From villain to victor: the rise and rise of big pharma
The covid crisis has thrust pharma brands into the limelight like never before, resulting in a curious shift in how people perceive them. BBH’s strategy director Frankie Everson talks us through what the pandemic has meant for big pharma, and how these brands might capitalize on their moment in the sun.
BBH strategy director Frankie Everson on how Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna et al might capitalize on their moment in the sun
Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna – for possibly the first time ever, the names of big pharma companies have become common parlance among the general public.
In the past, if I mentioned the names of pharma companies I worked with to friends and family, I was largely met with blank faces and shrugs. Now, I walk past people in the street and hear these names floating around like they’re the most familiar things in the world.
Interestingly, these companies have been making household brands for years. Pfizer makes Viagra, one of the biggest blockbuster drugs ever created, but few people would be able to make the link. Other familiar drugs, such as Nurofen, Valium and Calpol, were created by pharma companies with names that have long faded into insignificance for most people.
In the race to find a solution to Covid, pharma companies haven’t had the time (or, frankly, the need) to ‘brand’ their vaccines as they traditionally would. There is no ‘Viagra’ or ‘Valium’ equivalent. As a consequence, corporate pharma brands have suddenly been put in the spotlight. Practically everyone has an opinion on whether they’d rather get the AstraZeneca vaccine or the one from Pfizer. Suddenly, these companies are considered famous, even heroic.
Before today, Pfizer didn’t actually have a great reputation. Those who knew about it were at best indifferent to it and at worst considered it to be the epitome of ‘bad pharma’. Back in 2018, in a US study by the Reputation Institute, Pfizer received the lowest reputation score out of 22 pharma companies. Now Pfizer, with its vaccine’s efficacy marginally exceeding that of AstraZeneca’s, is being heralded as a world savior. Not only has it won the vaccine race, but it seems to have won the hearts and minds of the general public too.
By putting their corporate brands front and center of the global stage in the middle of a global pandemic, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Moderna have garnered both public recognition and good favor, and are likely to have paved the way for great success in the future.
The prominence of these companies in the vaccine race appears to have had a halo effect on the pharma industry as a whole, with a recent study showing that almost half of people now have a more positive view of the wider industry. Incredibly, for the first time in many years, pharma seems to be escaping the clutches of its villainous reputation. It’s finally the industry’s moment to shine.
So how can more pharmaceutical companies capitalize on this moment of glory to continue to build favor with the general public? The answer seems simple: open communication and transparency.
A good non-pharma example of this comes from Unilever. Just over a decade ago, the consumer world was in crisis as people increasingly questioned the origin of its products. To combat this and garner the respect of the public, Unilever decided to elevate its corporate brand and focus it on sustainability. It created above-brand Unilever ads under the idea of ‘The Sustainable Living Plan’ and used the ‘U’ logo on a range of product brands as a way of telling consumers that any product with the U is the right choice for the planet. The move worked extremely well for it: its 28 ‘Sustainable Living’ brands grew 69% faster than the rest of the business, up from 46% in 2017. It also delivered 75% of Unilever’s overall growth.
For pharma, a project like this probably seems easier said than done. The industry has always been incredibly cautious about communicating with the public about its brand and business, and the very idea of it is enough to make most legal and regulatory folk in companies like Pfizer turn pale. Although these companies generally have solid strategies and strong relationships with regulators, policymakers and health systems, they have never found the moment to make this relevant to the public.
Now, big pharma has a unique chance to really embrace the responsibility that comes with public admiration.
This doesn’t mean actively promoting their medicines to the general public – that would, in most of the world, be illegal and unethical. However, it could mean actively talking to the public about purpose and progress, and opening up about their business and innovation in a way they have never done before.
Instead of allowing their corporate brands to fade into the wallpaper, they could actively use them as symbols of progress and commitment to public health. It may take a significant mindset shift and possibly a few tough internal conversations, but it may turn out to be exactly what pharma needs.
Frankie Everson is BBH’s strategy director.
Check out The Drum’s special Health hub, which examines how the key players – from health agencies to pharma firms to brands – are doing their part to return the world to normality.