September 12, 2018

With time for busy HCPs at such a premium, getting on their calendar early is a top priority when it comes to Life Sciences educational programming. But in today’s hectic healthcare market, managers of promotional speaker programs and the like shouldn’t necessarily view a short lead time as a deal-breaker. According to new research from AHM, there’s more to it than just the conventional wisdom that longer lead time generates higher attendance.

Programs with lead times of three weeks or more have become better-attended over the past five years: AHM data found that average attendance when the lead time was 21-plus days was 10.2 in 2017, up from 8.2 in 2013.

Taking a closer look at the different types of programs reveals some nuances: Venue-based events benefit the most from longer lead times, due to the logistics, time and expense of travel. In 2017, venue-based programs with three-plus weeks of lead time had an average attendance of 12, a significant increase over the 7.8 average for venue-based programs booked inside of a week.

But a Life Sciences speaker program manager faced with a lead time of between one and two weeks might want to consider seizing that opportunity, because the average number of attendees at venue-based events last year jumped from 7.8 to 9.2 for a seven-to-14-day lead time, but then rose more moderately to an average of 10.1 when the lead time is between two and three weeks.

Tele- and office-based programs also have higher attendance when lead times are longer, but the variations aren’t as large: Tele-based programs booked inside of a week in 2017 drew an average of 2.9 participating HCPs, while those with more than three weeks’ lead time had an average attendance of four. Office-based programs with less than seven days’ lead time had an average attendance of 6.1, versus eight for programs with more than three weeks.

When it comes to virtual meetings, though, the on-demand nature of online correspondence and transactions turns the conventional wisdom about lead times on its head. Virtual programs scheduled with 21-plus days of lead time had an average attendance of 5.9; however, those scheduled within seven days drew an average attendance of 3.7, while those with a lead time of one to two weeks had an average attendance of 3.6.

For Life Sciences program organizers facing a tight turnaround time to launch a program, this is a valuable insight: With less than a week, consider virtual programming. And while venue-based programs benefit from a good head start, a one- to two-week window might be enough to yield a good return on investment.

For an in-depth analysis on benchmarks and trends affecting HCP meetings and engagements, download AHM’s latest white paper here.

 

Contributed by:

Frank C. Castora, Sr. Director, Global Solutions Management

Frank joined AHM in 2007 and has been delivering compliance solutions to the Life Science industry for more than 10 years. He has delivered solutions for compliance-based Interactions Management and provided expertise on data integration and exchange needs for Aggregate Spend and Disclosure Reporting. Frank is currently responsible for the strategy and product management of AHM’s Global Compliance Solutions platform, CentrisDirect™, and new business intelligence and data analytics solution, CentrisIQ™.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

oval