Today in Twitter land, there has been a bit of good-natured, virtual sparring from John Mack of the Pharma Marketing Blog and Rich Meyer of the World of DTC Marketing.  The debate surrounded the likely impact the upcoming FDA social media hearings will have on pharmaceutical marketing and whether or not the agency will issue any guidance.

John falls in the optimistic camp, boldly predicting that the FDA will have draft guidance by the end of 2010.  Rich on the other hand is skeptical that the FDA is little more than a spectacle.  As you can imagine, I hope that John wins the flip of the coin on this debate.

But what I found more interesting than the debate itself was some of the reasoning to uphold the argument.  Because in some ways, my head tells me that Rich is correct that the FDA hearings may not result in any quick action.  After all, the agency is the equivalent of a Boeing 747—quick adjustments are a complicated orchestration.  But my viewpoint is more of a commentary on the agency and its bureaucracy than the potential impact of social media for pharmaceutical marketers.  I have little doubt that social media holds immense potential for the industry.

Rich raises two areas of contention that I’d like to address.  The first is that “consumers are predisposed to distrust pharmaceutical companies and therefore don’t want to talk with them because they don’t want their personal data in cyberspace.”  He is absolutely correct that consumers generally distrust pharmaceutical companies.  The industry has built up a mountain of ill-will that needs to be overcome.  That is tough to dispute.  But similar to my previous post on a self-fulfilling prophecy, does that ill-will mean we should continue to ignore consumers?  Isn’t that the attitude that created this disdain in the first place?  If used ethically, transparently and with the needs of the patient in mind, social media provides an incredible opportunity to start mending the relationship between consumers and pharmaceutical companies.  Consumers do want to hear from drug companies so long as the information is not solely an effort to push product, is a conversation and not a podium and is informative.

The second point that raised an eyebrow for me was the assertion that “having an agency do your social media strategy is like having someone else speak for you at the dinner table.”  I believe the intent of this statement is that transparency is paramount when it comes to social media.  This is accurate.  Any interaction on a social network needs to be authentic and honest.  But an agency certainly has a place in this process.  Of course, I have a vested interest in this as I work for a PR agency but that’s not the sole reason behind my statement.  Sticking with a similar analogy, diving into social media without expert counsel (doesn’t have to be an agency) is akin to cooking a rack of lamb the first time without following a cookbook.  Or to offer an alternative analogy, it would be like facing charges in a court of law and deciding to serve as your own attorney.  It just is not prudent.

However, the role of an agency or any expert counsel should absolutely, positively, 100% NOT be to serve as the voice of the pharmaceutical company.  That part has to come from the company itself.  An agency can outline a strategy, point to relevant influencers, monitor social networks for relevant content, etc…Basically, an agency serves as the arms and legs that help deal with the scale issue presented by social media.

The upcoming FDA hearings will be an important turning point for social media in pharma.  Which way it turns remains to be seen.

The traditional model for pharmaceutical public relations is to focus on the product brand, not the corporate brand.  Healthcare consumers tend to identify more closely with product brand names rather than the company that controls that brand.

Case in point: how many average consumers do you think realize that Wyeth makes Advil, that Johnson and Johnson makes Motrin and that McNeil makes Sudafed?  I’d be willing to bet it’s well less than half.  Why?  A brand crisis in the past could have huge ramifications across the product portfolio of a pharma company.  The philosophy is similar to how firefighters attack a blaze—containment is key.

But that model is slowly but surely changing and pharma companies are showing a willingness to engage and invest more heavily in PR and social media that enhances the corporate brand.  Take a look at Johnson and Johnson as a prime example.  J&J is a highly decentralized corporation that controls hundreds of operating companies around the globe.  Because of this model, it would seem logical that the company would prefer brand PR over corporate PR.  But that’s not entirely the case.  J&J has been lauded for its foray into social media.  But a closer inspection of its efforts shows that they are aimed at enhancing the corporate brand—not a specific product brand.

And J&J is not alone. ePharmaRx recently posted a list of pharmaceutical companies that have established a presence on Twitter.  The list includes names like Bayer, Glaxo Smith Kline, Pfizer and Astra Zeneca to name a few.  Of course, the argument could be made that some of the aforementioned companies are not truly engaging at this stage of the game.  But hey, baby steps.

So why the shift to corporate branding efforts in the pharmaceutical industry?  It comes back to what Sally Suzman, Pfizer’s Chief Communications Officer, recently termed return on reputation.  It has become apparent to pharmaceutical companies across a broader spectrum that the corporate brand can create a halo effect that enhances the product brand.  If as a company you are viewed as compassionate, honest, responsive and accommodating to the consumer voice it will ultimately lead to product loyalty.

There is also the issue of regulatory concerns when it comes to social media for pharma companies.  The reporting of adverse events and FDA regulations are commonly seen as huge hurdles to social media focused on a brand.  But when you move to a corporate level, you have effectively mitigated some of those challenges.  That is not to say they go out the window entirely, but they are infinitely more manageable.

