Original Paper

Journal of Generic Medicines

2014, Vol. 11(1–2) 64–72

Branding of new and generic/biosimilar ! The Author(s) 2014

Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
products: New concepts and methods DOI: 10.1177/1741134314542539
jgm.sagepub.com
(in-depth qualitative study)

Alex Kudrin

Abstract
This mixed research design is based on qualitative analysis of secondary data from publicly available cor-
porate material and primary data collected via comprehensive in-depth interviewing of 28 experts, spending
approximately 42 h of face-to-face interaction with pharmaceutical industry experts, who included marketing
personnel, medical directors, patient groups, advertising and regulatory agencies. Any new original, generic
or biosimilar product faces many opportunities and challenges in relation to branding and the imminent global
commercialization. The study concludes that there is a significant armamentarium of media-related activities,
which can be used in branding: media-assisted campaigns, blogging, celebrity endorsement and close
cooperation with patient support groups. Based on findings from this study, companies developing new
products should devise their branding strategy as early as possible during the initial stages of development
and allocate appropriate corporate resources for collaboration with media and patient support groups. In
addition, the pharmaceutical industry should prioritise branding architecture strategies that could foster
internal and external relationships around an entire product portfolio, maximise brand value, competitive
strength and longevity.

Keywords
Brand, media, pharmaceutical, marketing, branding architecture, biosimilar, generic

