These have been inherent as mechanism for monitoring performance and often captured in the CRM system with the caveat that you can only have one model in place as that is what the system is designed to do! The questions from users always revert to why monitor us on something that doesn’t necessarily add value and only serves as a perceived performance metric on quantity rather than quality and outcome.

Let’s explore the approaches in a bit more depth, starting with Key Account Management (KAM). Some consider this a relatively new concept however the principle has been around for over 20 years and a subject studied with intent by Professor Malcolm McDonald from Cranfield University. Creating ten guidelines for profitable KAM, number one stands out as a big area for discussion, ‘understand that KAM is NOT Selling or Sales Force Management. A growing proportion of organisational revenue is coming from a few major customers, known in the business world as Key Accounts (KAs). These KAs MUST be treated differently and separated from your mainstream customer base and placed in a special programme. They cannot be managed by the traditional sales force. They need a totally different approach that looks after their needs and provides value for both organisations (you the supplier and the customer). Importantly, you MUST ensure the whole organisation understands KAM and the different approach it requires, as it is they who have to deliver KA value.1’ Is this where pharma comes unstuck? 

The focus is almost always on the customer facing teams in isolation and brand teams continue to focus on campaign execution. KAM is hindered by the complexities of structures that cover brand teams, business units or different customer facing teams with differing reporting lines, can one approach to key accounts happen, is the account concerned by which business unit you represent, or do they wish to have a more holistic company approach, this will differ based on breath of responsibility and decision making authority.

Perhaps a true KAM approach is suited to those with autonomy to make it happen without outside interference. McDonald goes on to talk about the optimal number of accounts being between 15 to 30, in previous reflections prioritisation has been a topic, are we brave enough to do nothing for some accounts. KAM is embedded in finding the win-win for both the account and the company, the commonality being the patient and a shared plan should exist to have a positive impact.

We started the KAM discussion stating this is not about sales force management, what really stands out from McDonald’s approach is that for a differentiated KAM to be successful there is a need for differentiated calibre of personnel. This is linked to prioritisation alongside account attractiveness from senior experienced managers with good project management skills, through to individuals with management skills and those with entrepreneurial flair. How does this align with what we see across the industry today?

Scatter gunning, the share of voice model. In contrast, this assesses the organisations performance through a brand lens versus the competition focused on a group of customers with the ability to make prescribing decisions on behalf of patients. Historically, the sales team were the primary channel for interacting with healthcare professionals (HCPs) based on an assumption that being exposed to messaging six times leads to understanding and nine times leading to advocacy, based on the theory of repetition. The more you put in the more you get out! This explains the importance of the KPIs around coverage and frequency alongside the reliance of third-party share of voice data based on small panels of HCPs. Share of voice tracking also captured investments in advertising, mailings and other channels where HCPs had exposure.

Where this differs heavily from KAM is the weight applied to a brand being the only solution, often through consistent and repetitive delivery brand key messages, aiming to achieve understanding and advocacy. With the emergence of more digital channels share of voice has become broader, amplified by the introduction of yet more small panels of customers rating their channel preference and likelihood to prescribe based on exposure. The share of voice approach has led to over half of UK pharma promotional effort being focussed on email over the last 3 years, yet this is a channel rated as least effective!

Is it time we move on from share of voice or is it engrained, easy to understand, easy to measure and an easy model to manage across the whole organisation. All of this at a time where customer experience is voiced as being one of the most important KPIs yet quantity comes first.

KAM and share of voice can co-exist if well thought through and based on shared customer needs embedded in a plan with clear actions to provide solutions for key customers and objectives across the wider account customer base. Where’s the limitation, it’s the technology to support this approach, it sits outside of the CRM solution making it more complex to monitor and follow-up. We know this coin will continue to be flipped, will it be heads or tails?

Article sources

1. Cranfield.ac.uk:  "Malcolm McDonald's Ten Guidelines for Profitable Key Account Management (cranfield.ac.uk)"
Accessed September 2024