|
|
Post by swanybuaya on Dec 8, 2016 14:39:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by nadathing on Dec 8, 2016 15:08:39 GMT -5
Please don't start this here. It belongs on the YMB.
|
|
|
|
Post by nylefty on Dec 8, 2016 15:38:42 GMT -5
Double the costs mentioned (for 30 second ads), since a 60 second ad would be required to paint both a positive picture of Afrezza and include all the FDA required warnings. |
|
|
|
Post by swanybuaya on Dec 8, 2016 15:53:24 GMT -5
Please don't start this here. It belongs on the YMB. What? An informative article? |
|
|
|
Post by tingtongtung on Dec 8, 2016 16:11:01 GMT -5
Sure.. Take out an ad for the one and only THE "swanybubububububuayaaaaaaaaaaa" on proboards.. In advance: Dude, lighten up.. Just a joke |
|
|
|
Post by mannmade on Dec 8, 2016 18:27:33 GMT -5
Ok I will bite...
Can we all just agree this is a non starter of a conversation for a whole lot of reason stated over the last two years around this time. For one thing along with production costs each spot is likely to cost around 500k per :30 in media time, second it will be judged against the production value of some pretty clever and highly produced spots.
Secondly, Afrezza is not a well known product and awareness alone is not enough for a product like AFREZZA. There needs to be a succinct message that both informs and educates the targeted consumers. Unfortunately under the current FDA label there is nothing we can say that is either informative enough about the real qualities of AFREZZA or succinct.
If anyone cares to look it up I posted a basic media strategy that in my opinion would be a lot more cost effective and go a lot further in supporting the right message and reaching the right audience.
Lastly I would rather see Afrezza over the 17 days of the Olympics than the one day and 1 spot of the SB. While some Rx meds do advertise in the SB it is generally a vanity effort. The SB is for consumer goods which are the low hanging fruit of he media business mostly commoditized categories like beer and mobile which is why they focus so much on trying to be cute, clever and entertaining.
Just my two cents...
|
|
|
|
Post by bioexec25 on Dec 8, 2016 18:42:49 GMT -5
All logical. Just picturing a love at first site scenario. A seed, a flash connection with current state frustration. Sometimes a relaunch or republish can start a renaissance if timing is right.
|
|
|
|
Post by nylefty on Dec 8, 2016 19:38:40 GMT -5
Ok I will bite... Can we all just agree this is a non starter of a conversation for a whole lot of reason stated over the last two years around this time. For one thing along with production costs each spot is likely to cost around 500k per :30 in media time, second it will be judged against the production value of some pretty clever and highly produced spots. Secondly, Afrezza is not a well known product and awareness alone is not enough for a product like AFREZZA. There needs to be a succinct message that both informs and educates the targeted consumers. Unfortunately under the current FDA label there is nothing we can say that is either informative enough about the real qualities of AFREZZA or succinct. If anyone cares to look it up I posted a basic media strategy that in my opinion would be a lot more cost effective and go a lot further in supporting the right message and reaching the right audience. Lastly I would rather see Afrezza over the 17 days of the Olympics than the one day and 1 spot of the SB. While some Rx meds do advertise in the SB it is generally a vanity effort. The SB is for consumer goods which are the low hanging fruit of he media business mostly commoditized categories like beer and mobile which is why they focus so much on trying to be cute, clever and entertaining. More or less agree with your post, but unless I'm missing something you seem to be saying that a 30 second SuperBowl ad would only cost 500 K for the media time. The correct number is 5 million, just for 30 seconds of air time -- and an ad for Afrezza would require 60 seconds, not 30. |
|
|
|
Post by mannmade on Dec 8, 2016 23:19:22 GMT -5
My bad I meant 5 millon... You are absolutely right. Good catch! At 500K I might recommend...  Thanks Lefty! |
|
|
|
Post by boomboom on Dec 9, 2016 0:42:29 GMT -5
I am more of a proponent now of getting largely followed advocates/patients on social media for promotion. After seeing the Damon Dash video, its incredible that in 24hrs 24000 people instantly became aware of an inhaled insulin and potentially another 220000 that are following him.
