Pharma Says ‘What Social Network?’ Fard Explains
7 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // June 6th, 2008 // 12:24 pm
As the Internet mushrooms every day, pharma seems destined to be left behind. Beset by a conservative culture shaped by regulatory concerns, trade secrets and other legal worries, drugmakers haven’t figured out how to use social networking to engage the public. A very few official blogs have been created, but the concept has yet to take hold in an industry that seems, more than ever, to need new ways to communicate with consumers, some of whom view drugmakers with suspicion. We asked Fard Johnmar of Envision Solutions, who does social-network consulting for industry, government and non-profits, why this is the case and what may happen…
Pharmalot: Let’s start with blogs. Only a few exist - Glaxo’s Alli, JNJ’s By The Way, and a new one from Centocor. Why not more?
Johnmar: There are two opposing forces at work. One says ‘let’s get involved right now.’ The other is ‘we’re conservative and have to meet our numbers.’ That becomes the priority. They’ve largely intimidated and so there appears to be a holding pattern. And they’re not sure if these activities will have a positive impact on the brands, so it’s causing them to go slowly. There are also some good reasons - layoffs, consolidation, not enough new drugs. So most feel there’s good reason to be cautious. Of course, that doesn’t mean these companies should do nothing.
Pharmalot: But are they really do nothing or just flummoxed?
Johnmar: They are using social technology, of a kind, in ways we don’t see. Pfizer has a deal with Sermo, the social networking site for doctors. A number of companies have become very interested in what Sermo has to offer in terms of intelligence - advertising board, understanding treatment patterns, competitive intelligence. Generally, though, they’re still looking at the tenor and tone online of their products and competitive products. But mostly, they’re monitoring, not participating.
Pharmalot: Tell us about the online efforts then as they exist now.
Johnmar: I see four strategies. One is advertising, or the broadcast message, where you get the message out on web site and someone else’s social network. They’re very comfortable with that because it’s the same as advertising in a journal and not an inflammatory converation. The next is conducting research, such as asking questions. That’s another very comfortable place for pharma. They do focus groups all the time. They use sites to recruit for clinical trials, too. Then there’s seeding - using sites to seed communities around certain issues, such as a particular disease, so people can speak to one another. It’s similar to a listserv or forum. But it’s run by others and the company provides the support to get it started. There’s a hands-off aspect to this.
The last category is conversation. That’s where it becomes unusual, because the companies all talk about legal and regulatory issues and are very slow to embrace the idea of blogging or podcasting. The companies are saying they can’t necessarily get involved in this stuff. They’re trying to figure it out. Meanwhile, people everywhere are already using them for so much else.
Pharmalot: It seems that they’re missing the boat, though, yes?
Johnmar: All these strategies are sppropriate, depending on the goal. They should only get involved unless they understand what they’re getting into. Most companies feel it’s not worth getting involved in conversations, because they’re afraid of negative commentary.
Pharmalot: But aren’t they then missing out on hearing something that should be heard?
Johnmar: I think they are. There’s a lot to be said for getting involved with stakeholders to learn what they think. They’re really are missing the board. But they key issue for them is how to balance that with their caution. Some are closer to answer these questions. If I were to make a guess, in the next year or year and a half, you’ll probably see them become more active, but it’ll mostly be under the radar. They’re still trying to understand the benefits and drawbacks.
Dan
The Prevention of Ignorance
Historically, information sources provided to American citizens were limited due to the few methods available to the public. And also this information was subject to being filtered and, in some cases, delayed. This occurred for a number of reasons, which included political ones.
Now, and with great elation, there is the internet.
Soon after the advent of the internet, web logs were created, that are termed ‘blogs’. At that time, about a decade ago, the blogs were referred to as personal journals or diaries visible on line. As time passed, blogs became a media medium, and blog communities evolved on topics that often were not addressed in mainstream media. In addition, blogs provide immediate contributions by others instead of the cumbersomeness of opinion and editorial pieces historically and not always presented in such media forms as newspapers. The authors of blogs vary as far as their backgrounds and intent of what they present are, just as with other media forms. Furthermore, they are not exonerated from the legalities of what is written, such as cases of libel. While we can presume that they like to write, they may not be quality writers.