communication channels due to serious public mat-

Introduction
The pharmaceutical industry has experienced down-
turn during last few years due to the global economic
crisis, highly competitive environment, lack of reim-
bursement, increased development costs, shortage in
new drug development, patent expiration, reduced
capital investment, increased regulatory pressures
and aggressive takeover targeting by Big Pharma.1
Prescription brand names are becoming an increas-
ing part of everyday life. Popular medicinal names are
discussed in the media, by patients in Internet chat-
rooms and message blogs and even requested specific-
ally in general practitioners’ surgeries. However, this is
far from the historical case. Over the past 10–15 years,
we have seen a paradigm shift in the extent to which
the medical lexicon has become part of a public
vocabulary.2
Botox, Prozac and Viagra are now listed in the
Oxford English Dictionary. ‘Health’ and ‘health-
related issues’ and ‘online pharmacies’ are some of
the most widely searched subjects on the Internet.3
Other brands have a unique positioning across
ters, such thalidomide (resurrected following tragedy in
the 1970s)4 and Tamiflu because of the swine flu pan-
demic.5 Having studied 5000 brands, Interbrand6,7
concluded that brands can create demand and sustain-
able value for their businesses, even during economic
crisis. Corporate values are increasingly driven by
intangible assets such as brands. Ultimately, the
pharma business can derive significant benefit from
the success of a brand.8
Reviewing the literature, it was established that the
historical experiences of some well-established brands
of medicines are often poorly explored and exploited in
relation to newly developed medicines. Branding
repurposing was successfully used with Enbrel, and
the brand value was successfully expanded beyond
rheumatoid arthritis,9 and Tamiflu, which has been
Takeda, London, UK
Corresponding author:
Alex Kudrin, Takeda, Aldwych 61 London, WC2B 4AE, UK.
Email: koudrine@hotmail.com
Kudrin
repurposed for swine flue after its waning use in pre-
vention of seasonal influenza.10 Revitalisation of the
brand was successfully accomplished with thalido-
mide, which was resurrected and successfully mar-
keted in completely different clinical indications.11
Sun12 emphasised that many large pharmaceutical
companies refuse to see beyond classical ‘house of
brands’ approach and fail to explore other brand archi-
tecture approaches. Despite best intentions, some
large companies lack both adequate understanding of
the changing consumer environment and internal
organizational processes and the leadership required
to provide long-term support for the brand. It was
suggested that branding of medicines is often driven
not so much by marketing efforts but rather by exter-
nal factors.
As a consequence of these market trends, branding
strategies should be much more sophisticated to
ensure success. The focus of marketing campaigns
should be directed towards new stakeholders and
should encompass influencing of consumers and
other stakeholders by education relating to the treat-
ment of selected conditions.
This study was aimed at exploring different issues
associated with the branding of a hypothetical newly
developed medicine, identifying key learning experi-
ences with the other developed brands of medicines
and defining recommendations on how to devise a suc-
cessful branding strategy.
Study design
In order to fulfil the project objectives, a mixed
research study with solely qualitative analysis of data
was carried out. Two main methods of collecting data
were utilised:
. Secondary data from publicly available corporate
material and published branding studies;
. Primary data collection via interviews with estab-
lished brand leaders and corporate experts, patient
groups, advertising agencies and reimbursement
organisations.
Methodology
Secondary data and boundaries of research
Secondary data for established brands of medicines
were selected using a variety of corporate documents
available online and in printed form: prescribing infor-
mation, companies’ mission statements, press-
releases, communications with prescribers and patient
groups, public relations documents, advertising and
promotional materials. All documents were analysed
65
using content analysis and open coding, i.e. by group-
ing common themes together and examining whether
there are similarities, associations and relationships
between identified factors and marketing decisions.
Primary data
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with rep-
resentatives of companies, which had experience in
branding and marketing of now well-established
brands of medicines. The initial study sample was
planned around 16–18 interviewed parties. However,
during the study, an enhanced response was obtained
using a carefully crafted referral strategy. The search
for ‘data-rich’ sources and relevant experts was con-
ducted on www.linkedin.com using terms ‘Branding’,
‘Medical and/or Medical affairs director’ and narrow-
ing the search to a list of companies identified during
secondary data analysis. Around 200 experts (based
on current or past employment history) were identified
and contacted with a standard e-letter inviting partici-
pation in the interview. In order to facilitate contact
with key opinion leaders, recommendations were
sought from colleagues who were able to approach
identified experts directly or via their contacts with
the referral. Finally, around 35 experts agreed to,
and 28 participated in, telephone and face-to-face
interviews.
To achieve a degree of triangulation and provide the
necessary breadth of opinion of different stakeholders,
interviews were conducted with experts from regula-
tory agencies; representatives from patient organisa-
tions (International Osteoporosis Foundation and
UK National Osteoporosis Society) and branding
experts.
