Maybe data could be better but all pharma is getting data from similar sources. We at HCV decide we can do it better. If you happen to be in the right region/division, well if we don't like an account or doctor, lets just pull that data so we can keep their market share up. Other areas, it's just tough luck, it does'nt impact enough people (or should I say the right people) When we got the contract or favor with the doctor, let's include the data and oh, give out SAA for such a great job. When things go sour, oh, lets pull that data because we really could impact the decision. (give them another SAA because they did everything they could.
No for our IC 2011 plan, over half the territories in the nation lost market share from where the territory ended 2010 but believe it or not, over half of those territories that LOST market share have an IC payout greater than 100%. I know, they were given market share goals and that is what performance is measured on, but to pay IC greater than 100% for territories that lost market share....that is motivating. Mike Small is happy he is not here to answer that issue. But we can hide behind over 50% of the field force made 100% or better IC, see the plan worked. Looks good until you dig deeper into the data, then someone has to ask WTF.
No for our IC 2011 plan, over half the territories in the nation lost market share from where the territory ended 2010 but believe it or not, over half of those territories that LOST market share have an IC payout greater than 100%. I know, they were given market share goals and that is what performance is measured on, but to pay IC greater than 100% for territories that lost market share....that is motivating. Mike Small is happy he is not here to answer that issue. But we can hide behind over 50% of the field force made 100% or better IC, see the plan worked. Looks good until you dig deeper into the data, then someone has to ask WTF.