Brand PR and even social media will always be an important part of the pharmaceutical communications mix.  To think that corporate branding efforts will suddenly supplant brand-specific efforts is naïve.  However, the tide is clearly shifting, and pharmaceutical companies need to decide whether to go with it, or risk being washed away.

Please note: This post was also published on the SHIFT staff blog: http://shifters.wordpress.com/

Adam Cohen of Rosetta wrote an article today for Ad Age examining the implications of Google Sidewiki for Big Pharma.  As Cohen accurately points out, the pharmaceutical industry faces a litany of issues when it comes to social media such as the reporting of adverse events, legal communications regarding a brand, etc…And the thing to remember is: just because the words did not come directly from the company, it can still be held liable.  This applies to everything from blog comments on a company-sponsored site to emerging tools such as Google Sidewiki.

You can imagine then, that Google Sidewiki opens up a huge can of worms for pharmaceutical companies.  With comments likely to appear on their site, and in some cases already appearing, how are they obligated to respond—if at all?

Marketing, IT, legal and PR executives are facing a significant quandary when it comes to dealing with Google Sidewiki.  And with no FDA guidance to fall back on, the question is: who will be the first pharma company to risk a slap on the wrist by dealing with this issue head on?  And that is the key difference between Google Sidewiki and other social media tools.  With most social media tools, pharmaceutical companies have the choice to remain on the sidelines and proceed cautiously when they deem the time is right.  But if Google Sidewiki allows conversations to occur directly on a brand’s site, the choice no longer exists; a decision has to be made.  Just as you wouldn’t want a herd of picketers in your backyard, pharmaceutical companies certainly don’t want chaos on their turf.  Google has effectively forced the hand of Big Pharma.

And in some ways, maybe that’s a good thing.  When given a choice, most pharmaceutical companies have preferred the friendly and familiar confines of the sideline over the new world of social media.  Who can blame them?  There are few examples of success and the FDA has not offered any indication on where it falls on the matter.  To be sure: slowly but surely pharma companies are testing the waters, but those examples are the minority.

To complicate matters, the mass adoption of Sidewiki is still in question.  As it currently stands, the tool is, as Doug Haslam puts it, a sort of parallel universe only viewable by those that have downloaded it.  So while every consumer may not be able to view the negative commentary occurring on the Websites of companies like Amgen, there are enough to warrant consideration on how to respond.

While there is no clear cut answer, one thing is for sure, pharmaceutical companies need to consider the implications of social media tools such as Google Sidewiki.  Is it time to finally leave the sideline and jump into the game?  Time will tell.

Please note: This post was originally published on 1/6/09.

Have you heard?  Approximately 40 Pharma companies have agreed to a voluntary moratorium on the age-old practice of supplying branded trinkets to doctors.  While some may see this as nothing more than a cost-cutting measure turned stunt–I see it as a staggering admission that the tried and true methods of marketing are no longer effective.

The Pharma industry more so than most is very much focused on old-guard marketing tactics.  From big-budget TV ads to full-page spreads in the Wall Street Journal, pharmaceutical companies have generally approached marketing as an exercise of bulk–hit as many eyeballs as possible.  For a number of reasons, most industries have been moving away from this model and looking to engage more directly with their customers.  Big pharma has been slow to respond to this trend.  By issuing this voluntary moratorium on leaving trinkets behind at doctors’ offices, pharma companies are acknowledging that this is a method of marketing that is simply not worth the spend.  You may wonder just how much a few pens and t-shirts cost these companies with seemingly endless bank accounts.  Glad you asked.  According to this article in the New York Times, the bill for this type of marketing initiative approached $6 billion last year.  Think about that–a bunch of competitive companies banded together and agreed to halt an activity that clearly was heavily invested across the industry.  This was no stunt; this was a clear acknowledgment that the marketing programs and dollars need to shift in another direction.

So where will the money go moving forward?  Pharma companies are now flush with cash to redirect to different, politically acceptable, methods to get their messages on products and disease states to doctors and patients.  PR is a logical vehicle that meets that description.  As the media landscape continues to change, PR agencies become an even more important cog in reaching not just the media, but other key stakeholders for a given company.  In an industry like pharmaceutical that has a mountain’s worth of mistrust built up, a more direct line of communication might be well received.

In addition, the same NYT article states: “Diane Bieri, the executive vice president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said the updated guidelines were not an admission that gifts could influence doctors’ prescribing habits. Instead, she said, they were meant to emphasize the educational nature of the relationship between industry and doctors.”  If the true goal is education, there are few better vehicles for that education than PR.  If pharma companies want to work toward restoring some of the trust that has been lost in the industry, it will need to do far more than stop the practice of handing out branded stress balls to doctors.  Instead, pharma companies should be now looking for ways to engage directly with doctors and patients in a transparent manner that inspires trust.  A well-planned and executed PR program can do just that.