You’ve probably noticed a light posting schedule around here as of late.  As I’ve mentioned before, there is some value in the perspective that comes from a hiatus.  Perspective brings a bit of clarity and provides the much-needed time to reflect on “the big things.” 

During that reflection, I came to realize it was time for a change.  So as some of you sleuths might have noticed from looking at my Twitter, Facebook or LinkedIn accounts, I’ve left my previous agency and joined WCG.  While I enjoyed my time at SHIFT and am grateful for the opportunity I was provided, WCG presented a new and interesting challenge I am psyched to tackle.  I’ll still have a healthcare focus and will still dedicate some time here to sharing my thoughts on the space—in that respect nothing will have changed.  However, with these new challenges I hope to learn a hell of a lot and bring a fresh perspective to this blog.   

It’s funny what perspective does to reinvigorate your creative juices.  Despite a 3:45 a.m. wake up call to truck down to Austin for my first day with WCG and for SXSW—I spent the plane ride dreaming up blog posts.  So for the next few days, it will still be a bit slow here as I get acclimated, but in the weeks to come, expect this space to pick up. 

Thanks for sticking with me!

Click Here to download a pharmaceutical social media eBook

The list of reasons why you can’t or shouldn’t engage in pharmaceutical social media is long.  Regulatory concerns. Fair balance.  Adverse event reporting.  The FDA.  Off-label usage.  HIPAA.  Lack of adequate resources.   All of these are legitimate issues when considering a social media program.

The list of reasons why you should use social media is not only longer, but also more compelling.  Humanizing the brand.  Creating brand advocates.  Enabling better patient outcomes.  Increasing Return on Health (ROH).  Establishing a relationship with the patient.  Better insights into the patient community. Greater access to information for the patients.  A quick response platform during crisis communications.

There’s no doubt, social media in the pharmaceutical industry is a difficult and complex task.  It takes careful planning, spot-on strategic guidance and flawless execution.  Sounds simple right?

To help navigate the murky waters of pharmaceutical social media, SHIFT Communications (my agency) today released an eBook aimed at offering practical advice on social media programs in the healthcare space.  The book outlines many of the issues that are unique to social media in the pharmaceutical space and offers tips on how to best mitigate those challenges.

To download the book, all we ask is that you do one of the following:

• Head on over to our site, leave us your email, and the eBook will be automatically sent.
• Follow @shiftcomm on Twitter and tweet something along the lines of, “Looking forward to reading @shiftcomm’s Pharma Social Media eBook, via @prforpharma” and we’ll get in touch with the link
• Join SHIFT’s Facebook Page and send us a message there

When you stack up the reasons for not being engaged on social media with the benefits of creating sustained engagement the question becomes: what’s the price of being absent altogether? When done effectively, social media has the ability to create a relationship with the patient that was never before possible with traditional marketing platforms.

With this eBook, we hope to provide a healthy dose of both strategic and tactical advice to help move social media programs in the right direction.  And of course, as always, I would love to hear any and all feedback you may have.

As I was out enjoying the beautiful weather in Boston this weekend, it randomly occurred to me that keeping up with the pharmaceutical social media conversation is damn near impossible.  I scour my feed reader, set up Google Alerts, have my “go-to” Websites; but even still I always feel like I am playing catch up on the conversation of the day.

I can’t the only one right?

So, without further adieu, I bring to you a regularly occurring series of posts that will take a look back at the week prior and any brief observations I have.  Consider me your content filtering service.

So, in no particular order:

• Jon Richman of Dose of Digital launched an awards program seeking to recognize the best examples of healthcare social media.

My Take: Some people may question the need for yet another awards program.  There is always a new program that crops up that is a thinly disguised way to grow readership.  While I’m sure Jon doesn’t mind the added attention, this is far different.  The Dosies are a good thing for the ongoing quest to move social media for pharmaceutical companies from a fringe marketing tactic to the mainstream.  By shining an even brighter spotlight on the industry it will only spur better and more creative thinking.  Can’t wait to see how it turns out.

• Brad Pendergraph writes about the danger of “shiny object” syndrome and how “social media” fatigue could threaten progress.

