Category Archives: Medical Marketing

Pharma and Social Media: It’s Not About Controlling the Conversation, but Finding the Right Venues for Engagement

Now that Facebook Pages is to Marketing what LinkedIn Profiles is to Job Seeking – pharma companies are in pickle: Facebook is going to open up comments no matter what.

This means pharma companies can no longer restrict people from commenting on their Facebook pages.

Er…. DUH! Why is this big news? People get on Facebook to socialize – and not just to socialize – but to socialize in a mildly (or very) uninhibited manner. Facebook is MySpace done artfully and profitably, where we aren’t subjected to blinking starry page backgrounds or annoying music on auto-loop.

But remember why Facebook was created, and why Facebook has taken off with businesses – it is because when people are less inhibited, they are more suggestive, and more likely to click on links that businesses want them to click to buy stuff!

If businesses want stuffy and formal – there’s already a Facebook for that – it’s called LinkedIn.

I realize that it makes good sense for pharma to get its brands and company names out there. The problem is that when the public engages pharma, if they don’t ask about products, what would they want to engage pharma about?

[Assuming they aren’t interested in engaging pharma companies to ask, “why are you charging such high prices for drugs I need to save my life?”]

It’s akin to expecting a customer who drives a Toyota Corolla here in the U.S. not to engage the company Toyota to ask about the Corolla he drives. Unless that customer happens to work in an area that involves some business process, thereby predisposing the customer to want to ask about how Toyota “the company” works, customers often equate the company with the brands they use.

I understand that pharma industry supporters, including myself, would love if pharma can once again establish credibility with consumers by focusing on their support of disease state research and advancement.

Only another party’s already settled in that domain: they’re called physicians.

Physicians are typically seen as providers of support to patients in disease areas, from the consumer perspective. Let’s say I experience the symptoms of clinical depression – I’d naturally think, “I need to seek info from the doctors (once I learn more about this on the web)”.

I am not thinking, “I wonder what information GSK or Pfizer is providing in treating depression.” I’m not even thinking, “I wonder how Forest Laboratories or AstraZeneca are supporting R&D in depression relapse.”

But I may think in drug names, like, “I wonder if I should ask my doctor about Abilify, or Zoloft.”

[note: this would be an off-label use of Abilify, since Abilify is not approved for first-line use in treating depression, only as an adjunct to a first-line treatment if that treatment isn’t working as well as it should; it’s like a “boost”. But I use Abilify because I’ve been seeing so many ads on TV for it, and I honestly haven’t seen that Zoloft bouncy little ball in ages on TV.]

Thus there is first a cognitive hurdle that will not be easily passed. It is that diploma on the wall that garners the physician ‘credibility’, just as it is the commercial/business status that garners the pharma industry ‘lack of credibility’ when it comes to its participation as providers of information on the disease state, no matter how objective pharma tries to be.

In fact, even a recent survey of U.S. physicians had shown that they don’t want to pay for their own CMEs, yet they also won’t trust the CME content that is supported by pharma thereby making CME affordable (“free”) for them!

Logistically, the speed of Facebook and Twitter is exactly why Pharma should must hesitate.

People don’t go on FB/TW expecting a support-ticket time-frame (“slow”) response. They are on these platforms for just in time/immediate responses (“fast” “NOW!”). Otherwise, why bother? There are already online forums or patient info phone numbers for support-ticket speed “communication”.

It is not just about the platform, but the patient expectation that comes with the platform.

If you had ever engaged in a hashtag-driven Twitter chat, then you’d know how it’s next to impossible to follow every single conversation that comes at you in firehose fashion. Imagine then if there’s one or two patient complaints or problems amid the 20 other divergent discussions.

That’s what trying to retain “form” around a topical discussion may look like when Facebook comments are opened up for pharma.

[Lest any of us had forgotten – remember the “Motrin Mom” event, where a twitter indignation went viral and before the end of the weekend, the U.S. VP of Marketing at McNeil had to take that YouTube ad down? Try controlling THAT hashtag outbreak; I was there and saw how quickly it amplified.]

I’m 100% for increasing dialog between industry and consumers/public. Yet I think we can’t equate social media platforms the same, just as we can’t equate popular venues the same for medical education.

There are some social media platforms that are akin to a quiet, business like conference room.

Then there are social media platforms where people go for happy hour and unwind and engage in more personal conversations than business.

Then there are social media platforms where people go in expecting a brawl and in fact that’s why they showed up in the first place.

Pharma needs to identify these types of platforms and, rather than forcing or imposing artificial constraints by making everyone show up to a bar in a business suit.

The question Pharma needs to ask is, “is the purpose we intend to serve by showing up here feasibly achievable by the expectations of the crowd who will also show up?”

CME and Pharma: Doctors Want Support That They Can’t Trust

“Doctors want CMEs paid for them but can’t trust the people they want to help pay for their continuing medical education.” That’s how I sum up the below survey published by Archives of Internal Medicine.

Look at what the conclusion said: “Although the medical professionals responding to this survey were concerned about bias introduced from commercial funding of CME, many were not willing to pay higher fees to offset or eliminate such funding sources.”

If doctors are so concerned about ethics and bias, then they need to put up the money and pay for their own continuing education to stay current in their fields so that they can do their jobs. But based on “reality”, doctors are more concerned about their bottom-line and the survey suggests that their bottom-line trumps whatever concerns about bias they may have.

Clinician Attitudes About Commercial Support of Continuing Medical Education

Results of a Detailed Survey

Jeffrey A. Tabas, MD; Christy Boscardin, PhD; Donna M. Jacobsen, BS; Michael A. Steinman, MD; Paul A. Volberding, MD; Robert B. Baron, MD, MS

Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(9):840-846. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.179

Background Pharmaceutical and medical device company funding supports up to 60% of accredited continuing medical education (CME) costs in the United States. Some have proposed measures to limit the size, scope, and potential influence of commercial support for CME activities. We sought to determine whether participants at CME activities perceive that commercial support introduces bias, whether this is affected by the amount or type of support, and whether they would be willing to accept higher fees or fewer amenities to decrease the need for such funding.

