• Goes without saying, BD is tough. Not only do you have to manage clinical risk, but even if the asset works well, you could get steamrolled by a slightly better positioned competitor or be unable to secure favorable reimbursement. Suddenly an asset that years / hundreds of millions of $ were invested into could be DOA
• Launches are so critical to get right. It's actually pretty rare to see a floundering asset have a sudden revival. There's some practical reasons for this (i.e. the company diverts S&M resources elsewhere), but first impressions are really hard to break with many physicians and KOLs

There are some strategies that seem to consistently work well:

• Operating in a "zone of competency" seems to generate higher success rates. This can be explained by not having to build the commercial infrastructure to support an asset on the fly - you already have relationships with the right prescribers / KOLs and might have leverage through other assets in the portfolio for reimbursement discussions (see: AbbVie in I&I with Humira --> Skyrizi & Rinvoq). It's tough for a company to thrive in an entirely new space unless the asset is a gamechanger
• Competitive intelligence is so critical. It's baseline to know all the other assets out there, the nuanced design decisions they made, how they differ vs. yours and so forth. Simulating commercial / clinical outcomes at scale and layering that into your view of the world is also valuable (P.S. Sleuth can help with all of this - reach out if that sounds useful to your team!)
• Finding untapped patient segments (even within "crowded" spaces) is a way to secure a higher floor for performance. It's easier to draw out demand when your label has differentiation vs. everyone else and appeals to a specific patient, whether based on genomic or medical profile, a particular mutation, prior treatment, or something else. This gives a strong foothold to still attack the broader market as well, as the same docs likely treat those patients