Our Q1 2012 Industry Insights in available here for your review. Our topic is a snapshot view of dentists and dental practices, with an eye toward patient type changes over the past three years. One interesting finding to note is that dentists overwhelmingly look to continuing education (85% of our sample) as a preferred source of industry trend information.
We all know that cost reigns supreme in lots of things, and market research is no different. For standard projects of implementation, fielding, and delivering results, clients justifiably shop around based on cost. This can be a slippery slope for market research suppliers, who can get caught in the trap of trying to compete solely on cost, and by doing so, inadvertently downplay the value they bring to clients. The adage “you get what you pay for” is true, however it doesn’t carry the same weight in all purchase decisions. The more what you are paying for is objectified, the less differentiation there is between options, and thus the more price becomes a compelling factor. If you need to buy a pair of scissors, the dollar store version will probably suffice. However, if you need a haircut, price probably shouldn’t be your most important factor.
Online data collection has become so mainstream that collecting data in this manner is quite commonplace. And, because online research platforms available are so capable, for the most part, there is not much differentiation between providers. This has resulted in a real “commoditization” of the online data collection capability, where many suppliers can provide this service, and all at a high or at least acceptable level of quality and speed, and as a result costs are driven downward. When factors such as quality and speed cease to be differentiators, there is a great leveling of the playing field, and the opportunity to add value through this activity becomes minimized. It no longer becomes viable to compete on these factors, since everyone can deliver. So, in order to set yourself apart as a preferred supplier of market research, companies need to look for ways to show value in other areas.
In a simplified equation, market research can be defined as:
Access + Data Collection + Insights = Value
As stated above, Data Collection is largely a commodity. So, firms must compete by adding value in either the Access or Insights. One can argue that there also is a fair degree of commoditization around Access. The proliferation, ubiquity and sheer volume of online sample has made this so. However, projects continue to become more targeted, especially in the healthcare market research space. Access is being redefined to mean not only a broad representation of the target market, but pinpoint accuracy to target individuals with specific characteristics within a specialty group. An example of this could be: Oncologists in large group practice who see “x” amount of patients with condition “y” who have already failed on a first-line therapy. Suddenly having access to US oncologists no longer fits the bill. With this degree of hyper-specialization, market research suppliers with targeted sample access have room to stand out from the crowd.
The same can be said about the third portion of the equation, Insights. Every day research providers distinguish themselves from competitors by delivering insightful and actionable recommendations for clients. It can be argued that Insights is the area in which the most value can be added. However, the amount of value you can add in Insights can be limited by the type of client you service. Many clients with internal research resources do not rely on their market research vendors to deliver insights. Thus, if you have clients who fall into this category, the Access portion of your equation becomes even more important.
In short, to thrive in today’s market research arena, suppliers must be sure they are adding value where it counts, by possessing superior Access or by delivering on actionable Insights.
Jan 312012
Just how autonomous are physicians when it comes to prescribing medications to patients? How much do external factors come into play when doctors are determining a drug therapy? These are the questions ORG explored recently using its proprietary physician panel. Turns out there are a multitude of factors at play as well as a great variance of autonomy across physician specialties.
Some key findings:
–PCPs and those providing general care universally prescribe more generic medication and are more driven by established protocol in their choices of medication.
–Specialists operate under a higher degree of autonomy and witness less pressure to conform to standards of treatment approaches.
Protocols or treatment approaches can be instituted at the practice level by physician employers, as well as at the payer level. What is clear is that these guidelines do influence prescription activity, and pharmaceutical marketers would be well-served to first be aware of these influences, and second, understand how these factors impact their products and messaging.