Methods We delivered a structured questionnaire to 1347 participants at a series of 5 live CME activities about the impact of commercial support on bias and their willingness to pay additional amounts to eliminate the need for commercial support.

Results Of the 770 respondents (a 57% response rate), most (88%) believed that commercial support introduces bias, with greater amounts of support introducing greater risk of bias. Only 15%, however, supported elimination of commercial support from CME activities, and less than half (42%) were willing to pay increased registration fees to decrease or eliminate commercial support. Participants who perceived bias from commercial support more frequently agreed to increase registration fees to decrease such support (2- to 3-fold odds ratio). Participants greatly underestimated the costs of ancillary activities, such as food, as well as the degree of support actually provided by commercial funding.

Conclusion Although the medical professionals responding to this survey were concerned about bias introduced from commercial funding of CME, many were not willing to pay higher fees to offset or eliminate such funding sources.

FDA Has to Slow Down to Keep Up with Drug Companies

Steve Woodruff is hopping mad with the apparent gross inefficiency and indecision of the “guidance process” for pharma company promotional practices when it comes to social media, and I can’t blame him!

But I’m on the FDA’s side this time.

Let me say up front that I never liked how the FDA remains vague and slow in the past, it sucked when I was a pharma employee trying to figure out just what the FDA “wants”, but the FDA had long acted like a tripped out lover who has something in mind but we’re supposed to guess or better yet – read his mind.

But today I am much more forgiving of the FDA than I am of pharma company management.

I was looking at a recent run down of 2010′s lawsuits settled by drug companies and to say that I’m disappointed with industry’s continual hypocrisy is a gross understatement.

It’s one thing when you can say that you’re working toward implementation of compliance practices. It’s another when you take one step forward and 3 steps back as an industry in something as “common sense” as “don’t mislead the public” (in every which way that can be done via old media/new media).

For so many years whether as employee or consultant, I have heard company management say “Patients are our #1 concern! People are our greatest asset! We want to do the right thing!” in public forums and company meetings. Then I look at the actions that are motivated by incentives and hidden rules at companies.

I’m not surprised why the government keeps ramping up its prosecution arm. I get that pharma changes are slow, but this looks almost as if pharma wants to test how slow it can change.

I’m not surprised the FDA has to “slow down to keep up”.

I have read some of the recent untitled warning letters sent to pharmacos, and the violative actions from pharmacos. HAVE YOU READ THESE? Look at the list growing from year to year. And how the SAME CITATIONS KEEP COMING UP, AGAIN AND AGAIN.

If I had to cull through the sheer amount of garbage that pharmacos continue to churn out as sales aid, my resources would come up short as well.

It’s like, pharma companies can’t learn!

It makes me want to say, “come on pharmaco people, you guys come armed with MBAs and doctorate degrees, you have teams of lawyers…. SERIOUSLY? THIS TYPE OF VIOLATION – STILL?”

Or more accurately, maybe they just don’t want to learn.

Maybe it’s still a game to see how much money you can make when you push the envelope and offset the profits with FDA imposed penalties and fines.

Even when you slapped with a huge lawsuit costing you hundreds of millions of dollars, well you can act like this is the stock market and say if you earned more revenue than lose it as a liability of “market fluctuation or market conditions” you’ll still come out on top.

Meanwhile, patients lose, healthcare loses, and pharma employees who actually want to do the right thing when earning their keep lose.

Big Pharma Shilling and WebMD.com MayoClinic.com Smack-Down

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?

Advil PM v. Tylenol PM Ad is Misleading

This has been bugging me for a long time, but recently I saw another one of these “advil PM versus tylenol PM” commercials, so I am going to finally write about it!

First of all, the commercial is basically a “why Advil PM is so much better” ad. It talks about how the person taking tylenol PM isn’t getting as good of a sleep as the person taking advil PM, and it shows the person on tylenol tossing and turning while the advil taker snoozing peacefully.


What’s wrong with this picture? Several:

1. They are different drugs. Advil is ibuprofen, an NSAID. Tylenol is acetaminophen, which works on pain by a different pathway. Both work for pain, and both have their advantages and disadvantages as pain killers.

2. But is Advil focusing on this fact – PAIN? NO! Advil is now talking about sleep! All right then, let’s look at the ingredients for sleep. It is basically the same ingredient as Benadryl. The exact same ingredient in both. But I thought I was watching a commercial for a pain killer drug. And instead of focusing on the key indication (pain), the Advil ad focuses on the side indication (sleep).

3. Fine. So why does Tylenol’s sleep aid work less better than Advil’s sleep aid even when both offer THE SAME SLEEP AID? Simple answer: Advil puts more Benadryl (38 mg) in its combo med. OK more accurately, “the active ingredient in Benadryl”.

So it’s not because Tylenol’s sleep drug is less effective, it’s not because Tylenol PM uses an inferior or less effective sleep drug than Advil.

It’s because Tylenol has less (25 mg) of the same sleep drug as Advil.

[On a personal note, Benadryl’s regular dosage is 25 mg, which already makes me feel completely drowsy and dried up. I don’t need an extra 13 mg of antihistamine to make me sleepier!]

This commercial annoys me because it exemplifies what is wrong with many commercials on TV relating to meds. They dupe consumers by playing with words and making apples-to-oranges comparisons, instead of true head-to-head comparisons.

Come on, Pfizer (maker of Advil), you can spend millions of bucks on a better commercial!