The Diagnosis Ad Attention Gap

Every pharma ad campaign is doing one, if not two, jobs: educating a potential patient who may have symptoms worth seeing a doctor about, or telling a patient which brand treats the condition they have been diagnosed with. Landing that message successfully depends on two factors: how far along the patient already is in their diagnosis, and how many other brands, if any, are competing for the patient's attention when they turn the TV on. We built this framework to help brands understand the readiness of the patient population to brand or symptom-specific messaging, and whether it's stepping into a competitive space for attention or not.

To that effect, we asked two questions:

What are patients searching for? We use Google search trends, based on the assumption that people often look to the internet today to understand symptoms they may be experiencing. We created a ratio that divides the search index of "[condition] treatment" by "[condition] symptoms." The ratio is the Treatment-Seeking Index. So for eczema, we compare the search index for "eczema treatment" against the index for "eczema symptoms."

A high score means that the patient population already has a view of what condition they have and are comparing treatments. In this scenario the campaign should inform people about the brand, associate that brand with the condition, and differentiate it from competitors where competitors exist. A low score means most patients are still trying to understand their condition, so the campaign should inform people about the disease itself, walk through its symptoms, and make the case for seeing a doctor and getting diagnosed.

How are competitive brands spending on TV? Some conditions have low competition, where only one brand, or none, is actually on television talking to the patient. Others are crowded, where several brands are already spending on TV and competing for the patient's attention. To quantify this we used the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, the standard measure of market concentration, applied to a condition's TV spend, inverted so the score moves with competition rather than against it. A high score means the category is contested: spend is split across several brands, each competing for the patient's attention. A low score means the category is uncontested: spend is concentrated in one brand, or close to it.

Cross those two questions, and you get four distinct campaigns and spending strategies.

Applied across 17 conditions, spanning skin, GI, neurology, respiratory, metabolic, autoimmune, bone health, and cardiac disease, this looks like the map below. Bubble size is the condition’s average annual spend on TV per brand, so the map also shows the average amount spent by each competitor.

I. A crowded category, and the patient population is ready. Alzheimer's, Asthma, COPD, Eczema, obesity, psoriasis, migraine, and depression. Patients already know what they have and are comparing options, and several brands are already in the conversation. The campaign should inform people about the brand, associate it clearly with the condition, and differentiate it from the competitors already fighting for the same patient. A brand entering this quadrant will typically compete for share with an always-on media plan built around brand awareness.

II. Whitespace, and the patient is looking for treatment. Osteoporosis patients search for treatment at the highest rate of any condition here, and one brand owns the entire category's TV spend. For brands in this quadrant the campaign should still inform people about the brand and associate it with the condition, but there are no competitors, on TV at least, to differentiate against yet. A brand that shows up here is introducing choice to patients where little or no choice exists. Brands here face little competition for the patient's attention, so the messaging has a real chance to stand out simply by showing up. A brand may even consider running condition awareness ahead of its own drug campaign, building the category before it has to defend it.

III. Whitespace, and the patient is not ready. Rheumatoid arthritis, ulcerative colitis, bipolar disorder, multiple sclerosis, IBS, and high cholesterol. Spend is concentrated in one or two brands, and most patients haven't moved into an active-seeking state. IBS is the clearest example: one brand holds 100% of category spend, and the audience it reaches shows some of the lowest treatment-seeking behavior on the map. The campaign here should inform people about the disease and its symptoms and build the category itself, especially if a new drug is launching in. A brand entering this whitespace does well to weight spend toward condition and symptom awareness, pushing patients toward a diagnosis, and can generally spend less to be heard, since there is little competition standing in the way.

IV. A crowded category, and the patient is not ready. Diabetes, Multiple Sclerosis and Crohn's disease. Several brands are spending heavily, but most patients haven't moved into a treatment-seeking mindset yet. The smarter campaign informs people about the disease first, walking through its symptoms and making the case for seeing a doctor, before spending on brand differentiation against competitors nobody has gone looking for yet. Brands here do well to put real money behind condition and symptom awareness, but the crowded field means the campaign is doing two jobs at once, building the condition and the brand in the same breath, and spend levels should either match the competitive intensity already in the category.

We believe this framework can help pharma brands see their patients more clearly: where they are in their own journey, and how much competition, if any, they're hearing from on television. Used well, it should change not just the campaign purpose, but how much a brand spends and where.