Leveraging Outbound Marketing for Fundraising Campaigns

By Tom Crosby, Marketing Manager, LSN

As a branding, messaging and marketing tool, digital publications are unmatched in their ease of use, cost-effectiveness, and wide deliverability. Whether it is a monthly journal, a weekly newsletter, or a mailing targeted at a list of people you want to keep updated, the savvy life science marketing department will ultimately make use of this medium to gain exposure for their brand and deliver the message to your prospective marketplace.

The benefits of web marketing are as innumerable as they are beneficial; this is no truer for any industry than it is for the life sciences. By instantaneously connecting the entire range of professionals – from drug developers to business developers – the conversations that bring life-saving technologies to market are facilitated in time frames that were unimaginable just decades ago.

Recently, LSN helped a client with a targeted mailing in a fundraising campaign. The client is a drug developer with a novel treatment for an orphan disease for which there was previously no relief, short of disabling the patient’s immune system. The mailing, which went out to a vetted list of 300 new investor contacts, was aimed at developing a pipeline of investor candidates to help raise funds to complete the drug’s clinical trials.

The goal was to broaden the range of investors from VC’s and grants, to mid-level PE, family offices, foundations, and new corporate venture. And by the end of the same day that the mailing went out, there was a 20% open rate for the email (or 67 opens), with 7 actually clicking on the link to his executive summary provided in the email.  Three different foundations dedicated to the exact condition had even seen the call to action, and followed the links to his website.

Considering the Basics of Newsletters

Targeted mailings are only effective in special situations, however. One of the best methods for reaching your audience on a regular basis is some sort of digital canvass, followed up with a phone call canvass. Smaller firms often choose to go with a newsletter-type outreach to their target audience, because it works well to provide ongoing status updates regarding the progress of a company’s product development. At LSN, for example, we make it a weekly objective of ours to write about something industry-related; usually, it is wherever our work takes us throughout the week. The trick is to cover relevant, interesting, and useful information. With a little focus, the right topics inevitably come to light. After all, we are all daily consumers of media. If it interests you, there’s a good chance it will interest industry peers.

In reality, content is one of the easy parts of producing a newsletter. There are many other things to consider when launching your company newsletter that may seem insignificant, but can actually have a large impact on the success or failure of your web marketing campaign. For instance, when will you send your email: early in the morning, or after lunch? Do you wait for California to wake up, or catch Europe in their offices before the end of the day? And on what day of the week? These are just a few of the questions that you must ask yourself when beginning any online campaign. Failure to consider any of these things could mean your mailing gets buried, and the right set of eyes never sees it.

Another important aspect of your mailing campaign is whether you’ll facilitate the mailing in-house, or if you’ll let a third party handle the delivery. Until the last few years, the best option may have been the former. And for smaller operations with a smaller amount of targets to reach, it may still be; it isn’t difficult to manage a list of 500 emails, even with Microsoft Outlook. However, the advantages that third-party clients offer are vast, and they’re getting better all the time.

One of these advantages is flexibility. Doing an in-house mailing means that you either have to keep it simple, or have someone that knows HTML. Third-party sites like Constant Contact, iContact, and Benchmark – in addition to traditional HTML – offer the choice of using browser-integrated creation software. This gives you the opportunity to go as simple as an introductory letter, to as complex as an industry-standard newsletter, while maintaining a professional look and feel along the way.

The biggest advantage of using a newsletter hosting service, however, is using the integrated contact management tools. This covers everything from subscription management to performance tracking. Without help, these tasks can be fairly daunting, even for experienced users, because of the legal implications involved. And while it is interesting and useful to be able to track the success of your newsletter or targeted mailing down to the finest detail, if you are not 100% compliant with the law, your campaign will not get too far. The peace of mind alone is worth your monthly subscription fees. With the health of your contact list constantly being monitored, you are free to focus on the quality of your content and design.

If you are successful in keeping your content at a high level of quality, and don’t step on too many toes along the way, your mailings will eventually pay off. Like most things, it takes time, and a lot of patience; investors aren’t likely to make allocations based on a few well-written articles. However, email correspondence is absolutely vital, and by keeping yourself and your firm on the minds of the right people, your efforts will ultimately pay off in a big way.

