McKinsey’s mantra is to monetize customer data. That’s what they teach at most MBA schools, and that’s how Veeva and ZS make money through multi-level-marketing, until the system breaks down.
Let’s do a ICX thought experiment. Sharing it here since our LT often follow these threads and ZS recommendations, over listening to employees.
If you were a HCP and you realized that a pharma company was tracking every email that they sent you, tracked how many hours of video you consumed (*cough* Novartis) - only to have a sales rep call you for follow up, would you be overjoyed with emotions or would you start sending the email to spam and black list the rep/company?
The use of AI to track is in itself a thorny issue. AI algorithms are innately complex. The more advanced the technology gets, the harder it will be for the average human to dissect the decision-making process.
Importantly, AI doesn’t understand relationship building or the importance to give the customer some space/time, in effect would the AI’s constant notifications make our field look too “thirsty” and lead to fewer access i.e. overly attached girlfriend (look up the meme). HCPs crave quality discussions, not trackers. Moreover, all of our competitors will be/are already tracking, harassing, and inundating the HCPs - what makes Genentech any different?
AI is in itself a black box. It can be easily skewed toward one perspective or another. Who would we assign responsibility to when the algorithm goes awry i.e. customer data breach, loss of customer confidence, customers getting too email emails, customer getting the wrong information? ZS, McKinsey, Veeva, or Genentech?
Pharma Organizations are already struggling with the issue of trust, tracking our customers and heeding to constant alerts flashing on your computer screen will demoralize the field team, and concerns with data privacy and security will turn off the HCP.
All of these solutions were good before the Facebook scandal, there is renewed scrutiny with these “social media” like strategies.