My Take: Brad is right; many marketers suffer from “shiny object syndrome.”  I’ve written about my disdain for this ailment here before.  Brad points out that people are growing tired of the constant social media conversation, a conversation I have largely tried to speed.  But what is the alternative?  If we move on from the conversation at this point, what have we really achieved?  The problem is that too many industry observers resort to hyperbole and grand promises when pragmatism should rule the roost.  I could do without the former, but we still need the latter.

• Rich Meyer made the argument that the Internet will not save drug companies.

My Take: In my opinion, Rich is mostly on target with this post.  Too many marketers believe social media will save drug companies.  It won’t happen.  If you have a bad product and a poor strategy, the best social media program in the world can’t save you.  I am slightly dubious of some of the claims Rich makes based on anecdotal of the behaviors of patients.  However, as a whole, Rich’s point is accurate: don’t count on social media to engineer a turnaround.

As you can see, this list is far from exhaustive, but does provide some sort of perspective.  Take it for what it’s worth: an admittedly small look at the state of the pharmaceutical social media conversation.

I promise folks, this will be the only time I solicit anything from you on this blog.

I have made the possibly foolish decision of running the Boston Marathon on 4/19/10 to raise money for the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.  I realize most of you who read this blog are strangers, so I wanted to share a little bit about my decision to run and the cause that’s very close to my heart, especially in recent years.

As a bit of background, I am running in memory of my Mom, who passed away this September at the far-too-young age of 59 after a four-year fight with Melanoma. Each day over the past four years was a struggle for my Mom filled with grueling treatments. It was enough to crush most people’s spirit. But not my Mom. She never complained, never asked why and never stopped battling. Her courage and grace was, and always will be, a constant source of amazement to me and all that knew her.

The thing that continues to stick in my mind is that my Mom’s story is not unique. There are so many individuals and families dealing with this terrible disease. In the United States, there were nearly 600,000 cancer-related deaths in 2009. We have made significant progress in the ongoing fight against cancer—but it’s not enough.

This is why I run the Boston Marathon—in memory of my Mom and in honor of courage so many people show each day to beat this disease. If I can muster even half the courage and dedication my Mom displayed—26.2 miles will be a walk in the park.  I realize it is a lot to ask of a group of strangers to support my run, but if you have even $10 to spare I hope you will consider this worthy cause: http://www.rundfmc.org/2010/chrisi.  I will personally match the first $250 in donations.

To give you an idea of the amazing woman my Mom was, I thought I would share the eulogy I gave at her funeral.  While it is deeply personal to me, I think it offers some lessons that all can appreciate.

I know this is way off topic from my usual blog posts, and I completely understand if you choose to skip this and move on—like I said, I won’t use this as a fundraising platform again.

Thank you in advance for your support.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

All you have to do is look around this room to get a sense for the type of person my Mom was and how loved she was by so many people.  I know many of you had to come a long way to be here today and my family and I are extremely grateful.

As many of you know, my Mom grew up in West Philly.  We often teased her, lovingly of course, about those roots.  And even though she would hate to admit it, I think the gritty, blue-collar attitude of Philadelphia is something that never left her.

It was evident in the way she preferred to teach us as kids.  You see, my Mom was more of a “lead-by-example” kind of parent.  Aside from the times when she would tell us “do you know what fat chance means?” upon making some outlandish request, or “don’t say sorry, just don’t do it,” we often had to look a little closer for the lessons my Mom was teaching us.  But make no mistake: she had plenty of lessons to teach, she just preferred to live them rather than simply preach them.

In thinking back, there were a number of times when my Mom used opportunities to teach us important lessons and I thought I would share a few of those with you today.

About 21 years ago when my Mom was pregnant with my sister one of those moments presented itself to us.  At the time, my Mom was driving an Oldsmobile Delta 88.  I don’t know if you are familiar with that car but it was approximately the same length as a Boeing 747.  The thing was massive and in order to make any sort of turn you ultimately had to have 10 feet of car jutting out into the road before you could even see the oncoming traffic.  One of those times, she was trying to make a left-hand turn onto a busy street.  The guy behind her needed to make a right and wasn’t able to go until my Mom turned.  He took it upon himself to lay on the horn for a solid minute to voice his displeasure.  Now remember, my Mom was 7 months pregnant at this time but that didn’t stop her from putting the car in park, walking up to the gentleman’s car and leaning halfway through the passenger side window to politely inform him she didn’t care how much of a rush he was in she wasn’t going to turn into traffic with two kids in the car and one on the way.  In this moment, my Mom taught us a valuable lesson: no matter how much pressure you may feel and even if it is not the easy route, don’t ever stray from what you know in your heart is the right thing to do.

