I had an interesting conversation with an industry researcher today. He asked me whether pharma’s sales reps would ever be replaced by _________ (you can fill in the blank; for example, “medical science liaisons” or “technology”).
I am emphatic about my belief that medical science liaisons should not replace pharma’s sales representatives as “the sales force of the future.” Same goes for technology. In fact, the better our technology, the more our customers desire for human interaction. How many of us have complained about how long it takes us to “speak to a real person” when we call a business for support?
Yet there is a reasonable basis for all this talk about “fearing for the future of pharma’s sales reps.” Using my previous example, I’d love to speak to a real person when I call up a business with my question. However, I will be gravely irritated if that real person wasted my time by not being able to answer my questions, or only read off a script. We all can remember some of those times when we could tell that the answer was being read off. Getting “market message dumps” is what doctors are irritated with when surveyed about their satisfaction with pharma reps.
Yes, pharmaceutical sales representatives are in a tough position because they are working in an industry with poor repute, trying to see physicians too busy to give ill-prepared reps the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think technology can replace human intelligence. In general, a rep’s scientific competence can only be as effective as the company’s clinical training techniques.
The backlash we’ve seen from the medical community speaks more about the quality of training in today’s pharmaceutical companies for the people they hire than about the reps themselves. As far as I’m concerned, most reps who work in this industry genuinely believe they can help make a difference and want to do what’s best for the patient.
{ 1 trackback }