Keep pulling the thread on Jakub Kaczor.
According to an article from Evaluate, the big pharma industry faces a patent cliff by 2030 that could eliminate $300 billion in revenue.
Without a designated portfolio owner or function, the financial interests of individual brand P&Ls will likely override broader portfolio strategy.
If a pharmaceutical company does not clearly define portfolio ownership before starting a co-positioning process, the strategic outcome will likely be undermined by internal politics.
Pharmaceutical companies with R&D-first cultures often experience internal rivalry between their own product teams.
The more disciplined a pharmaceutical company's R&D strategy is, the more likely it is to create products that compete with each other in the market.
Failure to accurately co-position products within a portfolio can lead to not maximizing the portfolio's commercial potential.
The process of co-positioning pharmaceutical products should begin early in the development phase to be successful.
The $300 billion in revenue at risk from the 2030 patent cliff represents approximately one-sixth of the entire pharmaceutical industry's revenue.
Companies such as AbbVie in immunology, Novo Nordisk in diabetes, and Johnson & Johnson in multiple myeloma have all faced the challenge of co-positioning multiple assets in the same therapy area.
Most pharmaceutical companies only begin to address portfolio co-positioning at or after a product's launch.
By the time a pharmaceutical asset is launched, key strategic options such as patient targeting in studies, endpoint selection, and label language are largely fixed and cannot be changed.
A common reason for the failure of portfolio co-positioning efforts is that individual brand teams lack objectivity due to their attachment to their own asset's success.