Please note: this post was originally published on 12/5/07.
We’ve talked a lot on this blog about the use of social media as an effective tool in a PR pro’s arsenal. Others across the blogosphere have long chronicled the use of social media in PR. This is all well and good when you are dealing with consumer PR or even high-tech PR, but what about those industries that tend to fiercely resist social media? It is easy when you are out on the bleeding edge to throw practicality to the wind.
The pharmaceutical industry is a perfect example of an industry that makes social media tough. And rightfully so. In pharma, there are very strict regulations that govern a company’s ability to speak directly to consumers without disclaimers. This is the reason for the long disclaimers at the end of every pharma commercial that sound like they are being read by that Micromachine Man.
Scott Monty at the “Social Media Marketing” blog has discussed Pfizer’s attempt at implementing social media tactics by teaming up with Sermo to create a social networking site. As Scott points out, Pfizer is able to get around regulatory requirements by shifting the audience from the consumer to the doctor. Certainly, this is a valid start and an innovative way to get a foot in the door with social media. But in the end, social media is about engaging with your consumers. How to do this in the pharmaceutical world is a question that remains largely unanswered.
The answer is certainly not a simple one. The FDA cannot let pharmaceutical companies communicate with consumers without regard for what they are saying—the subject matter is just too sensitive. At the same time, the FDA has helped to create an atmosphere where big pharma companies live in fear of statistical anomalies. Is it really necessary for me to know that 1 in 3200 people get a headache when they take a certain type of medicine? There has to be a middle ground we can strike that allows industries like the pharma industry to dip their toes in the social media water.
Could the answer be as simple as asking pharma companies to follow established guidelines such as the WOMMA code of ethics? If a pharma company chose to interact in a social networking community and disclosed right up front that it was there as a representative of said company, would we meet the requirements of transparency? As it stands now, that would almost certainly be a violation of FDA law. But if the company is upfront and honest about its intentions, should we be inhibiting its ability to participate in discussions that are happening with or without them?
In the end, the reason the FDA requires those Mircomachine Man-type disclaimers is to ensure that the consumer is as informed as possible. By limiting the ability of a pharma company to participate in social media, are we not limiting the information available to the consumer?
