Last week we wrote about the challenges of communicating about our products through new media channels. Two items from this week's news are illustrative of some of the unique issues with which we must contend when writing about our business.
An NPR story on the rise of pertussis cites doctors' anecdotal reports on "an increase in the number of parents refusing to vaccinate their children against childhood diseases." As a manufacturer of vaccines we have an obvious business interest in pediatric vaccines that we believe aligns with public health interests. The NPR story fairly addresses a significant public health issue so we'd like to highlight it on our blog. But not so fast... we must first ask ourselves whether doing so could be seen as promoting our products. If it is viewed that way, then we have an obligation to include additional information about the product in question.
So, it isn't straightforward when a vaccines manufacturer communicates about vaccines. There are times when even our disease-oriented communications might be interpreted as promoting our products, thereby requiring that additional information be included along with the mention of our products (approved indication statement, safety information, submission to FDA etc). Many factors, including a pharmaceutical company's position in a particular market (ie, if they are the largest or only manufacturer of a product for the disease under discussion) and the product's approved indication can inadvertently raise the perception that the communication is promotional.
When it comes to Twitter, there isn't much collective experience or precedent for any of us. So it isn't surprising that as one blog pointed out, Pharma hasn't nailed it yet. However, in our view, the FDA's recent communications on sponsored links raises questions about how Twitter can be used to communicate about prescription drug products. For example, FDA has made clear that the short 100 or so character ad copy used in sponsored links cannot be used for anything deemed to represent what the product is used for, without also including the safety information about the product in the sponsored link - a difficult challenge in such limited space. Including a direct link to the product's website where all the important information about the product is spelled out is not sufficient.
So before making claims that "Pharma doesn't know how to do this," we ask that you take into consideration that there may be much larger issues at stake governing the way we communicate.
First off I think Twitter is a fad. If you look at it's 'churn' rate (40%+ users are no longer active after 2 months) and the audience (Tweens, teens, and under 25s) I can't see any reason why the pharma industry should lose any sleep over not being part of this flash in the pan.
Even if it is here to stay I think all of these 'hip' social media tools are a bad fit for pharma. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I like to think of medicine and medical treatment as a professional enterprise, not something I 'befriend' or become a 'fan' of.
I like the idea that pharma companies, hospitals and doctors are part of an elite profession dedicated to research and serious contemplation and application. When medical advice is being pitched to me like soda pop or new cars I can't help but lose some of my respect for the medical profession in general. If my new drug is coming to me from the same outlet as Ashton Kutcher's lunch menu or Perez Hilton's latest blather why should I take it any more seriously than either of those?
I'm of the opinion that companies like GSK should make information about their products easy to understand and easy to find. Let Google do the rest. Maybe I'm naive, but I've always been a proponent of 'if you build it, they will come.'
Truth in advertising is the key here. The question of being viewed as merely advertising the product instead of really showing the benefits of using it is just a matter of how you perceive your product as it is. As a manufacturer, you have all the reasons to win customers but be sure to always align it with public interests.
Heah - thanks for responding!
My day job is in the IP protection and compliance space, which is why I can totally appreciate the unique issues for pharmas. I don't sign up for the populist view that it's only a question of time before pharmas "get it". I think pharmas are too serious and too concerned about safety to just "get it".
Pharmas are at the center of an incredibly strong nexus between doctors, medical representatives and industry thought leaders.
The key takeaway from this obvious insight is that you can use the Web to intensify and make more effective your existing/physical/professional relationships.
The paper, Network Effects and Personal Influences: Diffusion of an Online Social Network focuses on the diffusion process of an existing network. Katona and co-authors Peter Pal Zubcsek, Ph.D. candidate at France’s INSEAD, and Miklos Sarvary, INSEAD marketing professor, also found online social networking produces a “clustering” effect that drives influence.
Being in a cluster means colleagues who actually know each other as opposed to having many friends who do not know each other. If the person's colleagues know each other the local network is denser; a so-called cluster is formed. “This finding is important as it shows that beyond sheer network size, strong communities are more relevant for word-of-mouth influence,” says Katona. Consequently, if one were trying to maintain his influence in the network, he would also have to maintain the same density of his relationships when the number of contacts grows.
Danny Lieberman
@onlyjazz on Twitter
Danny—
Thanks for your comment. Sometimes even discussing this topic feels like a bit of navel-gazing on our part, but, really, there are some unique issues at play here for Pharma. That said, I do think we need to challenge ourselves, as an industry, to figure out our place.
This is an extremely thoughtful post that illustrates the insecurity for a pharma in using social media.
There are sizable threats - marketing, medical, legal and regulatory to marketing directly to the consumer. Off-label marketing, exposure to post-hoc error of patients misunderstanding indications are just 2 examples.
I submit however that the pharmas have a huge opportunity to use social software (not social media) in the relationships between medical representatives and doctors.
There are of course, excellent reasons why pharmas are holding on to their traditional door-to-door marketing. Better control of marketing messages, doctors that enjoy the attention, samples and spoon-fed information as well as the option to leave the door open for more aggressive marketing that increases consumption of a drug above and beyond labeled dosage.
The downside of door-to-door marketing is that doctors are short on time, long on information and hungry for the right data in small digestible dosages. Whether it's independent evidence-based studies or pharmacokinetics or simply practical dosage guidelines - doctors want more science and less marketing.
On the flip side, I think medical representatives want less technology and more touch points with their doctor customers.
I believe that GSK is a CLM user but I don't buy the notion that a doctor wants to see a presentation on a Tablet PC and I am sure that a rep doesn't enjoy the challenge of installing Windows updates or dealing with Java applets on a conference call.
Social software in a controlled professional network setting can help pharmas nail the medium
Danny Lieberman
Good post. I'm the blogger who pointed out pharma hasn't nailed Twitter.
I appreciate the regulatory and practical complexities of communicating through short messages on an unprecedented medium. However, some of the 20-somethings working in big pharma's ad shops should have at least had the sense to register the companies' names and the names of the major products, then sit on them for a while till the dust cleared.
But for the most part this hasn't happened.
David E. Williams of the Health Business Blog
@HealthBizBlog on Twitter