Showing posts with label reforms. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reforms. Show all posts

Tuesday, 3 June 2014

What's in a name: To what extent are new efforts to unbrand cigarettes going to reduce the number of smokers?

This article was written by Sofia Fionda and Alex Zaleski, both Research Executives at Branding Science, whose keen interest in blogging keeps them extra busy in between projects.


As people who work in branding and the healthcare industry, we at Branding Science found it interesting to hear that the UK Government is moving towards a ban on branded cigarette packets.

Why?

A few statistics:

If you are smoking 20 a day premium cigarettes, you are spending £2900 a year.

The total cost of treating diseases caused by smoking is £2.7 billion a year, while the total cost to society is £13.74 billion (this includes cleaning up the cigarette butts; the loss of productivity from cigarette breaks as well as increased sick time taken).

The treasury actually makes £9.5 billion from UK sales of cigarettes. Doing some simple math you can easily see that it costs more to deal with the problems associated with smoking than the government earns in tax from the tobacco industry. Clearly it is a financial imperative for the government to find a way to cut smoking rates.

But is there any evidence that de-branding cigarettes reduces the number of smokers?

Studies from Australia, where the ban has been in place since last year, have worrying results. Findings show that the amount of tobacco delivered to retailers has actually gone up since the ban because of a higher demand for roll up cigarettes due to ‘generic’ manufacturers producing cheaper tobacco. This means that the market now has a hole being filled with cheaper tobacco, and it may actually be increasing accessibility to cigarettes.

However, these studies should be taken with a pinch of salt for two main reasons. First, the data is short term. Second, according to how they’re presented in the British media, the studies appear to be sponsored by the tobacco industry.

But why would branding have any influence on cigarette usage in the first place, if all people want to do is smoke and get their nicotine hit?

Let’s look at Johnny, our hypothetical smoker. He had his first cigarette the day after his sixteenth birthday. His father was a smoker. He’d grown up handing the Marlboro man over to him and watching as his father puffed away. He was the youngest of three brothers who also smoked. Smoking was normal to Johnny. He knew from health classes that cigarettes were bad for you and even cringed over the blackened lungs his science teacher brought into class. But Johnny didn’t believe that could ever actually happen to him.

Why do kids like Johnny take up smoking, even though they are taught the risks associated with cigarettes? Why do adults who are also aware of the risks continue to smoke up to two packs a day?

While there are many socioeconomic reasons behind smoking, for the purposes of this article we will be examining the psychological theories behind why people choose to take up smoking, and how important brands are in driving people to start the habit.

Branding is one of the core forces that drives sales of any product. A branded product is immeasurably more valuable to a company than an unbranded one because it adds an emotional element to its physical and functional benefits.

So why do we like brands?

One theory is that brands help convey our own self-conceptions. For example, when you use your Apple laptop over a traditional PC computer, you feel innovative and forward thinking, almost like a Steve Jobs 2.0.

You might not actively praise yourself with these traits, but the undercurrent of meaning is nonetheless present. Interestingly, positive associations with brands is associated with psychological wellbeing.

Brands are not only important for perception of the self, but also to see how you belong in the larger social sphere. If you are the only one in your friendship group with a Samsung smartphone while everyone else has iPhones, you naturally feel like an outsider. If your aspiration is to belong to the group, then switching to an iPhone is going to meet those aspirations.

In Johnny’s case, the pack of Marlboro lights in his hand means that his aspiration of belonging to his family and friends is validated.

With this in mind, however, we ask you to open the discussion on the implications of unbranded cigarettes on smoking behaviour.


We’d love to hear your thoughts on this post!

Friday, 19 August 2011

Market access: Is the hurdle getting bigger?

Recently the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence chose not to live up to it's abbreviated moniker (NICE) when considering reimbursement for two new agents eagerly anticipated by both physicians and patients alike. Both agents are hailed as providing meaningful benefits to patients that go beyond just clinical efficacy in their therapy areas, Multiple Sclerosis and Metastatic Breast Cancer. (In the interests of neutrality I will not mention the products by name here!)

These products both secured European regulatory approval and have launched in other European markets. So, drugs launching in the UK seem to need more precise, more meaningful and more compelling evidence to secure reimbursement........oh yes....they also need to be dirt cheap!

With a raft of changes and reforms impacting the NHS, its structure and funding, including the introduction of GP consortia and the QIPP programme tasked with saving £20 Bn by 2014; are the barriers to market in the UK getting higher, more confused and less penetrable? What does this actually mean for pharmaceutical companies and brand teams looking to launch their value adding novel agent? How can brand and market access teams engage in a meaningful way with the right stakeholders in the right way?

These are all questions we have been thinking about here at Branding Science and identified some key areas of understanding that will benefit our Pharma clients.

Determining who the new stakeholders will be both during and after these reforms will enable brand teams to engage effectively and help leverage commissioning priorities in their favour.

Understanding how these reforms are interpreted by the different stakeholders and their potential impact on day-to-day practices will help anticipate the changes that will happen. This process will provide critical insights on the evolution brands have to achieve to resonate in their new environment.

Identifying the real life, underlying priorities of these reforms will enable our clients to focus their brand communications to areas of greatest importance. Eg. If the focus is cost, brands may need to communicate a strong value proposition. If the focus is innovation, client brands may need to show advancement and novelty against current services. Should the focus be the patient, then communicating meaningful patient outcomes and quality of life improvements will be key.

The point is that in a changing environment, it is important for everyone to understand what the reforms mean in real terms – and brand teams in particular have certainly a lot to gain by starting this process early! We’d love to hear your thoughts on the subject and likewise, work together to find the answers!

The author: Joe Gadilhe is Senior Research Executive at Branding Science. With experience across therapy areas, he has managed research projects exploring the views and opinions of payers and physicians in the UK and abroad.

Wednesday, 15 June 2011

NHS prescribing data to be published?

Did you spot this proposal, buried in a document only briefly referred to, in this year's Budget speech?

There are plans to make prescribing data public - on a practice-by-practice level.

It's all there in clause 2.200 on page 98 of "The Plan for Growth". Depending on what exactly is released, this could have enormous implications. Imagine that were to be published:

  • levels and trends in generic vs. branded medicine prescribing
  • regional variations in treatment pathways
  • extent of combination therapy use
  • local policy on management of niche conditions
  • high-prescribing vs. low-prescribing practices

There are concerns over the proposal, not least because it may mean de facto identification of individual GPs and patients (e.g. if a practice only has one patient with a particularly rare condition).

One to keep an eye on...


The Author: John Coulthard is Senior Research Executive at Branding Science and leading our business intelligence initiative around the NHS reforms