The economy is not the only devil when it comes to sales. I believe that the Internet plays a huge role in how we purchase now. I find myself sometimes browsing at retail stores, but then buying online looking for the best deal.

How about pharmaceutical sales representatives? These jobs used to be among the most coveted in the country. Back in the “good old days,” reps (that’s what we call them) used to frequently tell me that they had the “sweetest” job in the world. Many were able to put in 3-4 days at no more than 8 hours per day while still making full salary, bonuses and big-time corporate benefits, plus all the gourmet food you could eat — as long as it was with a doctor. Well, as you know, those days are gone. Being a rep is one of the most difficult jobs and there are fewer of them everyday. The number of pharma sales representatives is down 11% compared with a few years ago. Where did it all go wrong?

It’s hard to know where to get started. Managed care has been a huge driving factor. Doctors have less time to spend with patients because they need to move so many more through their office in order to have a viable business model. Managed care looks for cost efficiencies and limits what drugs patients can take or procedures and diagnostics a doctor can perform as well as how much they will pay for them.

In this industry, we self-regulate so heavily out of fear of being regulated, that we struggle now to sell our products. Gone is the symbiotic relationship we had with healthcare professionals. We can no longer give them a pen or even a paper clip; or take them to lunch or dinner. Frankly, I don’t see the motivation of a physician to talk to our reps anymore. It is simply no fun. In the past, they would listen to our pitch and they would get something out of it that made the exchange of thoughts worthwhile for them. Why should they give their time to a never-ending line of sales reps droning on about the “first and only,” the “perfect balance,” etc?

And now with sales call times struggling to net 2 minutes at best, isn’t it getting more and more difficult to invest in a sales force? With costs growing to keep these people on staff, and sales time becoming more limited, how many reps will we be able to support? With the dwindling promise in the field, how do you attract the best new talent? Will the salesman, like the steno pool, become a thing of the past?

Fabulous failures tend to generate phenomenal innovations. So why, in an era where we value innovations, do we no longer take risks?

I believe the problem stems from our constant quest to generate sales, but not necessarily value. I have always believed that in business our duty is to drive and build value for shareholders. But lately it seems that many organizations are solely focused on this quarter’s numbers.

Decisions we implement to “make the numbers” don’t always build long-term value. We have also made a habit of incentivizing our people to sell for short-term results. This is not only true for sales folks, but also for our CEOs. It’s an endless cycle. Those who show the best immediate results get the most money thrown at them. We have to do better year after year without hesitation. It is rare that the “street” cuts us a break for years in which we choose to invest.

With all this demand for results, how could we not choose to go the path of the sure thing? Now, I don’t advocate going around willy-nilly, spending without a plan; but I would think that there are those who are much smarter than me, who can figure out how to work a percentage of “failure” into the business model. Of course there are some organizations that do take calculated risks and are able to reap the rewards. What would happen if we totally abandoned risk-taking in pharma and biotech? Innovation in medicine and healthcare would come to a screeching halt. As a society, we can’t afford for this to happen. We need discovery. We need advancement in medicine and diagnostics. Plainly, we need to take those risks. Why don’t we cut the companies a break? What if we told them that it’s okay to deliver only 3% growth. I know as a shareholder in many medical-related companies, I would be willing to continue to buy shares for the good of society, giving them a bit of slack so they can take risks and make discoveries. I’m in no way a socialist, but isn’t it possible to have lackluster results some years and stellar results in others, and not be seen in a negative light?