FTC Urged To Probe Online Health Marketing
9 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // November 23rd, 2010 // 1:20 pm
The US Federal Trade Commission is being asked by four consumer and privacy watchdog groups to investigate what they describe as allegedly “unfair and deceptive advertising practices” that consumers confront when they attempt to gather health info online. The move comes as the FDA grapples with formulating rules for how the pharmaceutical industry can adopt social media.
“Health consumers are being told that by using digital media services they have become empowered ‘e-patients,’ but they are not being informed about the privacy and potential health risks connected with the use of digital marketing of pharmaceuticals and health products,” according to the 144-page complaint filed today with the FTC by the Center for Digital Democracy, US PIRG, Consumer Watchdog and the World Privacy Forum.
“While digital and social media play an important role in providing consumers with access to in-depth information and support concerning health products and issues, US health consumers should not be subjected to hidden digital marketing techniques designed to amass detailed profiles of their behavior and then target them with ads for specific drugs and treatments.”
Among the companies named in the complaint are Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, AOL, WebMD, Quality Health, Everyday Health, and Health Central.
“The online marketing health industry has presented to the FDA and the public a fairytale version of digital marketing, where all consumers become empowered ‘e-patients (who are) able to form powerful helping communities,” the groups argue in a statement. “But while the online medium provides medical information to those seeking access to resources and support, it has been structured to engage in aggressive tactics that threaten privacy, raise questions about the fair presentation of independent information, and advance the sales of prescription drugs and over-the-counter products.”
In their filing, the groups list several interactive techniques they claim threaten consumer privacy: such as the medical “condition targeting,” which covers such illnesses as depression, COPD, diabetes, and asthma, based on a person’s use of online health info services and digital behaviors;
Eavesdropping on online discussions of health consumers via social media data mining, enabling drugmakers to fine tune marketing campaigns for brands; collecting data on consumer actions related to health concerns by way of online profiling and behavioral tracking in order to target them for medical advertising, and using viral and word-of-mouth online to drive interest in prescriptions, over-the counter drugs, and health remedies.
Other practices mentioned include using unbranded websites and video channels to promote connections to brands, which are sponsored by drugmakers; a failure to clearly separate between what should be editorial content and promotional material by sponsors and advertisers, and influencing subconscious perceptions by using what they call ‘pharma-focused neuromarketing.’
UPDATE: PhRMA sends us this statement concerning social media: “PhRMA is still reviewing the proposal, but there are clear public health benefits for healthcare providers and patients to be able to access truthful, scientifically accurate, and FDA-regulated information about medicines online from the companies that research and develop them,” says Jeff Francer, PhRMA’s assistant general counsel.
The complaint also asks the FTC to probe the impact of ‘e-detailing,’ a growing trend in which docs, nurses and other health care providers are targeted.
Rich Meyer
What the article is not telling us is that woman who do 80% of all health searches want more relevant information when they received ads or offers. In addition the data that is collected is usually aggregate data not personally identifiable data.
Searching2000
Rich:
Please consider revising your first sentence because, frankly, I can read it several ways. I can guess but you could clarify that easily, I think.
Second, “usually” doesn’t mean always nor give any basis for a quantitative judgment on the risk. The recent Wall Street Journal series on ‘what the Internet knows about you’ argues that it could be a lot.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703999304575399041849931612.html
And I would not classify the WSJ as ‘unfriendly’ to business interests?
Richard Meyer
According to recent research including an article in last week’s Time Magazine women do 80% of health searches on the Internet. This is in line with the fact that woman tend to be the Dr Mom of the family and take better care of their health than men.
Second, I have worked with a lot of drug companies and none of them: I repeat NONE of them collect patient specific data from the Internet unless a patient raises her/his hand and ops in for a CRM program. For example, when I wanted to serve ads targeting diabetics and care givers of diabetics it was done using data that only told us this person has been to this site or has searched for these terms. I did not know names, places or anything else.
Women are receptive to targeted ads online. When a perfectly targeted coupon comes into her inbox or an “I-can-use-that- today” banner appears while surfing, 65 percent of women first think, “Cool!”
This stat alone debunks a lot of assumptions about how consumers, particularly women, feel when a brand or marketer understands her world and delivers a relevant piece of communication, be it an offer, email, newsletter, or recipe online.
Now there are services that are offering custom pages and offers based in where people live etc (http://www.richsmarketingblog.com/are-consumers-willing-to-give-up-some-privacy-for-personally-relevant-content/consumer-behavior/) The credit card companies are using this service to offer consumers specific promotions based on where they live etc. Pharma is not using these services because there are too many risks to collecting personal information from patients.
The Internet could know a lot about you but when it come to health all they may know is that you are looking at health treatments for a specific condition. Consumers want targeted ads not ads that are not personally relevant
cliffintokyo
It is up to individuals to be aware of the meta data collecting techniques that are routinely in operation when we use any type of internet providers of information these days, and to be on the lookout for targeted e-mailings, etc.
Caveat Emptor, Ask Your Doctor!
This should now be the normal *operating mode* of all alert and savvy people using the internet to obtain medical info.
Jeff Chester
The digital marketing of pharmaceutical and health products and services as we document (and we have many more materials we could have added–since we have been collecting industry documents for more than two years) incorporates data collection, tracking, profiling & targeting techniques that are largely inappropriate in the health context.
Drug companies and health information sites require the highest forms of consumer-oriented transparency, meaningful disclosure and user control. Ensuring a consumer controls their data collection process and is empowered to protect their privacy should be the first principle embraced by health/pharma marketers. Greater responsibility and leadership is required by the health field, in order to ensure that online marketing operates in an above-board way serving patients and health consumers.
The use of digital marketing to target medical professionals, so-called “e-Detailing,” also raise consumer protection and professional responsibility concerns. The FDA, FTC, the new White House privacy subcommittee and Congress need to review industry practices and–working together with health marketers, professional and consumer organizations–develop new governmental regulatory safeguards.
Anne PME
Ask your Dr. AND your pharmacist first…?
Cynical
I’m not trying to stick up for Pharma here, but didn’t a federal appeals court just rule that data mining is protected by the commercial freedom of speech? What’s the difference between drug companies mining prescription drug info for promotional purposes and the companies mentioned here “mining” for sales purposes?
The point is, it’s either protected or it’s not. You can’t have it both ways just because Google’s doing it instead of a drug company.
Also, the idea that the targeted marketing even works is borderline ludicrous. I know people (retired and/or laid off) who randomly surf the net looking up diseases they hear about in movies, or just following links to other links.
Myself, I research health topics for my job, and I find it very amusing to be bombarded with the resulting “targeted” ads that Google thinks I’m interested in.
I was working on a diabetes story recently and I can’t tell you how many diabetes-related type ads I’ve suddenly gotten.
What happens if I have to do a story on erectile dysfunction or jungle rot. LOL, quit messing with freedom of expression/speech. It’s not that big, truly.
Justice in MI
What do people think about hiring folks to go on social networking sites to trash competitor products?
Freedom of commercial speech would, of course, apply here as in positive promotion. I suppose it is the equivalent of a “negative ad” in politics.
Chris
JIM -
It might be ok legally, but it certainly seems unethical.