The approach selected for interviewing was deliber-
ately open-ended and ‘grounded’. A list of questions
for semi-structured interviews included a balanced
mix of open-end questions looking for value judg-
ments, statements, examples and references to per-
sonal perceptions and experiences. These questions
allowed exploration of general trends in branding
and specific issues associated with the branding of bio-
logical medicines. Interviews also allowed for discus-
sion of issues relating to new products but only if
experts had relevant experiences or knowledge of this
area. In some cases, it was possible to isolate really
personal views on corporate branding strategies as pur-
sued by some market leaders.
All interviews were conducted following an estab-
lished rapport and obtained informed consent.
However, the majority of experts and managers did
not consent to the use of recording equipment
during the interview or disclosure of their names in
the given publication. In cases when such permission
66
was granted, names of experts are disclosed in the
manuscript. Each interview lasted approximately
1.5 h. In total, approximately 42 h were spent with
pharmaceutical industry experts, who represented an
entire span of the pharmaceutical branding mix,
namely marketing personnel, medical directors,
patient groups, advertising and regulatory agencies.
Results
All experts were asked about historical trends emer-
ging in pharmaceutical branding over the last
5 years. It was hypothesized that during the financial
crisis in pharma, the emphasis and the level of invest-
ment into brand development might be compromised.
Additional questions were raised in relation to the
specifics of generic and biosimilar product branding.
It was commented that a decade ago, ‘there was
a push for mega-branding development in large
pharma. . .. However, the situation is now changing
due to lack of resources and reduced investment into
marketing. . .’. Dr John Lambert (Merz) elaborated
that despite the fact that many companies are fully
aware of the benefits of branding, they are often
unable to design and implement a sophisticated brand-
ing strategy due to headcount constraints and resource
restrictions, which do not allow employment of exter-
nal branding consultants. He added that ‘marketing is
becoming more endpoint oriented rather than confi-
dence-oriented. . .’.
One of the respondents has illustrated an example
of how free drug supply of Herceptin provided by
Roche upon completing pivotal clinical trials strength-
ened patient loyalty and relations with patient organ-
isations. Conversely, other developers of novel breast
cancer drugs did not consider provision of free supply
of their products and did not employ strategies in rais-
ing patient organisation awareness. This might explain
less robust brand performance in terms of market pos-
itioning and patient loyalty.
In the era of pharmaceutical genericisation and bio-
similars, it is of interest to establish the performance of
branded medicines in the period following the end of
patent life. One of the respondents suggested that
branded and pricier generics and biosimilars with
greater quality, safety and efficacy attributes are
likely to emerge in the EU and developed world. An
additional contributing factor is a greater healthcare
budget deficit in the EU compared to the one in the
United States. The high degree of competition creates
a favourable foundation for differentiation and brand-
ing especially in Asia where there is a growing demand
for cheap and widely available biologics for a growing
and ageing population. The recommendation from
expert was that both developers of novel and biosimilar
Journal of Generic Medicines 11(1–2)
products should strategise on building a sustainable
and sufficiently differentiated branding equity for
their products in order to withstand its positioning in
the highly crowded market. It was of great interest that
the bulk of branding equity with biosimilars is derived
from the one associated with the brand of the reference
product. There is a limited focus for differentiation,
and therefore, biosimilar branding might be particu-
larly challenging if the clinical data generated only
make a biosimilarity claim but lack additional angle,
e.g. development of an additional indication or new
formulation. One of respondents related to the boost
in market performance of first EU approved growth
hormone biosimilar Omnitrope. Once a new formula-
tion has been approved, the sales have dramatically
increased as there was a scope for differentiation
from the originator.
A respondent from the company marketing prod-
ucts for orphan diseases emphasised that branding
has an important role in marketing of both medicines
intended for a large population coverage and those
developed for small markets of rare and neglected dis-
eases (orphan medicines). However, in expert’s view,
the key difference for orphan medicines is the use of
so-called soft marketing and branding techniques exe-
cuted via disease awareness and educational activities.
By carrying these out, patients with rare diseases are
more readily diagnosed at the early stage of disease and
treated with innovative treatments. Therefore, the
interviewee suggested that the smaller the market
for new medicine, the more subtle and careful the
branding strategy should be in order to leverage
risks, protect the consumer and the brand image.
Global brands can potentially engage fragmented
regional markets and grow consumer power.13 The
philosophy of international brands is based on search
for similarities allowing economies of scale to take
place on many different levels.14 This is not always
achievable in some regions. For example, ‘pan-
European’ branding strategy is not always possible
due to persistent national differences, regulatory and
market access barriers. In other regions, some specific
cultural beliefs are responsible in successful branding.
