New York Times Online is likening WebMD’s “information” as “using the meretricious voice of a pharmaceutical rep”.
I don’t know… I never found WebMD’s interface “apparently attractive” but I suppose some people like all the flashy stuff. I mean, I find the ads on NakedMedicine.com mildly annoying, but these only go toward keeping the site alive and paying for the internet connection. If I had to start paying staff writers and “physician experts”, I can see how I may need to squeeze ads onto every available white space on a website.
The few times when I did look at WebMD there are so many different ads for so many different things (often unrelated to the topic on the page) that it’s no wonder WebMD brings in over $500M revenues a year. The only time I recall seeing an ad-free page on WebMD is on their “CME” topics… and I do wonder who is paying for those (and for how much!) to keep those pages ad-free. Someone’s paying for these.
But I personally like MayoClinic.com if only for the ease of getting at the information I was looking for without having to block a gazillion ads.
I think Ms. Heffernan is seeing more of the truth in the relationships between the members of the American Medical Association and the drug industry through what she sees on WebMD.com . Maybe in the doctors’ offices we get to see a sprinkling of drug “detail pieces” and miss the piles that are thrown away or hidden (I’ve always wondered why drug companies don’t just stop leaving these behind because they’re the biggest waste of trees). The real goodies are often hidden away – in the form of shadowy monetary compensation that the feds have caught up on.
After all, when you get a world famous oncologist bragging about how many thousands of dollars he can get drug companies to pay him “per patient” in a clinical study, what’s a drug company to do?