Selecting the Right Kind of PE Partner for your Life Science Firm: Part 3 – Mezzanine Debt Funds

By Danielle Silva, Director of Research, LSN

For life science firms, choosing the right kind of private equity fund to partner with can be a difficult task, especially if the business owner does not wish to give up a great amount of their firm’s equity. This issue can be exacerbated if the firm needs further capital in order to grow the business, or possibly finance an acquisition. Last week, we looked at one source of expansion financing, which were private equity groups that use a “growth capital” strategy. This week, we will explore another source of growth financing – mezzanine debt funds.

Mezzanine debt is usually considered a kind of hybrid financing – financing which lays somewhere between debt and equity in a firm’s capital structure. Therefore, mezzanine debt has some characteristics of equity, and some characteristics of debt, falling between senior debt and equity. Some forms of mezzanine debt are convertible debt (meaning the debt issuer has the right to convert the debt into equity), and senior subordinated debt; mezzanine debt is accordingly more junior debt, which means that mezzanine debt issuers are paid back after senior debt holders. Mezzanine debt, however, is senior to equity.

Mezzanine debt is an attractive form of financing for life science firms because it allows business owners the opportunity to access more debt, and thus finance growth or expansion activities without having to give up a good amount of equity. In many cases, business owners will not have to relinquish any equity at all.

Because mezzanine debt is subordinated, however, it has a higher interest rate than senior debt. This is because it is perceived as riskier than senior debt; mezzanine lenders are paid back after senior debt holders. Senior debt holders are essentially the first group to get repaid in the case of liquidation, followed by senior subordinated debt holders (mezzanine lenders), then preferred stock holders, and finally the remainder of the equity stakeholders. Because mezzanine lenders are thus essentially second in line for repayment; there is a higher default risk for mezzanine debt.

One important fact about mezzanine debt is that it is only issued to firms that are cash-flow positive – meaning that mezzanine private equity groups would not issue debt to a pre-revenue company, such as a biotech therapeutics company in pre-clinical development. Mezzanine firms would, however, issue debt to a therapeutics company that, for example, has a couple of products on the market and was seeking to acquire a smaller biotech therapeutics company in order to grow market share.

There are many advantages to using mezzanine debt over other forms of financing; the first, as aforementioned, is that firms have less equity dilution with mezzanine financing than with other forms of private equity – even less so than with growth equity groups who typically do not take a controlling equity stake. Generally, mezzanine lenders will take an observer position (non-voting) on the firm’s board of directors, whereas growth equity funds typically are more operationally focused, and will take an active board seat.

Another advantage is that mezzanine loans are typically longer-term than other forms of debt, and require interest-only payments until their maturity date. Some of the downsides of mezzanine funding are that it is a lot more expensive than other forms of debt, with higher interest rates than other forms of financing.

Furthermore, mezzanine funds may sometimes require firms to give up a portion of their equity upside in order for the fund to achieve their desired rate of return on the debt instrument. Thus for life science firms who are seeking an alternative form of debt to senior debt, and are looking for a form of funding that requires little to no equity dilution, a mezzanine lender may be the solution.

Strategic Investors Aggregating Early Stage Assets

By Max Klietmann, VP of Research, LSN

Recently, two major trends have surfaced in early stage life sciences investment; the concept of the virtual pharma and private equity aggregation of early stage portfolios. According to several conversations I’ve had with these two categories of investors over recent months, these entities are beginning to employ a new strategy to take advantage of the plethora of promising early stage assets available. The basic idea is to grow a synergistic portfolio around a specific silo (indication, technology, etc.) over time. These portfolios of complimentary assets can then be brought directly to market (via third party distribution) or sold into large pharmaceutical companies, whose pipelines are increasingly suffering from a myopia leaving significant market opportunities unaddressed.

The concept is quite simple and intuitive: In the case of a virtual pharma, a group of highly seasoned life sciences and pharma experts raise capital to buy a portfolio of promising early stage academic assets, vet them, and shepherd them through clinical trials via a very lean model relying heavily on CROs and outsourced development. By focusing on only fast-moving, highly promising assets (and strategically divesting those that aren’t), a very lean pipeline is maintained. This keeps capital allocated exclusively on getting product to market as quickly as possible. Then, either through licensing or third party distribution via a rent-a-salesforce, the products are sold into the marketplace.

