Keep pulling the thread on Jakub Kaczor and Peter Smith.
According to a report from Evaluate, the big pharma industry is facing a patent cliff by 2030 that could eliminate $300 billion in revenue.
The more disciplined a pharmaceutical company's R&D strategy is, the more likely it is to end up with its own products competing against each other in the market.
Failure to accurately co-position products can lead to a failure to maximize the commercial potential of a pharmaceutical portfolio.
The potential $300 billion in revenue loss from the 2030 patent cliff represents approximately one-sixth of the overall revenue generated by the pharmaceutical industry.
AbbVie in immunology, Novo Nordisk in diabetes, and Johnson & Johnson in multiple myeloma have all faced the strategic challenge of managing multiple assets in the same therapy area.
Most pharmaceutical companies begin thinking about co-positioning their assets at or after launch, by which time critical clinical development choices are irreversible.
A strong brand ego is a primary obstacle to a successful portfolio approach, as it leads to brands operating in silos, creating internal competition and confusing customers.
Appointing a portfolio owner, either an individual or a dedicated function, can mitigate internal brand competition by ensuring decisions are made for the franchise as a whole.
Incentive structures for pharmaceutical brand teams should be based on overall portfolio maximization rather than individual brand success to foster collaborative behavior.
If a company does not clearly define who owns the portfolio before starting a co-positioning strategy, the strategic output will likely be undermined by internal politics.
Pharmaceutical companies should build their portfolio strategies for the competitive landscape of the next 3 to 5 years, not the present day, due to the rapid pace of change in many therapeutic areas.