For instance, in Latin America and Russia, highly
priced branded medicines are perceived with some
pride and a belief that the high price is justified by a
unique therapeutic benefit’.
Most of interviewed experts agreed that branding
strategy in the EU faces the greatest challenges due
to the presence of multiple stakeholders, payers and
inflexible pricing. The extent of regulatory boundaries
and the diversity of stakeholders in different EU coun-
tries potentially create even more challenges to
pharmaceutical branding compared to barriers existing
in the marketing of other consumer products. It was
Kudrin
interesting that some respondents considered that
diverse branding landscape in the EU might explain
different uptake of biosimilar and generic products in
countries and even regions.
One of the respondents named the NovoNordisk’s
insulin franchise as an excellent example of inter-
national branding. ‘Patient friendly educational cam-
paigns and intelligent use of device-driven branding
(insulin pen)’ allowed creation of a ‘sustainable inter-
national market niche’. On the other hand, other com-
panies that developed ‘first-in-class’ biological
products such as Enbrel (Wyeth/Pfizer) and Vectibix
(Amgen) did not place sufficient emphasis on inter-
national branding strategy. Since these companies
did not have prior experience in branding of novel bio-
logics and they were entering relatively new non-com-
petitive markets and therapeutic areas, international
branding activities were in somewhat under-
estimated. . .’. It will be interesting how the biosimilar
etanercept brand will be able to capitalize on the short-
comings from the branding approach with the
originator.
Dr John Lambert (Merz) gave an example of frag-
mented branding for the same drug even across indi-
vidual EU countries: ‘Lisinopril, an agent for
treatment of hypertension, is known in Italy under sev-
eral branding names, which potentially dilutes the
branding equity between fragmented consumers. . .’.
Notwithstanding, several interviewed experts strongly
emphasised the marketing importance of EU branding
for the new medicine. In their view, a convergent
approach in keeping some essential similarities in the
branding attributes could still help in building the
international branding equity in order to ‘. . .capture
an uncontested territory and to fill it with a desired
and trusted branded value’.
While much is known about the pharmaceutical
brands that physicians prescribe, little is known
about the patient treatment context that drives phys-
icians to initiate treatment and to actively manage it.
A better, more balanced understanding of the overall
context in which these brands are used, the ways in
which patients are actually treated, the underlying dri-
vers of physician behaviour and the resulting positive
implications on patient outcomes, has the potential to
influence prospects for successful branding and the
company’s growth.
An interesting study conducted amongst under-
graduate students illustrated that brands can be char-
acterised by personality traits (trusting, sociable,
exciting and sincere). It was found that consumers
who exhibit a conscientious personality demonstrate
preference towards ‘trusted’ brands. In contrast,
those who are extrovert by nature are motivated by
‘sociable’ brands. In addition, the study revealed that
67
male and female consumers differ in how they express
their personality when it comes to brand image. Male
respondents who are dominant on the ‘neuroticism’
dimension prefer ‘trusted’ brands, whereas ‘trusted’
brands are preferred by females who are dominant
on the conscientiousness dimension. Therefore, differ-
ent marketing tools and strategies should be employed
in promoting the same brands amongst different
consumers.15
Successful branding strategy requires an under-
standing of rational and emotional beliefs and motiv-
ations from different stakeholders. Rational
information (facts, knowledge and evidence) is one
of the key components in appreciating of the new
drug by payers, physicians and consumers. It is also
a component that can be more readily quantified. The
required proportion of factual and rational informa-
tion may differ considerably between stakeholders.
For example, payers may wish to follow only non-emo-
tive criteria such as cost-effectiveness and clinical
effectiveness in making reimbursement decisions.
Emotionally driven beliefs and motivations were trad-
itionally attributed to patients only. However, it is
becoming increasingly clear that physicians can be
guided not only by factual but also by emotional
motifs dependent upon personal and psychological
experiences and tendencies to be attracted to ‘comfort’
and ‘risk-free’ environments. The decision about
which drug to prescribe is often complex but needs
to be made in a short time frame. In the branding
context, it is important to generate insight and under-
standing at an emotional level. This can be achieved
using not only individual interviews but also using
‘workshops’ involving ‘projection of feelings’ in various
role play, creative exercises (techniques that allow
respondents to express feelings and emotions that are
hidden, latent or suppressed, e.g. creating collages or
creative drawing), measuring emotional colouring
(mood boards, relation to pictures and drawings).
Physicians often do not realise or are reluctant to
affirm that they have a ‘relationship’ with a brand;
getting them to use a relationship analogy is less
threatening and more productive than direct question-
ing and generates self awareness. Exploring these areas
requires the use of some sophisticated projective,
enabling and creative techniques as well as high-
quality analysis and interpretation. Therefore, if
appropriately evaluated using qualitative and psycho-
logical techniques, these non-factual beliefs and
motivations can be successfully implemented as effect-
