a fair representation of what happened:
- Sanofi targeted the CHEAPEST diabetes treatment - oral anti diabetes (OAD) medications
- Sanofi overpriced Afrezza (30%-50% premium to RAA insulin) - any wonder 3rd Party Payers refused to cover?
- Sanofi did NOT target existing prandial users - they didn't even meet with them until last month!
If Sanofi wanted 3rd Party Payer reimbursement for Afrezza, then they chose the absolute WORST target to go after, pitting $285/month Afrezza against $4 to $100/month metformin in their initial commercialization.
If Sanofi wanted patient acceptance for Afrezza, then they chose the absolute WORST target to go after, which are the early diabetics who are resistant to the idea of having to start insulin therapy. Both MannKind and Sanofi may have thought that excluding the needle from the equation would make all the difference.
We'll probably never know, because there was no way health plans would approved prescribing early diabetics to basal+prandial when the prandial in question - Afrezza - has not been empirically proven to be superior, yet carries a 50% premium price tag.
Sanofi's "Pickett Charge" hit a brick wall. Instead of realizing they should re-direct and attack the RAA-injectables market with a comparable or lower pricing strategy, MannKind's ally chose to retreat and set sail back to France.
---
I think that Sanofi's strategy of targeting early diabetics may have actually succeeded (assuming, that is, Sanofi wanted Afrezza to succeed) if they had immediately initiated a superiority study and had priced Afrezza correctly. Without any clear proof of superiority over RAA insulin, they chose the worst strategy possible of trying to convince skeptical 3rd Party Payers convert patients from cheap OAD treatments to an inhaled insulin therapy that cost 10x-30x what metformin costs and 50% more than the cost of existing prandials.
Flawed pricing guaranteed failure. No amount of needle-phobia will convince 3rd Party Payers to assign Tier 2 coverage to Afrezza at its current price. Patients, even those who are deathly afraid of needles, chose to stick with orals rather than have to pay that much money out of their own pockets.
There's more to the story, and Alfred Mann fits into it as well, but the bottom line, IMHO, is that demand for Afrezza never materialized because Sanofi's initial commercialization strategy for Afrezza was deeply flawed, virtually guaranteeing that Sanofi CEO Olivier Brandicourt would pull the plug. He did.
---
You simply cannot fix a situation where you have a bad product with poor marketing strategy (Exubera).
But you can easily fix a situation where you have a terrific product that was poorly marketing (Afrezza).
---
My failure in all of this was in not listening to those who advocated that Sanofi is NOT the best at launching diabetes drugs. They did it right with Lantus, but have failed many times since.
Some say that Sanofi has tainted Afrezza's name. I suggest that another pharmaceutical company may win the prize because, frankly, Sanofi never got Afrezza's name out into the market in any meaningful fashion. Not even close.
It is known fact that many T2 continue on orals or Meformin when they should be on insulin but couldn't stand the needle. This was highlighted at the AdCom. Attacking the T2 market first made sense as is an unmet need. Weather this is right or wrong, MNKD signed onto it otherwise SNY would not have been the partner. Many posters on this Board want to vilify SNY. I do not defend SNY. My only point which seems to have gotten lost is that SNY's intent at the get go was to sell Afrezza for revenue. It was not a marketing study. It was not a limited pre-sale launch as stated by the OP. Let's use Pickett's charge as an example. General Lee sent his men into the Union center to create a breach. He wanted to kill as many Union soldiers as possible. After the charge failed so profoundly, General Lee could not claim his intent was to only determine the strength of the Union center, and not to engage fully. It is this BS when applied to SNY that I am writing against.
|
|
|
Post by lorcan458 on Jan 12, 2016 12:31:03 GMT -5
It was absolutely not a full launch. Compare the number and seniority of reps selling Truejo to Afrezza and how many minutes per doctor they spent talking about each. Compare the number and cost of television commercials for Truejo and Afrezza.
|
|
|
Post by dictatorsaurus on Jan 12, 2016 12:34:37 GMT -5
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? Considering insulin ads are playing day and night on TV, it's safe to say a new insulin products also needs media advertising.
|
|