We read on pharmakronos of 2/24/ a report: "Innovative sales strategies and metrics" by Eyeforpharma [Ed: seehttps://www.fedaiisf.it/Start/HDefault.aspx?Newsid=8978].
The report is based on an online survey and in-depth interviews with pharmaceutical executives across a variety of geographic regions and therapeutic areas.
It should be noted that the effectiveness of a company's sales force has a profound impact on overall profitability.
There is still a substantial change in the information profession, increasingly equipped with Ipads, eDetailing, i.e. a range of digital communication tools aimed at disseminating scientific information, web conferences and so on.
There are inaccuracies and shortcomings in this report, at least for the Italian market.
The main inaccuracy is found on the concept of sales force: in Italy the ISF cannot and must not be considered a sales force. Under the laws of this state.
The lack, however, which also constitutes the limit of this report, is that the Scientific Representatives of the Drug, and therefore FEDAIISF who represent them, were not listened to.
I don't know in which markets they took the reported data, but the local feedback, which has monitored thousands of visits to doctors and listened to thousands of patients, reports a surprising and significant datum which should absolutely be taken into account: the human relationship between informant and doctor.
For this reason, we believe that a survey that does not take into account the opinion and consolidated experiences of the subjects at the center of the Eyeforpharma report is an incomplete report, even if we do not want to question its validity.
We would therefore be happy to know who funded the research and for what purpose: we are always available for a discussion on the role and final destination of the Whistleblowers.
Always at the center, as we have repeatedly reported, of a target, which will no longer see us as sacrificial victims of a system.
This "system" can no longer self-regulate: but must be brought back to the rules and laws of each country and - above all - be bound by a legal recognition of this profession, which - over the years - has obtained wide approval and demonstrated a great sense of responsibility as well than professionalism.
What seems strange and not noticed by the authors is the fact that, even with so many problems of identifying future strategies, the finger is pointed at the only law that regulates the relationship between scientific representatives and companies.
Albeit continually rejected.
The proposed modernity seems to be the convenient alibi, to make our future even more uncertain.
With the risk of entering a fog cleverly created with machines that produce steam. Scientific representatives will give answers only after having recognized and touched the structural changes of the market and the good faith of the companies.
What they're showing us now, we're sorry to say, but to us it just looks like a fake.
The Ipad, the web conferences of little or no convenience are only the means to transfer the scientific salesman into the quicksand of the commercial.
We hope that AIFA and specifically Prof. Pani, General Manager, who knew us, will be able to neutralize this clumsy attempt in the bud, which, presented as innovative, has only the task, in our opinion, of modifying those laws of our country, which cause intolerance in the pharmaceutical industries.
With the risk of returning to the logic of a bad past.
This does not mean, of course, that we are against everything in the name of Nothing: but every innovation that may concern us must find us primary interlocutors.
Lastly, we hope to be the first listening and reference point for every agency that wishes to make an even more complete and reliable analysis.
Fabio Carinci
FEDAISF.
Federation of Associations of Scientific Drug Representatives
Federal National President
