Seeding trial

In medicine

Seedling trials to promote a medical intervention have been described as “trials of approved drugs” and “thinly veiled attempts to establish a new drug”. in the New England Journal of Medicine . David Aaron Kessler , US Food and Drug Administration commissioner of the article : ^[4]

• The trial is of an intervention with many competit
• Use of a trial design to achieve its stated scientific goals (eg, blinded , no control group , no placebo )
• Recruitment of physicians in their clinical trials
• Disproportionately high payments to trial investigators
• Sponsorship is from a company’s sales or marketing budget rather than from research and development
• Little requirement for valid data collection

In a seeding trial, physicians and their patients are given free access to a drug and exclusive information and services to use the drug effectively. Additionally, participating physicians are often given financial compensation and a chance to be co-authored by resulting scientific publication. By triggering the Hawthorne effect , physicians become “opinion-leading word-of-mouth advocates”. ^[2] This practice has been shown to be effective. ^[5]

Seeding trials are not illegal, but such practices are considered unethical. ^{[1] [6] [7]} The obfuscation of true trial objectives (primarily marketing) prevents the proper establishment of informed consent for patient decisions. ^[1]Additionally, trial physicians are not aware of the hidden trial objectives, which may include the subject of study of the subject. ^[1] Seeding trials may also utilize inappropriate promotional rewards, which may exert influence or coerce desirable outcomes. ^[1]

Examples

Documents released during a short case indicate that the Assessment of Differences between Vioxx and Naproxen To Ascertain Gastrointestinal Tolerability and Effectiveness (ADVANTAGE) trial of Vioxx conducted by Merck may have been a seeding trial, with the intention being to introduce the drug test its efficacy. ^{[6] [8] [9]} It appears Merck knew about the potential criticism they would face; An internal email suggests: “It may be a seeding study, but let’s not call it that in our internal documents”. ^[6] [10] The 2003 study was originally published in the Annals of Internal Medicine ^[11]but was strongly criticized by the journal editors in a 2008 editorial, calling for greater responsibility in academia to end the practice of “marketing in the guise of science”. ^[12]

In the STEPS trial Pfizer presented their drug Neurontin in a way that merged pharmaceutical marketing with research. ^[13] This trial and other practices led to the company’s loss in Franklin v. Parke-Davis .

In marketing

Product Placement is an advertising technique used by a non-traditional advertising technique, usually through appearances in film, television, or other media. ^[14]

In the marketing field, the marketing of the product is more likely to be effective in the marketing of the product. In a marketing seeding program, a company offers some sort of promotion (free product, discounts, service trials, etc.) to a niche group of people with the intention that this would stimulate WOM. An early example of a post-it notes development , produced by 3M. In 1977, secretaries to senior management staff throughout the United States were sent packs of post-iters and invited to suggest possible uses for them. They became very useful and became “brand champions” for the product, an early example of viral marketing . ^[15] Companies that have used seeding trials include Procter & Gamble , Microsoft , Hasbro , Google , Unilever , Pepsi , Coke , Ford , DreamWorks SKG , EMI , Sony , and Siemens . ^[2]

Two of the main managerial decisions revolving around the seeding focus of marketing in a multinational market and the process of seeding the product itself. Determining how many people and what are they? A particular social network is expected to be successful.

Seeding Strategies (how to seed?)

In 2005, a team of marketing researchers, Barak Libai, Eitan Muller and Renana Peres , found that, contrary to managerial intuition and common assumptions in marketing research, strategies that disperse marketing efforts are generally better strategies. These include ‘support the weak’, in which the firm focuses its marketing efforts on the remaining market potential, and ‘uniform’, in which the firm distributes marketing efforts evenly among its regions. ^[16] This conclusion is congruent with the work of Japanese business strategist Kenichi Ohmae , who suggests that the business model is superior and recommended to companies. ^[17]

Researchers Jeonghye Choi of Yonsei University, Sam Hui of Stern School of Business at New York University and David Bell of The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, explored two imitation effects of the demand at an Internet retailer, geographic proximity and demographic similarity and concluded that firms can influence the space-time demand path through seeding. The researchers conceived a new seeding strategy called “Proximity-and-similarity-based strategy”, in which the firm seeds the new product by choosing new zip codes that are most responsive while adjusting the impact of proximity and similarity over time. compare it to the three strategies presented in Libai, Muller and Peres’ research, “support the strong”, “support the weak” and “uniform”. They argue that with time, the “proximity-and-similarity-based strategy” performs best Namely, which are geographically distant from one another, is crucial for an Internet retailer because of sales over time.^[18]

Yogesh Joshi of University of Maryland, David Reibstein and John Zhang of Wharton Business School found that when question of optimal entry timing arises, a firm’s presence in a new market based on a strong leverage effect an existing market has a positive influence on product adoption in a new market. Also, a backlash effect should not prevent the firm from entering a new market, a situation where social influence is negative. Researchers show that the optimal strategy is a trade-off between the three factors of leverage, backlash, and patienc. ^[19]

Seeding Objectives

One of the key issues influencing or influencing people or random people through customers networks.

Many authors and scholars addressed this issue. Malcolm Gladwell discusses the “Law of the Few” in his book, The Tipping Point . He is a highly connected and rare person who has the ability to shape the world. This handful of unique people can spread the word around social networks, charm, personality, expertise and persuasiveness. The Influentials by Edward Keller and Jonathan Berry, The Influentials by Edward Keller. This group of people in their field is highly regarded by their peers. ^[20]

From Barak Libai, Eitan Muller, and Renana Peres, a new academic point of view. more value than targeting random customers. ^[21] [22]In seeding programs, word-of-mouth can gain customers who would not otherwise have the product, this is called expansion. However, word-of-mouth can also accelerate the purchase of customers, the faster the adoption, the greater profits. These processes of expansion and acceleration integrate to a social value in a word-of-mouth seeding program for a new product. Furthermore, when deciding upon an optimal seeding program, the researchers conclude that “Influencing Seeding Programs” yield higher customer equity than “random seeding programs”. Of course, the decision about which program to adopt depends on how much the company is willing to invest in discovering their influencers. ^[23]

German researchers Oliver Hinz of Universität Darmstadt, Bernd Skiera of University of Frankfurt, and Christian Barrot and Jan U. Becker of Kühne Logistics University, argue that seeding strategies have strong influence on the success of viral marketing campaigns. The results suggest that these are the most successful approaches because they are attractive to marketers. Well-connected people also use their greater reach and reach out. ^[24]

On the other side of the debate, some argue that such influencers have no such effect and should not consider their efforts on a specific group of people. Duncan Watts and Peter Dodds examined the phenomenon through a computer network simulation under the assumption that influential people are more difficult to influence, so social hubs have a lower tendency to adopt new products. Their work does not only play a crucial role in influencing others, but also plays a role in influencing others. ^[25]

References