ive branding communication channels.16
A large US pharmacy study, which evaluated the
relationship between brand and generic prescribing
and adherence to medication in patients with chronic
conditions, illustrated that patients who received
68
preferred brand-name drugs were 30% less likely to
switch to a medication in another tier than patients
who received non-preferred drugs.17 It is therefore
likely that biosimilar brand positioning in the United
States might be particularly challenging due to barriers
for switching and interchangeability. Brand positioning
can be significantly enhanced using an alleviation of
underlying disease-related stigma and other psycho-
logical factors determining brand-preferences.18
Several respondents referred to established brands
of medicines associated with either the removal of
stigma from the disease (Viagra) or with the gaining
of confidence about the therapeutic benefit (Viagra,
Calpol, Glivec, Herceptin, Sutent, Avastin, Crestor,
etc.). One example related to a successful branding
strategy for products intended in the same indication
with a clearly defined market, outlining the type of
confidence patients were gaining from the medicine:
Viagra (‘all around the clock benefit’) and Cialis (‘long
weekend help’). Based on the data on low adherence
with some classes of medicines, it will be of advantage
to investigate the impact of ‘internal locus’ amongst
patients and physicians in order to design adequate
marketing and educational materials.
Branding strategy can be effectively executed using
some form of social media, including blogging, mobile
marketing, online videos, widgets, games, podcasting
and Twitter. Social media spending in the United
States will grow from US$716 million in 2009 to
more than US$3.1 billion in 2014, at 34% compound
annual growth rate, etc.19 This is a significantly higher
rate of growth than the future spending on other inter-
active marketing channels. Social media can poten-
tially help the company track brand performance
using sentiment-tracking and blog-mining services,
establish relationships with opinion leaders and
create social networks for patients (e.g. TuDiabetes
network created by Johnson & Johnson (insulin produ-
cer) and LifeScan (manufacturer of the OneTouch
glucose meter) have been warmly received by diabetic
patients). Other websites such as PatientsLike
Me.com, DiabeticConnect.com and Inspire.com cre-
ated online disease-based communities that support
patient networking and also have raised awareness
amongst patients about recruiting clinical studies to
enhance early access to medicines. PrivateAccess.
com allows patients to selectively share their health
information with researchers who are seeking subjects
for their clinical studies. This prompted Pfizer to part-
ner with the web site to develop an online community
to accelerate the drug maker’s clinical studies.20
Blogging, video and mobile communications can be
utilized in disease awareness and educational cam-
paigns. Healthcare brands can use the benefits of
phone applications. Apple’s App Store offers >150
Journal of Generic Medicines 11(1–2)
medical tools for physicians, many of which are free.
The most popular downloads include comprehensive
drug information, medical calculators, terminology
and ECG interpretations.19
Benefits and risks for the use of the product should
be presented in a balanced way, and therefore compa-
nies have both legal and regulatory concerns about
engaging in conversation about products online. The
responsibility issues reside with web-companies but
many web applications allow users to customize, per-
sonalize and even modify the information as they share
it within the online community. There is a risk of
taking the original information out of context or even
changing the meaning entirely. In the past, a company
could not be held responsible for what outside individ-
uals might do with static content. But the situation
becomes less clear if the company participates in the
blog and turns on web-based features such as sharing
and commenting. Some firms are behaving cautiously
with apprehension on the part of brands because
they feel they do not know what the inadvertent
implications might be from web-based marketing
campaigns.19
For instance, Eli Lilly has largely refrained from
participating in social media sites due to the lack of
clarity and understanding of the FDA’s expectations as
to how it could both participate and comply with FDA
requirements. But other companies have moved for-
ward, creating blogs, YouTube channels, Facebook
pages and Twitter accounts, even partnering with
patient groups.19 Many companies are concerned as
to how to deal with adverse events that might be
reported on a social media site. It is however expected
that such reports would be funneled through the
appropriate regulatory channels within the company,
just like a phone call. A more challenging space is a
third-party media such as Twitter. This type of chan-
nel would also be obliged to report a potential adverse
event (Webb, 2010). Due to the growing impact of
online media in the marketing of new medicines,
FDA is highly likely to develop new policies and guide-
lines on appropriate use of online marketing tools.
Brand destruction occurs when corporate resources
are withdrawn internationally even though, perhaps,
patent expiry only affects the United States in the
immediate near future. What is little known, however,
is that some pharmaceutical brands do have staying
power, for example, Premarin from Wyeth was
launched in 1942 and did not reach peak sales until
2001, a full 59 years later, both Augmentin and
Sandimmun reached their peak sales, more than 20
years post launch.18 It is interesting that the issue of
international brand longevity in markets beyond those
where the patent has expired (US and EU), e.g. in
emerging markets, has not been properly studied.
Kudrin 69