Another important lesson revealed itself when I was in eighth grade.  I was playing basketball for St. Ignatius and we were in a tournament in New Jersey.  As was always the case, my Mom was sitting in the stands cheering me on.  Late in the game, I went up for a layup and came down awkwardly on my foot.  At a timeout, I told my Mom that I was pretty certain I had broken my toe.  In a loving, comforting tone, my Mom responded: “You’ll be fine; get back out there.”  As it turns out, I did break my toe during that game.  My Mom however was teaching me yet another important lesson: when people depend and count on you, never let them down no matter how painful it might be.

Along those same lines, during my years as a lifeguard in Sea Isle I thought it was a wise idea to compete in a six-mile bay row.  Now, if you know anything about my rowing prowess and the fact that my legs couldn’t reach the seat in front of me in the boat, you know this was not a wise decision.  But I was determined.  The race went pretty much as you would expect.  Just about every boat raced passed us and we were left chasing the pack.  But about 5.5 miles into the race, with every boat already finished and daylight in short supply, I heard the sound of my Mom’s voice.  She had walked up a bridge that was over the inlet and was screaming at the top of her lungs.  I’m not sure I would have finished that last ½ mile without her.  But my Mom knew one important thing: you should always be there for your family and friends, no matter how long you may have to wait or how dark it gets.

And my Mom saved perhaps her most important lesson for last.  As she continued to fight during her illness her commitment and courage were unwavering.  And the lesson was clear: a person’s faith and courage is not defined when times are easy.  A person’s true faith and courage is measured when times are tough.  My Mom’s faith never faltered and her courage was limitless.

At times growing up, I could be frustrated by the “lead by example” way of my Mom.  I didn’t understand why I had to search for meaning all the time.  Now I do.  You see, the thing is, because my Mom led by example, I know she is not done teaching us yet—we might just have to listen a little closer.

Thank you.

If a casual observer were to take stock of the pharma social media conversation, it would resemble a heavyweight boxing match.

“In this corner, weighing in at 140 pounds and hailing from behind a computer screen somewhere are the social media advocates.   In this corner, tipping the scales at 800 pounds, from Washington, D.C., the FDA.”

Except in a boxing match, when the bell sounds, the two opponents leaver their respective corners and meet in the middle.  Of course, when they get to the middle, they spend some time pounding on each other—but they work it out.  In what seems like an endless quest to convince the FDA that pharmaceutical and biotech companies have a place in social media, neither side has been willing to leave its corner frequently enough.  In fact, until the infamous November public hearing, both sides tended to stay outside the ring—let alone their own corners.

Each side of the debate is standing steadfastly to their core beliefs.  The social media proponents are calling for full transparency, authenticity and real-time engagement.  They want social media unencumbered by the bureaucracy, regulations and processes of the FDA.  But the FDA is sticking to its guns and wants to ensure fair balance, the communication of risk information, a plan for adverse event reporting and off-label usage discussion.  But if neither side is willing to budge from their respective corners, we are bound to remain at a standstill.

The good news is that the impasse seems to be thawing out a bit.  Folks like Fabio Gratton and John Mack are making efforts to seek the FDA’s input and find common ground.  The FDA too for its part has been a willing participant in this delicate dance.  In fact, if either side has been more willing to move off its original laurels it has been the FDA.  The FDA called the November public hearing (albeit after much prodding).  The FDA itself is on Twitter and has recently expressed a willingness to find some common ground.

Both the FDA, pharma companies and social media agencies need to find the middle ground.  Agencies can’t stubbornly insist that every interaction in social media has to be immediate.  At the same time, the FDA cannot hold healthcare companies responsible for monitoring the broad expanse of the Internet for adverse events.  Similarly, pharmaceutical companies need to realize that social media is not a platform for product promotion—but a platform for providing access to information.

