Coffee Break

back to Coffee Break Index

A FICTITIOUS (BUT REALISTIC)
COFFEE BREAK CASE HISTORY

January 2002

On Jan. 2nd, to launch the New Year, we found an urgent message on the answering machine

It was from Laura, the Director of Market Research at the US subsidiary of a major foreign pharmaceutical company. She had been asked to find out, in two weeks, whether the parent company’s newly launched and highly successful once-a-week anti-hypertensive agent would find acceptance in the crowded U.S. market. Her immediate reaction was to call Rood Research, but her counterpart at headquarters was highly skeptical of market research that was based on samples of less than 150 physicians, no matter how targeted and proven the methodology was. She wanted one-on-one, highly in-depth qualitative research to justify the study results, but she only had two weeks to complete it – a clear case for Rood.

We told her that, as a matter of fact, there was a relatively simple solution to her predicament. We recommended a sample of 25 cardiologists and 25 PCPs; they would be interviewed using Rood’s core methodology – in-depth, peer-level, telephone discussions. Simultaneously, the six quantitative questions (e.g., “how many anti-hypertensive scripts do you write in a typical week?” “Rate the likelihood that you would use this new drug”. “What percentage of your anti-hypertensive scripts is it likely to account for?” etc.) would be fielded by a (partnering) Internet survey company to 75 additional cardiologists and 75 additional PCPs. The incremental quantitative results obtained via the Internet would be incorporated into a regular Rood report, that is, Laura would still receive the type of report she knew and trusted, except that the quantitative component would be augmented to 200 respondents. We reassured Laura that we would, as always, meet her deadline, and that our Internet survey partners were quite used to working with similar time lines.

Laura was delighted with this solution to her dilemma. The discussion guide was quickly written and approved, and the research was underway. All the results are not yet in, but so far they look mixed: To date, 78% of the cardiologists were not particularly interested in the new agent which, in their opinion, added nothing to their current anti-hypertensive armamentarium; they perceived the once-a-week dosing as a drawback among the significant population of elderly patients, who might forget to take it. However, of the completed PCP discussions, 84% liked the drug, which was slightly less expensive than currently available anti-hypertensives and which they considered very convenient due to its once-a-week dosing. The final report will include in-depth reasons for all discussion points, and quantitative results based on the significantly larger sample size.