Scott Sandford and Abhishek Singh co-wrote this blog post with Anshul Agarwal.
The “Goldilocks principle,” which borrows its concept from the famous children’s story to describe when something is “just right,” can be applied to many situations, and the oncology landscape is no exception. Given the evolution of pharmaceutical manufacturer strategies in approaching oncology accounts and the data needed to support these strategies, manufacturers need to know what’s “just right” when it comes determining the resources needed for each account—a lesson that they can learn from Ms. Goldilocks and her friends, the bears.
Maria Whitman and Sankalp Sethi co-wrote this blog post with Malik Kaman. This blog post is part two in a two-part series.
In our previous post, we discussed the four typical “segments” of oncology companies:
- Original Innovators: High prior oncology success, low commercial sophistication
- The Space Invaders: Low prior oncology success, high commercial sophistication
- The New Kids on the Block: Low prior oncology success, low commercial sophistication
- The Vanguard: High prior oncology success, high commercial sophistication
Maria Whitman and Sankalp Sethi co-wrote this blog post with Malik Kaman. This blog post is part one in a two-part series.
At ZS, we’ve advised companies on more than 90% of the launches in oncology over the past five years, so manufacturers frequently ask us how they compare to others in terms of their people, their processes and their capabilities. This is a great question. With the pace of oncology investment worldwide—oncology is expected to be 21.25% of total pharma sales in 2020 globally, according to a Quintiles analysis—the level of competition in this space has risen to a whole new level. As we think about what it will take to compete and win in the new reality, it’s important to consider the commercial advantages and disadvantages of who you are as a company—your people, processes and capabilities—not just what scientific innovations you can bring.