Rather than standing in their respective corners and plotting the knockout punch, all stakeholders need to meet in the middle on a shared set of values.  What is it?  The patient.  The FDA’s primary concern is the safety and health of the patient.  The pharmaceutical company should be focused on finding better treatment options for the patient.  The social media agency, if it has the right mindset, should believe that social media can help provide better access to information for…you guessed it; the patient!  Only once common ground is agreed upon will there be any hope of moving pharmaceutical social media forward.

Relationship marketing is really nothing new in the world of pharmaceutical companies.  For decades, the industry has relied on the ability of its sales reps to form lasting relationships that pay off in the form of increased prescriptions.  Say what you will about how the reps cultivated those relationships, but the fact is, they were able to tailor their information delivery to what doctors were seeking.

In recent years, the pharmaceutical industry has sought to regulate how those relationships are formed by cutting back on tchotchkes, expensive lunches and other ethically questionable practices that influence prescription writing.  Just today, the news circulated that New York Governor, David Patterson, was seeking to eliminate the practice of providing gifts to doctors after an office visit.  In some ways, this mirrors the voluntary code of ethics adopted by Big Pharma a little over a year ago.  However, others argue that the new limitations that Governor Patterson seeks to impose are too rigid and eliminate the ability of the sales rep to deliver his key value—education.  It’s an interesting conundrum: how do you allow the free flow of information to ensure access to the best sources available while at the same time curtailing the types of seedy relationships that place undue pressure on doctors?

Before you answer, ask yourself an additional question: is this problem all that different from what pharmaceutical marketers face when entering the world of social media?  To be an active participant in social networks, the key skill you need to possess is the ability to form relationships.  For a pharma company, the biggest value they can provide patients and doctors online is information.  In much the same way that sales reps face regulations on their relationship-building practices, pharma marketers will inevitably be faced with the same ethical questions.  But you knew that already. That is the primary reason why the FDA has started to pay attention and is certainly the reason why many pharma companies are skittish about launching a social media initiative.  The more pressing question is: how do you establish boundaries that govern a pharmaceutical company’s ability to provide information without crossing regulatory guidelines?  Can impending guidance from the FDA actually make it more difficult for pharma companies to get information it the hands of patients as a result of strict regulations?

There is no easy answer.  On the one hand, as a social media advocate, I believe that the primary value a pharmaceutical company can provide is information.  Impending regulation that prohibits the company’s ability to do that may ultimately harm the patient in the long run.  On the flip side, I also realize the importance of governing this industry given what is at stake and by no means would advocate a wild west atmosphere of lawlessness.

Yet still I struggle, how far is too far when it comes to restrictions on pharmaceutical companies?  In the offline world, there are hordes of honest, hard-working sales reps that feel they are providing a service in the form of information.  Regulations such as those proposed by Governor Patterson make it far more difficult to provide that service.  Online, we strive to provide that same service while at the same time thumbing our nose at the tactics of sales reps.  Where is the line between providing information and breaking an ethical code of conduct?  In some cases, the line is not always clear.

We often trumpet the arrival of social media as the newest tool in a marketer’s bag of tricks.  But it’s merely an extension of what has been taking place for decades at pharmaceutical companies—building relationships based on providing value to the target audience.

I have my own thoughts on why social media is different from the relationship marketing of years past, but would be curious to hear your feedback in the meantime.  I’ll post my ideas tomorrow on why social media is a new form of relationship marketing and how the ethically questionable tactics—regardless of guidance—will be rooted out.

Working in the agency world is a little bit like the dating scene—if you are around it long enough, you are bound to get your heart broken (or wallet as the case may be) once or twice.

It’s no secret that agencies are let go for a variety of reasons that range from the completely justifiable to the head scratchers.  The average retention rate of clients in the PR business is something in the neighborhood of 12-16 months depending on which reports you choose to believe (I am happy to report SHIFT’s is much longer!).  With such a revolving door, one must wonder: what drives a pharmaceutical company to fire its social media agency?

There is no definitive list of reasons that leads to an agency getting the boot.  It can be a result of missed metrics, poor strategy outlines, faulty execution, budget constraints, etc…And while the list is long, I’d venture to guess that there are two primary buckets that cause a pharma company to fire its social media agency—false promises made by the agency and unreasonable expectations of the pharmaceutical company (sometimes one causes the other).  We’ll take these one at a time.