I always knew it, but never felt it until i saw that happen. Yes superbowl reaches billions at once, but this was...free
|
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Dec 9, 2016 0:54:18 GMT -5
Yes superbowl reaches billions at once, but this was...free No, it doesn't. That's a myth. The below is from 2011. But with football ratings in crash mode (e.g. “Monday Night Football” ratings are down 20% this year), it may be an overestimate of the actual audience. Still, safe to say that it would reach many 10s of millions of viewers. --- The myth comes from the fact that the Super Bowl is broadcast to around 225 countries with about one billion people in those countries having access to the broadcast. This quickly got misconstrued by the media to: “the Super Bowl will be seen by over a billion people in 225 countries”. So how many people actually watch the Super Bowl? In recent years, that amount has varied from around 80-100 million people. That’s extremely impressive, but perhaps less so on a global scale when you consider that an estimated 98% of those viewers are from North America, with about 97% of that amount coming from the United States. Meaning, it would seem, at least as far as ratings are concerned, the networks are wasting their time broadcasting the game to the other 224+ countries, considering only a couple million people outside of North America watch the game every year. |
|
|
|
Post by boomboom on Dec 9, 2016 11:20:55 GMT -5
Very nice info! And thanks for correcting that misconception! It actually strengthens the social media argument versus a super bowl ad (by 2 orders of magnitude) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2016 11:59:35 GMT -5
The obvious - advertising puts out the company message/product in front of potential clients. As people become aware of the product, the potential for sales goes up. If nobody knows about it, who's going to buy it?!
The less obvious - advertising doesn't have the bang it used to have in decades past so just simply getting the word out doesn't equate to sales.
The mystery: More than a few hundred people (current users/script count) know about afrezza, no? At the very least, the thousands or so of diabetics that participated in the many trials over the years, clearly they know about the product. The docs that attended the two/three ADA's since afrezza has been approved, clearly they know about it. All the people that followed exubera likely knew about afrezza as there was a lot of buzz about both when exubera was approved by the FDA. There's 2600 members on this board - clearly they know about it. Anyone who has ever read a MF, AF, or SA article on mnkd knows about it. All the participants in the adcom process including the 24 or so medical professionals - they all know about it. So - here's my point - if at least thousands upon thousands know about it, why are sales where they are now after two years? Is it because "nobody knows about it" or is it because of something(s) else? IMO, the answer is it's because it's something else, and, if that's true then it's not in mnkd's best interest at this point to spend much needed money on ads and marketing. What needs to be solved is why the thousands upon thousands that DO know about afrezza aren't all on it right now.
I've always said, if you can't take care of a dollar you can't take care of a million of them. MNKD needs to solve why they can't sell to those that already know of afrezza. Advertising to more people won't solve the problem they currently face - why are those diabetics that DO know about afrezza not buying into the mnkd story?!
I follow (but not post on) diabetic forums. What I've noticed is a lack of interest in learning how to handle afrezza (overload of process and the idea of learning yet another new process is just to much to handle), a concern over lungs, concern over costs and lack of coverage, and a lack of support from their endo. I have no doubt that the competition is doing whatever they can to keep afrezza under lock and key. How is mnkd to deal with all that? It's not as simple as doing more advertising. And regardless of what management says (their words are useless at this point), the numbers all around are dismal and showing no signs of making a meaningful turn, imo. So how does mnkd solve the underlying problems?! It won't be through advertising.
