Why should we think about moving away from the Global Brand Plan?
A cohesive, global strategy that can reflect and allow for the diversity of a brand’s geographic footprint is central to its success and the globally led, annual brand planning process is the vehicle through which this can be achieved.
Does this hold true throughout the lifecycle of the brand? Is a globally owned & led annual brand planning process the right approach as the brand reaches its late-lifecycle (LLC) and faces the prospect of loss of exclusivity? In essence, does the global brand plan have an expiry date?
While the impact of market diversity is significant for a brand in the earlier stages of its commercialized lifecycle, its value proposition will be largely consistent globally. As such, a centralized global annual brand planning process that can be adapted locally makes sense. But when the brand approaches the later stages of its lifecycle, loses exclusivity, and begins to face generic or biosimilar competition, that market diversity is amplified and the required approach to LLC management of the brand may substantially differ between markets.
To illustrate this, imagine a diabetes brand, easily manufactured and substitutable, is expected to lose exclusivity imminently across global markets including the US, Mexico and Turkey.
- In the US, it is likely that many generics will launch in an environment where the ability of the originator brand to compete will be extremely limited in the face of a multitude of lower cost options
- In Mexico, it is typical for multiple new patient segments to emerge within the market, with variable dynamics including clear preferences for originator brands, white-label generics or local branded generics across these segments
- In Turkey, “generic” competition comes from local branded companies, and it is necessary to continue to invest in the promotion of the brand to maintain its use in the market
Even when looking at these three markets at a high level, does it make sense to have a global brand plan based on a value proposition that no longer has broad relevance? Late-lifecycle management is most effective when the brand evolves with the market. Transitioning responsibility for the annual brand plan to local teams, where the deepest understanding of those evolving market dynamics sits, should therefore be the preferred approach, with global teams providing support as needed to ensure local teams are prepared for the transition.
When should the transition begin and how do we ensure its success?
What should this transition look like? When does it make sense to begin the transition of responsibility for the brand plan to local teams, and what is the most efficient and effective way to do so?
Effective lifecycle management considers 6 key strategic decision points across the brand’s lifecycle, beginning with indication prioritization and optimization in the pre-launch timeline through to the management of established brands in a post-LOE environment.
When should strategic planning for the late lifecycle take place?
Strategic planning for the late lifecycle should begin 6-7 years ahead of when generic entrants are expected in the first major market. This is to ensure that any longer-term, developmental initiatives, such as new formulations or delivery devices, have sufficient time to be implemented.
Key Components of Longer Range Planning
This longer-range planning, primarily focused on product optimization addressing unmet patient needs, is very much a global workstream. But a key component should also be the development of global best practices guidance that will enable local teams to develop effective late lifecycle plans as LOE approaches. This should include frameworks & tools that outline LLC planning archetypes for local markets to follow, provide direction on key tactics that should be considered and outline a recommended process for LLC plan development including creation of supporting forecasts & business cases.
The next key decision point in the brand’s lifecycle (and our key focus area here) is 2-3 years before expected generic entry. This is the point at which commercial planning for LOE should begin and initial local late-lifecycle plans should be developed, in line with global best practice guidance, alongside the usual brand planning workstreams. At this stage, countries should be able to characterize the key LLC dynamics that will impact their market, identify the appropriate planning archetype for LLC planning and tactics that should be considered for LLC plan inclusion, with this thinking reviewed and pressure tested by the global team.
As LOE nears, the late-lifecycle plan should become an increasingly integrated & formalized component of the annual brand plan with prioritized tactical options outlined, including any supporting forecasts/business cases and execution timelines. By LoE, the local LLC plan, which has been developed with specific local dynamics in mind, should be considered the brand plan, with minimal global input into the process beyond review & feedback.
This transitional approach allows local teams greater autonomy over their brand planning process while still permitting global input and guidance, ensuring that local teams are well placed to successfully navigate through the changing dynamics that a brand is presented during its late lifecycle.
Importantly, this transition also allows success to be defined by key performance metrics that are relevant and realistic for a specific market. Returning to the earlier market examples, this definition of success will look very different across markets:
- In the US, there are low expectations for maintaining brand share, and success might simply be the maintenance of use of the brand in a small proportion long-standing stable patients
- In Mexico, the decision might be taken to launch multiple commercial forms to address the different value drivers of each of the new market segments
- In Turkey, where active promotion of the brand will be maintained, success might mean molecule growth with a significant share maintained by the brand.
Although the brand plan process has transitioned away to the local markets, some level of global support should still be maintained. This ensures that any needs are identified and addressed but also that best practice sharing between markets is effectively facilitated.
Of course, not every brand faces the same fate once it reaches LoE. For example, brands with complex API manufacturing processes or formulation technology, beyond the capabilities of most generics companies, might not experience this diversification of market dynamics. In these cases, a globally led brand plan might remain the most appropriate course of action.
Developing a global picture of expected dynamics in a post-LOE world is a critical component of lifecycle management, and if significant variability is anticipated then the global brand plan has a shelf life and should be replaced before it is out of date.