Table 1. Pharmaceutical Branding System Spectrum: examples and SWOT analysis

Corporate Strength, weaknesses,

element Brand type Examples Strategic rationale opportunities and threats

Corporate Corporate brand GSK Strong corporate image Often it has only been used by
dominant Pfizer is synonymous with
J&J the promise of
high-quality and
power.
Mixed brands House brand Pfizer in epilepsy Includes several Allows delivery of a specific
Amgen in product classes.
osteoporosis Used by diversified
GSK in depression companies allowing
BMS in oncology each subsidiary to
operate as its own
entity or used when
two product lines are
incompatible.
Branded house Generic and biosimi- Requires minimal The message of consistency
lar houses investment in
(Ranbaxy, Sandoz, marketing as generic
Leo Pharma) companies are
always trying to
breakeven and make
some margins from
sales.
Co-brands (also Lilly, NovoNordisk Aims to benefit several The benefit of keeping the
composite insulin pen brands by raising the
brands, ingre- pipelines perceived quality of
dient brands) each brand. Allows a
brand exposure in
product class that it
could not enter on
its own.
pharma to repair its image.
There is a danger that a
large corporate brand can
be easily damaged by a
large safety scandal
(Seroxat or Avandia) and
result in low trust for the
entire company. Small-to-
medium enterprises lack
resources and the time
horizon in developing
corporate branding as
many product brands are
being divested or
out-licensed.
promise about the
company’s expertise in a
specific therapeutic area.
Potentially suffers from the
brand dilution effect if
there is no homogenous
distribution of product-
specific strengths.
and recognition, umbrella
approach. While this
approach gives a high level
of originality, it does not
provide sufficient differen-
tiation. However, compa-
nies pursuing only generic
sales follow a low-cost
strategy, which is not
necessarily compatible
with a niche differentiation
strategy as patient/phys-
ician tastes can easily shift
or change. However, this
may not be the case for
companies with mixed
generic and blockbuster
brands (potential future
model).
name is the associated
prestige and expertise. If it
renames the brand, its
risks alienating customers
who identify with the
former sub-brands. This
branding strategy is
(continued)
70 Journal of Generic Medicines 11(1–2)

Table 1. Continued

Corporate Strength, weaknesses,

element Brand type Examples Strategic rationale opportunities and threats

especially advantageous
when used around a single
delivery device. Such
utilisation of co-branding
benefits from positive
patient experience asso-
ciated with the convenience
and simplicity of device use
and could be tried in
different disease markets
(sharing of co-branding
between different
franchises).
Brand Mono brands Crestor Strong single product Creating a brand outside of
dominant (also single (AstraZeneca) brand identity with- the corporate brand is also
brands) Lipitor (Pfizer) out use of corporate possible. For instance, a
Lamisil (Novartis) brand. Each product new brand could be a
Avastin (Roche) identifies specific single-branded business
customer need. line that separates itself
from the former larger
brand to allow differentiat-
ing into new market seg-
ments. This approach has
advantages when the
product is expected to
enter into numerous
markets (multiple oncology
indications for Avastin), as
adding such a single brand
into the branded house can
potentially dilute the
branding equity and reduce
the branding strength.