Similarly, highly strategic mid-market PE investors (who typically invest in large scale opportunities closer to phase II or III) are making very small $1-5 million investments spread across a very broad range of very early stage assets, including academic laboratory research. The assumption is that by maintaining a hands-on approach and scrupulous focus on performance, a fund is capable of maintaining a portfolio of companies that not only have a promise of success on an individual basis, but as a collective whereby the whole is more valuable than the sum of its parts.

This approach allows investors to follow big pharma and provide solutions to upcoming pipeline gaps. It is also a more attractive opportunity for buyers down the line, because it is a fully integrated and curated portfolio with a strategic orientation towards marketability. The end result is a more efficient flow of capital through the industry, stronger drug development pacing, and an improved return profile for equity holders in life sciences companies that constitute the portfolio constituents.

Creating a Target List of Qualified Investors

By Brian Gajewski, VP of Sales, LSN

Many firms that are looking to raise capital in the life sciences arena have the difficult problem of finding a place to start – that is, figuring out how to gather a list of potential investor candidates to reach out to. As with most firms, the first pass at raising capital is with friends, family, and industry colleagues. This is a great category for the first couple million, but moving past this stage becomes a difficult task for many firms because of their lack of experience in raising capital.

Once a firm has exhausted the investments from that first stage of capital raising, the next step is to create a complete list of qualified investor leads that they can then begin reaching out to. LSN refers to this as a Global Target List (GTL). The fact that the life science arena is a global marketplace justifies getting past the regional mentality for fund raising efforts.

One of the first ways to start collecting investors is to target those that have invested in companies similar to yours over the past 5-10 years of financing rounds (another reason for the global approach). For that reason, it is very important to take the appropriate amount of time in performing research.  One best practice is to start by finding firms that are look-alikes, which are firms that have similar profiles to yours. This allows you to identify major investors in the space that have invested in similar firms based on therapeutic or device indication. For example, within the LSN platform, our clients are able to search through the past 12 years of financing in the life science industry by filtering the series & type of financing, as well as the date, sector, and phase of the product.

The next step in creating your Global Target List of investors is to create a list of foundations that might have an interest in your area of development. Foundations are a key investor in the life science industry because it fills two of their investment mandates – one being capital preservation, and the other, their philanthropic portfolio of investments. What is more interesting is that the donor lists to these foundations are in the public domain. The astute marketer can peruse this list and hopefully parse the high dollar donors and find a few nuggets that would be worth researching for an introductory call or meeting. The premise of this exercise is to remember that donors to foundations have a desire to move the science along for treatments and cures. Foundations are great vehicles to help move science along, despite being held back by process and bureaucracy. However, for some donors investing directly, companies that are moving the science along may be just as compelling.

It is important to remember that when your firm is raising capital, you are not just selling to people, but you are also selling to them a way to potentially affect the world. The most powerful reason for investors to allocate capital is that you are developing a cure for a disease that has affected them, their family or their people in their orbit.

Not only do you want to target foundations that might have an interest in your target indication, but also the major contributors to those same foundations. We are finding that more and more families are becoming interested in investing directly with a life science company.

Finally, you have to think globally, and create a Global Target List, but you must act locally – meaning, draw that two-hour road trip circuit, and figure out how many investors on your GTL are a short trip away. This is an excellent way to start to learn who your good targets are, and to give you the practice you need to make your presentations more compelling.

Now that you have a list of investors that have a specific interest in your type of company, it’s time to make sure you have the bandwidth to begin reaching out to them and tracking your success.

Validating the Family Office Life Science Investment Strategy

By Max Klietmann, VP of Research, LSN

Anyone following my articles on investor trends in the life sciences arena knows that I am particularly interested in the emerging trend of family offices investing direct in life sciences companies. My interest in this space is that while family offices have a reputation of being very private and opaque, they compose an extremely important investor category. Aside from the findings aggregated by my research time via intensive web research and phone interviews, I try as often as possible to sit with wealth advisors and consultants to family offices to discuss trends we see and compare notes.

