The intuitive state of healthcare marketing
In our most recent podcast, we ask the question, “does the ability to definitively measure the outcome of a marketing strategy or tactic make that initiative more valuable than those where you can’t definitively measure the outcome?” As we discussed this topic, something I read recently in Clayton Christensen’s book, “The Innovator’s Prescription,” might help us understand why measurement in healthcare marketing is such a tough subject.
In the book, Christensen states that there is a pattern in any industry in which the transformation of the body of knowledge about that industry progresses from an art to a science. At the same time, he states:
“Made possible by advances in technology and science, the migration of problem solving from a small group of experts to a larger population of less-expensive providers who simply have to follow the rules is a widespread foundational phenomenon that underlies the transformation of industries ranging from animation to architecture to aviation; and from telecommunications to taxes.”
He goes on to use this framework to show how the diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions lies on an axis starting with intuitive medicine, where conditions “can be diagnosed only by their symptoms and only treated with therapies whose efficacy is uncertain. By its very nature, intuitive medicine depends heavily upon the skill and judgment of capable but costly physicians.” The next stage he calls empirical medicine, where “pattern recognition” has emerged and correlations between actions and outcomes are consistent enough that results can be predicted with a good probability. Finally are those conditions that fall under precision medicine, which can be “precisely diagnosed, whose causes are understood, and which consequently can be treated with rules-based therapies that are predictably effective.” At this end, conditions which used to require teams of specialists and a hospital environment to diagnose and treat – such as strep throat – can now be handled much faster, much cheaper, and by those with much less training than a medical doctor.
Whew – OK, now apply that idea to healthcare marketing, and I’ll bet you’ll see where I’m going with this. On the one hand, the marketing strategies and tactics most hospital marketers employ fall squarely in the intuitive realm. That means they require the experience and judgement of experts to understand and employ (at a high cost to boot), there is no “cookbook” for success (as Christensen puts it), and outcomes are by no means guaranteed, or even sometimes easily measured. Think brand building, awareness advertising campaigns, social media, or public relations. There are some strategies that might fall in the empirical realm, such as using joint pain seminars to drive orthopedic business. After a few runs, an organization will have a good idea that:
A (holding a joint pain seminar at the library) + B (using a surgeon to speak) + C (using a personalized letter from CRM as invitation) etc. should = D (100 attendees) and E (20 consults) and F (5 joint replacement surgeries).
On the other hand, you can see why this reality meets resistance from others within the healthcare organization, namely administrators, physicians, service line leaders, etc. They would like marketing efforts to fall into the empirical realm, i.e.: “can’t you guarantee that by doing A + B + C in this plan and spending $200,000, we’ll see a $500,000 increase in contribution margin in six months?” It’s never fun to have to answer “no, we can’t guarantee that,” but perhaps understanding this framework as Christensen outlines it, and using it to help set expectations and explain the state of the marketing industry will help break down barriers. At the same time, marketers as a group should be fighting like mad to move the discipline away from intuitive and into the worlds of empirical and precision whenever possible. For future discussion:
- which strategies and tactics in healthcare marketing are intuitive, which are empirical, and are any precision?
- will some marketing strategies (corporate identity development, brand building, etc.) ever reach a scientific level of precision?
- how and why other industries (such as wireless or airlines) have more examples empirical and precision-level strategies when it comes to the science of marketing.
Finally, I believe all of this, but it also can sound like a cop-out. It it? What do you think?
It’s not a cop-out at all, you stated a nasty fact for all marketing, however particularly healthcare.
Interesting discussion.
If it’s used as an excuse for not identifying objectives and some level of quantitative assessment, then it is a cop-out. If it’s used to help set expectations on what you can measure, then it’s a good framework to build confidence with.
Measuring results in healthcare marketing – specifically hospital marketing – is a challenge; as you said many hospitals just don’t have the tools or ability to measure the thing s that would give you a direct connection. However – this is not a license to shrug our shoulders and wing it.
For me – if you can’t define success and identify measures that prove that what you’re doing is working, then you shouldn’t do it. I agree that you can’t always make a direct connection to ROI, but you can develop proxy measurements. If you’re trying something new, measuring is critical to learning – you may not even identify the correct measures, but you’ll learn what’s working and what’s not by pursuing them. Then you’re more prepared for the next iteration.
The bridge between intuitive to empirical, and empirical to precision, is experience and measurement. It’s a great framework – and a great way to set expectations depending upon the activity.