The opportunity for pharmaceutical brand manage-
ment and the difference in time horizon for brand
development within different regions in the world
should not be underestimated especially in view of
booming growth in emerging markets and develop-
ment of biosimilar products. Old established brands
can remain very competitive although discounted
against new branding concepts.
The area of brand architecture is poorly discussed
in the literature despite the vast merged portfolios that
exist in big pharma and top companies having more
than 1000 brands listed on their websites. This means
that the vast majority of brands that lack scope, roles
and interrelationships work synergistically. With grow-
ing generic and biosimilar portfolios and penetration
into emerging markets, brand house approaches could
considerably assist marketing and enhance longevity of
individual product brands.
As interviewed experts illustrated, mixed models
exist with some companies like Bayer maintaining
pharmaceutical, chemical and even crop science div-
isions. Other models of branding architecture include
brand houses (MSD as cardiovascular and BMS as
oncology houses), sub-brand under the master
(Novartis with Sandoz a generic/biosimilar business).
Dr Moss mentioned that ‘brand building is often only
reserved for repairing damage’ and ‘the industry brand
is in disarray. . .. enough strategic thought hasn’t gone
into this area yet. . .’
When Aaker22 then looked in more depth at brand
portfolios, he proposed four corporate brand strategies
for consumer companies: house of brands, branded
house, endorsed brand and the sub-brand under a
master brand. When drawing parallels with pharma-
ceutical corporate brand strategy, it can be seen that
the house of brands is the most commonly used
Kudrin
strategy, probably because it is the default option for
an industry that has not given the subject much atten-
tion over the decades. When assessing the overall
brand architecture subject, it is clear that a strategy
taking into account hierarchy could have significant
impact within pharmaceuticals and could offer syner-
gies of activity (and spending) across a portfolio, lever-
aging current brand assets more widely, preparing the
market for future launches and providing focus for
business development activities. The SWOT analysis
of different pharmaceutical branding architecture
approaches has been summarised in Table 1.
The strategy to build branding architecture can be
blended with corporate strategy and the portfolio mix,
e.g. the proportion of innovative, generic/biosimilar
medicines and consumer goods. The situation may
also change in the future if the portfolio grows or
changes.
Conclusions and recommendations
This project was aimed at providing insights into new
trends and directions in pharmaceutical branding
using qualitative approach. Overall, it became appar-
ent that the pharmaceutical industry is not ready for
the major changes that have already occurred within
the consumer world but cost containment, genericiza-
tion, diminishing pipelines and increasing governmen-
tal pressure on prices may well force strategic changes
in the future and the way that branding strategy is
planned and executed. The view on time horizon
may change, and the competitive advantage and the
longevity potential of some brands beyond the period
of patent protection will be appreciated over time.
On the basis of conducted research, the following
industry specific recommendations were made:
. Companies should promote an internal corporate
culture, strengthen employees commitment in
order to develop the brand throughout early stages
in the life cycle;
. Branding architecture approaches should be further
explored to develop strategic brand management
and achieve improved brand strength and longevity.
Such a strategy is especially relevant to companies
with growing generic and biosimilar portfolios.
. Where possible, industry should build corporate
dominant and mixed brands (co-brands or brand
houses) benefiting from the reputation, expertise
and common marketing channels. For example,
sharing a reputable device component, such as an
injection pen, in different disease markets could
assist in building strong global pharmaceutical
brands including biosimilar injectable brands.
Benefits of branding architecture can be anticipated
71
in different international markets and experienced
beyond the duration of the conventional patent;
. Pharmaceutical industry should effectively utilise
modern media-related branding channels, such as
Internet blogging, Twitter, social, PR channels and
celebrity endorsement in order to benefit from
potentially unlimited global dissemination of posi-
tive messages associated with these marketing tools;
. Modern electronic tools such as tablets and mobile
technologies can be utilised both in branding of
medicines as well as in medical educational activ-