I recently had the opportunity to spend some time speaking with a managing director at a multi-billion dollar global wealth management firm focused exclusively on advisory services for family offices and ultra-high net worth private clients. We had a lengthy and involved conversation about the fundamental dynamics that are driving family offices to invest directly in companies, and in particular, life sciences. I wanted to validate two important trends that we have been following at LSN: That family offices are recruiting top wall-street talent and internalizing the due diligence process with institutional operations quality, and that family offices are moving heavily towards making direct placements into private companies, especially in life sciences. We reached a few conclusions based on trends we’ve seen in the market that shed some light on how this category of investors is behaving in the space today.

The trend of family offices broadly beginning to make direct investments began to really accelerate in the wake of the recession; investors became disillusioned with highly non-transparent alternatives funds losing substantial amounts of capital, while still taking a hefty management fee. My conversation partner mentioned that he began to see a heavy trend in recent years of family offices withdrawing their allocations to these asset classes. However, this is not happening because family offices don’t believe in private investment; rather, they want the ability to transparently control allocations. In order to do this in a sophisticated way, they need the operational diligence that was traditionally only reserved for large funds and banks. In recent years, however, it has certainly become a trend that a larger family office will bring this expertise in-house by recruiting top talent (at a premium in terms of wall-street compensation, but for a bargain relative to the fees charged by fund managers).

According to my conversation partner, he has seen a trend of family offices recruiting top-notch institutional operations talent and due diligence capabilities from Wall Street. This allows them to make placements directly in companies in order to have consistent insight and a more compelling return profile. It is primarily the large family offices with total assets above $100 million that are able to justify this sort of institutional approach to allocating their own capital on a consistent basis. This is a key demarcation line, as it is really only above this threshold that a family office can afford to consistently allocate capital on a regular basis towards investments in a substantial way (above angel-sized contributions).

This type of activity has recently seen a substantial increase in several industries, but especially in the life sciences sector. What makes this investor class so appealing to CEOs in the space is that the way in which family offices operate is very much unlike other private investment categories; typically, family offices seek to fulfill a philanthropic mission alongside their efforts towards capital-preservation. This makes direct investment in life sciences a particularly compelling opportunity, because it offers family offices the ability to make a targeted allocation with substantial financial and philanthropic upside.

More importantly, for CEO’s looking to raise capital, family office allocations in life sciences are often heavily motivated by a connection to a particular indication, meaning that they are strategic investors with an emotional motivation to help a therapeutic succeed in coming to market. This attitude was confirmed by our discussion, and it is likely that in a macro-sense this will be an increasingly important piece of family offices’ investment focus, as chronic diseases linked to old age become more prevalent in the coming years. These are not exit-oriented investments by any means, and it is typically the success of the therapeutic that constitutes the most important aspect of the investment.

Investor Series: Selecting the Right Kind of PE Partner for your Life Science Firm – Part 2: Growth Capital

By Danielle Silva, Director of Research, LSN

Life science firms may often times find it difficult to select the right kind of private equity fund to partner with during their fundraising process. In order to pinpoint the right private equity group (PEG) to work with, the individuals tasked with fundraising at a life science firm must first gain an understanding of each private equity strategy. Last week, LSN offered an in-depth profile on buyout funds. This week, we shift the focus of our investor series, and take a deep dive into growth equity funds.

Growth equity funds, as their name suggests, supply an injection of capital into firms who are looking to expand or grow their businesses. Life science companies may be seeking this kind of capital in order to finance a major merger & acquisition, partner with a firm that has operational expertise, reduce personal guarantees on loans, or enter into new markets.

So why would a life sciences firm partner with a growth equity fund? Usually, because their business plans have been halted due to lack of available capital. As an added benefit, growth equity funds provide guidance at the board level. This means that one or more members of the private equity group will sit on the management board of their portfolio companies. Furthermore, growth capital funds usually take a non-controlling minority stake in firms, taking up to a 40% equity stake in a firm. This is because they prefer that the current management team continues to run the business.

Growth capital firms sometimes act like venture capital by providing companies with capital that helps them to accelerate the firm’s growth. However, unlike venture capital funds, growth equity funds only invest in established companies that have recurring, predictable revenue streams. For this reason, growth equity funds will not invest in an early stage, pre-revenue company. In the life sciences space, for example, a growth equity fund would invest in a medtech firm that already has one or more devices on the market. On the other hand, they would not invest in a medtech company, for instance, who has a prototype of their product, but does not have any products on the market.

