Is there lessons we can learn from the Intricon-HI initiative?

By Geoffrey Cooling

Holly Hosford-Dunn wrote an interesting article recently (IntriCon + HI HealthInnovation: How’s That Workin’ Out?) that appeared to show that the relationship was not exceptionally profitable. There was a lot of fear, hysteria and in some cases down right nuttiness around the announcement of the beginning of this relationship. Some people within the industry were predicting the end of times, it would have been funny if you weren’t cognisant of the underlying fear that spurred such worries.

But, as often is the case, it appears that this new distribution model was neither as disruptive or as profitable as it was thought to be. I think it is worth our while to consider why, why was this distribution model a failure? More importantly what can we learn about the motivation of prospective Patients? The model itself seemed sound, distribution of lower priced hearing instruments via a modern mail order model. What is not to like? Cheaper than normal hearing instruments, reduced amounts of hassle to acquire them.

Tested in the comfort of your own home via an internet portal, delivery of a set of instruments in a couple of days, hearing nirvana no? Well no actually, we as professionals know that this will not be the case. More importantly most Patients and prospective Patients know this too. In fact it quickly became obvious that prospective Patients knew this, many of them made enquiries in relation to support provided by Audiological Practices. When they found out that there was little or none, they voted with their dollars, or in the case of the model, didn’t.

So lesson one, service and support from qualified professionals is key in the mind of Patients. Yeah, but we knew that right? But do we really understand that and the further ramifications of that decision. The one attractive and much vaunted KSP of the initiative was the low low price for allegedly quality hearing instruments. A very attractive price by any measure, a fantastic price for the alleged technology level, but they still didn’t go for it.  I think that is the key message, that is one of the key learning points we should take from this.

Price is not everything

Even with a very attractive low price, service, support and efficacy concerns trumped. What does that mean to us and what lessons may we take from it? I think it gives us real focus, your pricing while important is not everything, your service and support is probably more important. With that clearly in mind, you can re-focus on what matters to your prospective Patients, that clear understanding will allow you to focus your marketing, your Practice management, your commercial offering on that clear concept. What do you think and what have you learned from the Intricon-HI experiment?

Regards

Geoff