|
|
|
|
Post by nylefty on Dec 9, 2016 12:25:07 GMT -5
(snip) I follow (but not post on) diabetic forums. What I've noticed is a lack of interest in learning how to handle afrezza (overload of process and the idea of learning yet another new process is just to much to handle), a concern over lungs, concern over costs and lack of coverage, and a lack of support from their endo. I have no doubt that the competition is doing whatever they can to keep afrezza under lock and key. How is mnkd to deal with all that? It's not as simple as doing more advertising. And regardless of what management says (their words are useless at this point), the numbers all around are dismal and showing no signs of making a meaningful turn, imo. So how does mnkd solve the underlying problems?! It won't be through advertising.You make some good points. Millions saw the Afrezza advertising last year in Time, Good Housekeeping, Family Circle, and all the diabetes magazines. It wasn't very good advertising, partly or mostly because of the FDA restrictions, but the claim that nobody knows about Afrezza is just untrue. A better explanation is that not enough people know about the real benefits of Afrezza and how to use it properly. |
|
|
|
Post by madog365 on Dec 9, 2016 12:39:23 GMT -5
The obvious - advertising puts out the company message/product in front of potential clients. As people become aware of the product, the potential for sales goes up. If nobody knows about it, who's going to buy it?! The less obvious - advertising doesn't have the bang it used to have in decades past so just simply getting the word out doesn't equate to sales. The mystery: More than a few hundred people (current users/script count) know about afrezza, no? At the very least, the thousands or so of diabetics that participated in the many trials over the years, clearly they know about the product. The docs that attended the two/three ADA's since afrezza has been approved, clearly they know about it. All the people that followed exubera likely knew about afrezza as there was a lot of buzz about both when exubera was approved by the FDA. There's 2600 members on this board - clearly they know about it. Anyone who has ever read a MF, AF, or SA article on mnkd knows about it. All the participants in the adcom process including the 24 or so medical professionals - they all know about it. So - here's my point - if at least thousands upon thousands know about it, why are sales where they are now after two years? Is it because "nobody knows about it" or is it because of something(s) else? IMO, the answer is it's because it's something else, and, if that's true then it's not in mnkd's best interest at this point to spend much needed money on ads and marketing. What needs to be solved is why the thousands upon thousands that DO know about afrezza aren't all on it right now. I've always said, if you can't take care of a dollar you can't take care of a million of them. MNKD needs to solve why they can't sell to those that already know of afrezza. Advertising to more people won't solve the problem they currently face - why are those diabetics that DO know about afrezza not buying into the mnkd story?! I follow (but not post on) diabetic forums. What I've noticed is a lack of interest in learning how to handle afrezza (overload of process and the idea of learning yet another new process is just to much to handle), a concern over lungs, concern over costs and lack of coverage, and a lack of support from their endo. I have no doubt that the competition is doing whatever they can to keep afrezza under lock and key. How is mnkd to deal with all that? It's not as simple as doing more advertising. And regardless of what management says (their words are useless at this point), the numbers all around are dismal and showing no signs of making a meaningful turn, imo. So how does mnkd solve the underlying problems?! It won't be through advertising. You make some really good points and they probably deserve their own thread for thoughtful discussion. I don't have the time to fully respond but wanted to add one point that i think has been overlooked when thinking about why many patients stop taking afrezza completely while others are willing to shout about its effectiveness from the mountaintops. There variance in product experience is definitely something that needs to be looked at. This is just my opinion but one similarity i have noticed between all the successful afrezza users was that they all have a CGM pretty much. Here is a quote from tudiabetes: "Seriously you kinda have to unlearn the regimented stuff you do with novolog/humalog, carb counting, and all that. If I do take novolog with it then I do have to estimate carbs. There's a big margin for error though, you just have to get in the ballpark. I can't imagine doing it without a cgm though. Maybe that's why I almost gave up on my first try until I got my Dexcom. My precious...." Obviously improper titration was a big issue that Mannkind has been trying to tackle, no doubt that plays a role. But without CGM i think the incredible benefit of real time action of afrezza is being lost to many and they revert to familiar medications. |
|
Thanks Lefty!
