Virtual rep jobs

Quote

anonymous

Guest
I saw a job posting at another company for a virtual rep - paying $55,000-$65,000 a year with no mention of bonus and no car. That is the first I have seen of that. Is this what it is coming to?
 








If you are a virtual rep, why do you need a car?

by the way, we do employ virtual reps. While face to face interaction is still the best approach to sharing clinical information to a provider, the cost benefits of non personal promotion are a real thing.
 




anonymous said:
If you are a virtual rep, why do you need a car?

by the way, we do employ virtual reps. While face to face interaction is still the best approach to sharing clinical information to a provider, the cost benefits of non personal promotion are a real thing.
Click to expand...
especially when f2f is becoming "virtually" nonexistent and when it DOES happen the quality is poor and perfunctory.
 




anonymous said:
especially when f2f is becoming "virtually" nonexistent and when it DOES happen the quality is poor and perfunctory.
Click to expand...

lmao...virtual calls are sample drops with signatures only outside of a meal being provided. Even at a lunch with multiple providers about 1/2 the time only one doc will actually do the virtual lunch and the others conveniently don’t show but the rep fakes it and outs the other providers as a virtual engagement.

Docs are getting worn out with the virtual interaction. They need to find a way to make it easier with less tech glitches too. I bet 30% of the virtual calls have a tech issue where we can’t see or hear the doc lol. Some have firewalls that are a problem.

I get that in some places in the north like MN where there’s access issues that maybe virtual engagements are at least a small chance of getting connected.

But paying a sucky rep or a newbie is def not gonna work get virtual engagements lolol
 








This is actually built-in for the next round of layoffs. As soon as that round has finished, expect multiple job postings to go up for virtual reps on our careers site.
 








anonymous said:
This is actually built-in for the next round of layoffs. As soon as that round has finished, expect multiple job postings to go up for virtual reps on our careers site.
Click to expand...

Well good luck if that’s the plan. I saw 2 docs today in an office with a “no reps” sign on door since March. They are sick of the awkward virtual meetings and miss f2f engagements. I’m the first (and only) rep they have seen live in months. For 60k/year we could use the support...but there’s no way a virtual rep could ever replace us. It takes years to build relationships that we have and a computer will never be able to achieve that
 




anonymous said:
Well good luck if that’s the plan. I saw 2 docs today in an office with a “no reps” sign on door since March. They are sick of the awkward virtual meetings and miss f2f engagements. I’m the first (and only) rep they have seen live in months. For 60k/year we could use the support...but there’s no way a virtual rep could ever replace us. It takes years to build relationships that we have and a computer will never be able to achieve that
Click to expand...

You’re right but the plan is not to completely replace reps who do f2f, but rather, it is to cut down on the existing number of reps per district. Hypothetically if a district has 10 reps now, what this will look like after the next round of layoffs are probably something like 4 f2f reps and 6 virtual reps. The 4 reps who will do field work will only see the top 5% customers/territory (with territories being consolidated vs what they are now) and the virtual reps servicing all other remaining accounts. Again, this is a rough example. But the main point is to reduce by 40% to 60% the number of reps who do f2f and supplement as needed with virtual-only reps.
 




anonymous said:
Well good luck if that’s the plan. I saw 2 docs today in an office with a “no reps” sign on door since March. They are sick of the awkward virtual meetings and miss f2f engagements. I’m the first (and only) rep they have seen live in months. For 60k/year we could use the support...but there’s no way a virtual rep could ever replace us. It takes years to build relationships that we have and a computer will never be able to achieve that
Click to expand...
I so proud that you were able to see your one doctor in your territory (which took years for you to do).
 




anonymous said:
Well good luck if that’s the plan. I saw 2 docs today in an office with a “no reps” sign on door since March. They are sick of the awkward virtual meetings and miss f2f engagements. I’m the first (and only) rep they have seen live in months. For 60k/year we could use the support...but there’s no way a virtual rep could ever replace us. It takes years to build relationships that we have and a computer will never be able to achieve that
Click to expand...
Wow! 2 docs in one day! Give this boy a prize and a pat on the back! Maybe you will be featured in your regional news letter. Did you bring them something good to eat?
 








anonymous said:
You’re right but the plan is not to completely replace reps who do f2f, but rather, it is to cut down on the existing number of reps per district. Hypothetically if a district has 10 reps now, what this will look like after the next round of layoffs are probably something like 4 f2f reps and 6 virtual reps. The 4 reps who will do field work will only see the top 5% customers/territory (with territories being consolidated vs what they are now) and the virtual reps servicing all other remaining accounts. Again, this is a rough example. But the main point is to reduce by 40% to 60% the number of reps who do f2f and supplement as needed with virtual-only reps.
Click to expand...

Would the hypothetical 6 virtual reps be new BI hires, contracted with a third party, or current BI field reps that opted for a 100% virtual job?
Any info on which franchises would be targeted more with this type of reorg?
 




Makes sense to have virtual reps in low access areas. The Midwest, Pacific NW, NE and other areas where it is closed to reps. No access here in the Midwest. Been that way for years.
 




anonymous said:
Would the hypothetical 6 virtual reps be new BI hires, contracted with a third party, or current BI field reps that opted for a 100% virtual job?
Any info on which franchises would be targeted more with this type of reorg?
Click to expand...

Can’t speak with any degree of specificity on this, but I’ll say this: the organization is now at a point where the back and forth dialogue between HR, sales leadership/ operations, and legal are done and all options have been considered.
 




anonymous said:
Can’t speak with any degree of specificity on this, but I’ll say this: the organization is now at a point where the back and forth dialogue between HR, sales leadership/ operations, and legal are done and all options have been considered.
Click to expand...

So will the big meeting in late September just finalize things?
 








anonymous said:
Right now, LEGAL RULES this company
Click to expand...

That’s true for all companies - well at least the “ethical” ones per the industry standards and regulations. It’s Legal that keeps the company alive. Sales brings in the money, Marketing tells reps how to sell thus aiding in bring in the money, but it is Legal that keeps the company in good standing with the Feds. If that is screwed up, the company will be dead in the water and sunk before you know it.
 




Top Bottom
Back
Quote