ities oriented on patients and prescribers;
. Further branding research should be carried out
and focused on patients with prominent ‘internal
locus’ in order to plan specialised promotional cam-
paigns and educational materials as this patient
population is the most likely to be marketing-eva-
sive and less treatment compliant.
The findings from this research are particularly inter-
esting and relevant to the branded generic markets of
Asia, Latin America, Africa and Eastern Europe,
where the promotion and active entry of biosimilar
products will be expected in near future.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding
agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Conflict of interest
None declared.
References
1. PricewaterhouseCoopers Health Research Institute. Under
recovery. Life sciences venture capitalist overcomes record low,
outpaces other sectors [online], http://www.pwc.com/US/en/
press-releases/2010.jhtml (accessed 31 October 2010).
2. Tebbey PW, Bergheiser JK and Mattick RN. Brand momentum:
the measure of great pharmaceutical brands. J Med Market 2009;
9: 221–232.
3. Robins R. Brand matters. The lingua franca of pharmaceutical
brad names [online] http://www.interbrand.com/Libraries/Articles/
27_IBHealth_Brandmatters_pdf.sflb.ashx (2009, accessed 26 June
2014).
4. EMEA. Thalidomide [online], http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/
human/opinion/Thalidomide_2877308en.pdf (2008, accessed 3
January 2010).
5. Abrnet. Does Tamiflu work to cure or treat the swine flu?
[online], http://www.abrnet.org/does-tamiflu-work-to-cure-or-
treat-the-swine-flu (2009, accessed 23 December 2009).
6. Brandz. BrandZ Top 100 Most Valuable Global Brands ranking
[online], http://www.brandz.com/upload/brandz-report-2009-
complete-report(1).pdf (2009, accessed 20 December 2009).
7. Interbrand. The best global brands interim report [online],
http://www.interbrand.com/branding_feature. aspx?bfeatureid=
30&langid=1000.pdf (2009, accessed 23 December 2009).
8. Angelmar R, Angelmar S and Kane L. Building strong condition
brands. J Med Market 2007; 7: 341–351.
72
9. Niles S. Brand of the year: Enbrel. MedAdNews 2006; 25: 2–4.
10. EMEA. Tamiflu [online], http://www.emea.europa.eu/human-
docs/PDFs/EPAR/tamiflu/emea-combined-h402en.pdf (2009,
accessed 3 January 2010).
11. Thomas D and Kantarjian H. The revitalisation of thalidomide.
Ann Oncol 2001; 12: 885–886.
12. Sun D. Commercial lifeblood: placing the corporate brand at
the heart of the business strategy [online], http://www.inter-
brand.com/images/papers/27_IBHealth_CommercialLifeblood
_ WP.pdf (2008, accessed 3 January 2010).
13. Douglas SP, Craig CS and Nijssen EJ. Executive insights: inte-
grating branding strategy across markets: building international
brand architecture. J Int Market 2001; 9: 97–114.
14. Chernatony L, Halliburton C and Bernath R. International
branding: demand- or supply-driven opportunity? Int Market
Rev 1995; 12: 9–21.
15. Mulyanegara RC, Tsarenko Y and Anderson A. The big five
and brand personality: investigating the impact of consumer
personality on preferences towards particular brand personality.
J Brand Manage 2009; 16: 234–247.
16. Owen M. Understanding the physician. Henry Stewart Talks
[online], http://hstalks.com/main/browse_talk_ info.php?talk_
id=1076&series_ id=271&c=252 (2009, accessed 7 June 2010).
17. Shrank WH, Hoang T, Ettner SL, et al. The implications of
choice: prescribing generic or preferred pharmaceuticals
improves medication adherence for chronic conditions. Arch
Intern Med 2006; 166: 332–337.
18. Moss GD. What can the pharmaceutical world learn from con-
sumer branding practice? J Med Market 2007; 7: 315–320.
Journal of Generic Medicines 11(1–2)
19. Ellerin B and Geiss N. Six steps to effectively market your brand
online: make 2009 the year you engage [online], http://www.
interbrand.com/paper.aspx?paperid=71&langid=1000 (2009,
accessed 16 June 2010).
20. Gonzalez CR. Social media and subject recruitment: the begin-
ning of the beginning [online], http://www.acrpnet.org/sp/
FreeMonitorTableofContentsLeadArticle.aspx (2010, accessed
4 November 2010).
21. Webb S. Drug marketing and the new media. Nat Biotechnol
2010; 28: 396–398.
22. Aaker DA. Brand portfolio strategy. New York: The Free Press,
2004, pp.13–14.
Author biography
Alex Kudrin has graduated MBBS with Distinction
from Orenburg Medical Academy in Russia in 1997
and received PhD / MD in Respiratory Medicine and
Immunology from Moscow Medical University (2001)
and MBA with Distinction from Westminster
University in London (2011). This particular project
was carried out during his MBA studies. He
was employed at Acambis, GlaxoSmithKline,
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals and currently appointed
as a Medical Director at Takeda Global R&D.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.