You are correct pharma is not true B2B sales. I successfully sold highly complex chemistries and systems with a business degree. Achieved the coveted spot of #1 rep in the country in my 1st year just to name a few achievements. I'm not saying this to brag only to emphasize a science background is not needed.
Look at the sales forces in many biotech companies GE, Boeing etc and you'll find many salespeople with business degrees not science degrees. We had one rep on our team who had a teaching degree and blew the socks off many of the more scientifically trained reps. As far as your comment about carrying on a discussion outside of my training, I always did that since info you receive from the company is rarely sufficient for an extended discussion. I also knew a lot about other subjects due to my Biotech background that someone with a science background is not exposed to unless they learn it first hand. Biotech scientific info is not part of the educational curriculum.
All this is really irrelevant now with pharma guidelines. Any expanded discussion is a liability which is what made this job lifeless and boring.
1. GE and Boeing are not biotech. They encompass engineering and other "tech" products, which can be learned by a non-science person.
2. Your biotech background in no way helps you to have a discussion around disease states with a physician outside of your Novartis training, only a science degree would do that...have no idea what point you were trying to make there. I worked biotech as a researcher, this is just not applicable to pharma sales discussions. For example, without looking up the answer, could you tell me what function pyruvic acid has in the body, its affects, how that relates to cholesterol, diet, exercise, metabolism and then tie all of that back into cardiovascular function, diabetes and even cancer. My guess would be you couldn't. If you sell a drug related to any of the above mentioned, this information would make you a more credible resource, which would instantly develop a deeper more respected connection to your customer...why? Because now you are talking their language and not just reading off your glossy about your drug and your disease state. It goes way beyond those things with a physician and their patients. It all ties together.
3. You say that technical people have to much information, are monotone and have trouble getting to the point...interesting. Last I checked physicians are some of the most technically trained individuals and have a wealth of information. They are some of the best communicators, succinct, dynamic and able to convey very technical information in a very small amount of time. It is also interesting that some of the training we receive at Novartis involves SOAPing articles, journals and studies, which is modeled on how physicians communicate to each other. Seems weird that non-science business majors would have to learn how to communicate like a technically trained individual...interesting again.
4. Who do doctors respect and seek out when looking for the latest information regarding studies, disease state information and new breakthroughs? Answer - not pharma reps. They talk to piers, thought leaders in their respective fields and specialists. Why? Because they possess the most information, can communicate it on the their level and discuss anything else related to the topic in just as great detail.
5. I never said you can't be successful as a non-science major. I am saying that if I had two people with the same innate sales ability (you mentioned earlier that people have this ability and I agree, but then you go on to say that most technical people aren't good sales people. Which one is it? Education and curriculum play no part in innate personality and sales ability) and one was a business major and one was a science major, I would choose the science major every time. You just get more bang for your buck. Simple as that.