Yet presently, blogs have become quite a driving force for those with objectives often opposed by others, and are a threat to big business and politics both who presently monitor the progress and content of blogs that provide instant information on events, which might affect their image and activities not yet exposed.
This includes information released from whistleblowers
While one disadvantage of blogs is the potential lack of reliability, blogs however do allow the posting of documents that typically are not created for view of others besides perhaps a select few. For example, blogger Dr. Peter Rost, a whistleblower himself, not long ago posted a newsletter on his blog site given to him by pharmaceutical maker AstraZeneca employees who called themselves the ‘AZ Group of Seven’ to bring to the attention to others the illegal activity of off-label promotion of one of their cancer drugs. Yet this is not what caught the attention of so many with all of the content of this newsletter. It was instead a comment stated by former regional AZ manager Mike Zubalagga, who in this newsletter referred to doctors’ offices as ‘buckets of money’. Again, the statement was authentic and in writing in this newsletter.
Mr. Zubalagga was fired the next day due to this comment. His manager resigned soon afterwards.
And there have been other whistleblower blog cases in addition to this one, so blogs have become a very powerful and threatening medium of information release that does not allow others to prevent such releases. This is true freedom of information, free of alteration or omission. One step closer to social utopia.
Yet again, the information on these blogs should not be taken as absolute truth without proof to verify claims that may be made. Of course, documents that are authentic are in fact proof, as illustrated with the above example. And this, in my opinion, is the blog’s greatest value, combined with the comments on blogs from the growing number of readers who are allowed to contribute to the subject matter so quickly, which fuels the objectives of the blogs.
Because we, the public, have a right to know what we are entitled to know and what we want to know. This is especially true if the information could potentially be adverse to our well-being.
“Information is the seed of an idea, and only grows when it’s watered.” — Heinz V. Berger
Dan Abshear
Matthew Holford
I don’t think any company could ever write a blog, simply because, with the attendant interest in suppressing information, it would lack authenticity, and would have the well-vetted look of an officially-sanctioned press release. In fact, the Worshipful Company’s objectives represent the very antithesis of what the blog has come to represent, I think.
Matt
Michael
This issue was vetted a decade ago. Attorneys would take any sentence they could to hang a drug company with it.
~35% of Americans are treated for the condition they have… that, unfortunately, hasn’t changed in a decade either.
Bob Freeman
The degree of oversight by the General Counsel’s office would make the creation ans ongoing operation of a blog impracticable. Toss in the External Affairs’ & Government Affairs’ input, the information would be banal at best.
Anne
I can imagine a blog by Eli Lilly now. It would look like one of their PR releases. And they wouldn’t respond to an inquiry or question, the same way they don’t now. Stiff as a stick; stuck in the seventies, and b-o-r-i-n-g. None of the Phrmas will do blogs because they have so many lethal secrets to hide.
Dr. Sal Giorgianni
This social networking thing is a bad idea.
Some decades ago PhARMA opened up a big shining Pandora’s Box wrapped up with a “Direct To Consumer Advertising” bow, in a bow to information-access-advocates and, yes, even some “power through information to the people” activists. Now, I doubt any feel that this played out the way anyone wanted it to.
I believe a similar box is now being presented to the industry by folks in the social-networking business (and they do make some $$ here folks); I hope the industry does not open this box too.
Marc Monseau
Fascinating discussion here — and I think Fard provides a good assessment of the current situation. It is worth noting that the difficulties associated with “joining the conversation” aren’t just limited to companies involved in healthcare. Beyond regulatory or legal concerns, there is the little matter of learning (or relearning) how to engage in a two-way conversation - which is no small feat for businesses that have grown used to “broadcasting” messages. To do so requires being more candid and a willingness to take the chaff along with the wheat. To be sure, it isn’t easy…