Growth equity funds also vary greatly from buyout funds. Buyout PEGs typically generate revenue through restructuring a business, while growth capital investors hope to achieve returns by growing the business. Buyout funds also sometimes fully buyout a business owner, and thus do not prefer to keep the majority of the management team, whereas growth equity funds typically prefer that the current manager does stay with the firm and run the company.

Growth equity funds also have a much shorter-term holding period for their portfolio companies than both buyout and venture capital funds. Typically, growth equity funds will only hold a portfolio company long enough for their growth plans to be executed, and will then sell the business shortly after this expansion starts generating revenue.

Conversely, private equity funds typically hold businesses for longer time periods because it frequently takes longer for cost-cutting or restructuring measures to make firms increase their profitability. A venture capital fund typically has a longer time horizon than a growth fund because the firm is investing in an early stage company, and it tends to take a long period of time for these firms to become cash-flow positive, especially in the case of firms that are investing in pre-revenue companies.

Growth capital funds often focus due diligence efforts on forecasting the feasibility of the expansion that they are financing, rather than looking at the long-term attractiveness of the company as a whole. The expectation is that profits will be generated through the expansion of the company, and these profits will be used to return the capital that was provided by the fund.

When profits from the company’s expansion are not able to cover the capital that was provided by the growth equity fund, growth equity funds will employ an add-on strategy (similar to buyout funds) which will involve the acquisition of a smaller company, thus making the firm a larger player in their respective industry, with a larger market share. The cash flow that is generated from the company that is acquired can then either be used to increase the percentage of the fund’s equity stake in the parent company, or can be used to return capital to the fund.

Growth capital funds typically exit a company through a merger, or through an initial public offering (IPO). Therefore, because these funds seek to make exits through M&A or through an IPO, they typically work with larger and more established firms. Growth equity funds in the life science sector then, for example, would work with a biotech therapeutics company that currently has at least one product on the market, but would most likely not invest in a company that only has one product that is going through the clinical development process. Growth capital funds, consequently, can be very valuable partners for life science companies that are seeking to retain their current management team and are cash-flow-positive, providing these firms with the capital necessary to grow and expand their operations.

Emerging Trends in the CMO World

By Alejandro Zamorano, VP of Business Development, LSN

Competition among the CMO world is at an all-time high. With one of the largest electronic providers in the world recently announcing that it would be spending an additional $2b to expand its operation in Seoul, some are left wondering when the arms race will stop.

Since 2004, CMO’s have seen strong growth as the industry has shifted to contract organizations to complete non-core functions. Despite the recession and a dwindling amount of investment in the biotech field in recent years, CMO’s have remained resilient. The CMO space is a crucial component in the biotech world today, and below are four emerging trends that will bear fruit in 2013:

  • Patent expiry of blockbuster drugs will force the industry to become increasingly price-competitive. Because of this, CMO’s will see lower margins, but higher volume, as manufactures increase production capacity to build economies of scale. [1]
  • Big pharma will continue to outsource non-core functions as they become leaner organizations. In the next couple of years, big pharma will begin to form strategic partnerships with CMO’s and CRO’s as they become increasingly reliant on their services. [1]
  • The CMO industry will see strong growth in emerging markets where skilled labor is considerably lower. China and India will see the strongest growth in the space for the next five years. [1]
  • The CMO space will see vertical consolidation as major players try to increase service offering. The next generation of “CMOs” will also specialize in drug discovery, toxicology, clinical research & development, and manufacturing.

The CMO industry is expected to grow at an annualized rate of 12.5% for the next three years, making the industry worth around $40b by 2015. Despite the optimism, the CMO industry is starting to suffer from increased competition and lower margins. The next generation of CMO’s will need to grow quickly and leverage their relationship with their existing customers in order to maintain a competitive edge. [2]

 

[1] Downey, William. “Bio-CMO Industry Trends – Contract Pharma.” Pharmaceutical and Biopharmaceutical Contract Servicing & Outsourcing – Contract Pharma. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Jan. 2013. <http://www.contractpharma.com/issues/2012-05/view_features/bio-cmo-industry-trends/&gt;.

[2] Auerbach, Mike. “Contract Manufacturing Trends.” Pharmaceutical Processing. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Jan. 2013. <http://www.pharmpro.com/articles/2011/02/business-Contract-Manufacturing-Trends/&gt;.