Marketing of the Life Sciences: a New Framework and Research Agenda for a Nascent Field
Stefan Stremersch & Walter Van Dyck
Marketing of the Life Sciences: A New Framework and Research Agenda for a Nascent Field
Although marketing scholars often seek to contribute new knowledge that is applicable across industries, some industries have unique characteristics that require industry-specific knowledge development. The authors argue that this requirement applies to the life sciences industry, defined as companies in pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, and therapeutic medical devices. Marketers in the life sciences industry face novel and unique challenges along eight decision areas in therapy creation, therapy launch, and therapy promotion. In therapy creation, they face therapy pipeline optimization, innovation alliance formation, and therapy positioning decisions. In therapy launch, they face global market entry timing and key opinion leader selection decisions. Therapy promotion mostly revolves around sales force management, communication management, and stimulating patient compliance. The authors qualify these decision areas according to their practical importance and academic potential. The article derives preliminary generalizations and propositions from prior research and practice and steers further research in specific directions. The authors believe that marketing of the life sciences offers a fertile area for further research because, among other things, its potential impact transcends any problems typically investigated by marketing scholars.
Keywords: life sciences, marketing theory, research agenda, pharmaceutical, biotechnology, medical device, marketing, sales lthough marketing scholars often seek to contribute new knowledge that is applicable across industries (Stewart 2002), some industries have unique characteristics that require industry-specific knowledge development (Eliashberg, Elberse, and Leenders 2006). Examples include the services industry (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1985; Rust and Chung 2006; Vargo and Lusch 2004),
Marketing of the Life Sciences: A New Framework and Research Agenda for a Nascent Field
Although marketing scholars often seek to contribute new knowledge that is applicable across industries, some industries have unique characteristics that require industry-specific knowledge development. The authors argue that this requirement applies to the life sciences industry, defined as companies in pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, and therapeutic medical devices. Marketers in the life sciences industry face novel and unique challenges along eight decision areas in therapy creation, therapy launch, and therapy promotion. In therapy creation, they face therapy pipeline optimization, innovation alliance formation, and therapy positioning decisions. In therapy launch, they face global market entry timing and key opinion leader selection decisions. Therapy promotion mostly revolves around sales force management, communication management, and stimulating patient compliance. The authors qualify these decision areas according to their practical importance and academic potential. The article derives preliminary generalizations and propositions from prior research and practice and steers further research in specific directions. The authors believe that marketing of the life sciences offers a fertile area for further research because, among other things, its potential impact transcends any problems typically investigated by marketing scholars.
Keywords: life sciences, marketing theory, research agenda, pharmaceutical, biotechnology, medical device, marketing, sales lthough marketing scholars often seek to contribute new knowledge that is applicable across industries (Stewart 2002), some industries have unique characteristics that require industry-specific knowledge development (Eliashberg, Elberse, and Leenders 2006). Examples include the services industry (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1985; Rust and Chung 2006; Vargo and Lusch 2004),
Citations: Drivers of Article Impact,” Journal of Marketing, 71 (July), 171–93. Thompson, Craig J. (2004), “Marketplace Mythology and Discourses of Power,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (1), 162–80. ——— (2005), “Consumer Risk Perceptions in a Community of Reflexive Doubt,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (2), 235–48. ——— and Maura Troester (2002), “Consumer Value Systems in the Age of Postmodern Fragmentation: The Case of the Natural Health Microculture,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (4), 550–71. Uzzi, Brian (1997), “Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 42 (1), 35–67. Van den Bulte, Christophe and Gary L. Lilien (2001), “Medical Innovation Revisited: Social Contagion Versus Marketing Effort,” American Journal of Sociology, 106 (5), 1409–1435. Vargo, Stephen L. and Robert F. Lusch (2004), “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 68 (January), 1–17. Venkataraman, Sriram and Stefan Stremersch (2007), “The Debate on Influencing Doctors’ Decisions: Are Drug Characteristics the Missing Link?” Management Science, 53 (11), 1688–1701. Verbrugge, Lois M. (1985), “Gender and Health: An Update on Hypotheses and Evidence,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 26 (September), 156–82. Verniers, Isabel, Stefan Stremersch, and Christophe Croux (2008), “International Launch Timing and Pricing of New Pharmaceuticals,” working paper, School of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam. Vernon, John A. and W. Keener Hughen (2005), “The Future of Drug Development: The Economics of Pharmacogenomics,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 11875. Weiss, Allen M. and Jan B. Heide (1993), “The Nature of Organizational Search in High Technology Markets,” Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (May), 220–33. Wong, Nancy and Tracey King (2008), “The Cultural Construction of Risk Understandings Through Illness Narratives,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (5), 579–94. Wosinska, Marta (2005), “Direct-to-Consumer Advertising and Drug Therapy Compliance,” Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (August), 323–32. ——— (2006), “Direct-to-Consumer Advertising, Media Publicity and Demand for Prescription Drugs,” paper presented at INFORMS 2006 Marketing Science Conference, University of Pittsburgh (June 8–10). Wuyts, Stefan, Massimo G. Colombo, Shantanu Dutta, and Bart Nooteboom (2005), “Empirical Tests of Optimal Cognitive Distance,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 58 (2), 277–302. ———, Shantanu Dutta, and Stefan Stremersch (2004), “Portfolios of Interfirm Agreements in Technology-Intensive Markets: Consequences for Innovation and Profitability,” Journal of Marketing, 68 (April), 88–100. 30 / Journal of Marketing, July 2009