False Promises Made by the Agency

I touched on this one a bit in yesterday’s post.  Too often, agencies walk into a pitch eager to win business and selling whatever they think the company at the other side of the table wants to buy.  They do this without regard for whether or not they believe they can deliver on those lofty promises.  Why?  They don’t care.  The goal is to win the business and earn a quick buck—not create sustained value.  This breeds the thinking that social media is a silver bullet.  With people out there selling it as such, it is no wonder that some marketers think that social media has the ability to mask existing problems.  It does not.  Because agencies are selling false hope, when they can’t deliver on that hope, they get the axe—justifiably.

A good social media agency will outline challenging goals, but not make promises of a brand remake over night.  A good agency will highlight the risks of engaging in social media and have a plan in place to mitigate those risks and deal with them when they arise.  Most importantly, a good social media agency will say “no”.  They won’t be afraid to tell you if your strategy is off base, or if your line of thinking will fall down when engaging with a community online.  If your social media agency is afraid to tell you “no” I can almost assure you the program will fail.  False promises are a quick way to the unemployment line and only makes the job of legitimate agencies that much more difficult.

Unreasonable Expectations of the Pharmaceutical Company

The message I have been trumpeting recently, along with others, is that social media does not shovel problems under the rug—it rips the rug off the floor.  If a company walks into a social media engagement thinking that it can distance itself from product problems or damaging messaging it is sorely mistaken.  The more likely result is the social media community will expose that problem quicker than you ever thought was possible.  And not only will it be exposed, it will run rampant until you step up and offer a solution.  The thing people often forget about social media is that it acts as one giant neighborhood watch.  Phonies are uncovered, bad products are rooted out and shifty salesmen are pinpointed.  It’s not a comfortable place to be if you have skeletons in the closet.

Unfortunately, some pharmaceutical companies are willing to throw caution to the wind and hope social media can work miracles.  When those miracles fail to materialize, the social media takes the fall.  Sure, it is the job of the agency to steer the client in the right direction and set appropriate expectations, but sometimes it is not enough.  In those cases, the pharma company is bound to fail because it simply demands too much.

The Lesson?

The new marketing model increases accountability on both the vendor and client side.  The days of arm’s length relationships are coming to a screeching halt.  In order to truly succeed in social media, you better have a true partnership.  Afterall, if you can’t master that relationship, you can forget about the new ones you will be forming through social media.

The portion of conversation dedicated to social media among pharmaceutical marketers has recently reached a fever pitch.  The constant analysis, banter and coverage has resulted in a disproportionate amount of attention being paid to social media—despite the fact that it represents only one small piece of the marketing mix.

Why is that?  It’s due in part to the fact that social media represents the new shiny object on the block.  It’s something different that is a far cry from the marketing techniques that are beginning to fail pharmaceutical companies.  With this understanding, pharmaceutical companies are showing a greater sense of urgency to engage in social media.  Of course, wherever pharma goes, the FDA is sure to follow and social media is no different.  The recent public hearing on pharma has raised the profile of social media for pharmaceutical companies. Add all of these industry dynamics with the fact that social media advocates tend to be vocal and passionate evangelists (I’m exhibit A) and it’s not difficult to understand why social media is dominating the conversation.

And while I am all for raising the profile of social media among pharmaceutical marketers; we need to be sure it is done in an appropriate manner.  The problem that is beginning to develop is some people selling social media services are selling pharma companies on a bag of goods they can’t deliver.  Namely, these companies are making empty promises that social media can reverse a poor brand image, evangelize brand advocates over night and drive people to buy a product in droves.  While these are all worthy goals, the fact is that social media cannot accomplish these goals operating in a vacuum.  It has to be part of an integrated marketing communications plan.

The mistaken belief that social media should be isolated from other marketing functions is damaging.  Many agencies selling social media services are driving this belief.  If you are selling such lofty promises, what happens when an engagement goes awry?  What happens when the community unites in backlash against a company?  If you have sold a pharmaceutical company on grand promises, you are likely going to be looking at the business side of a door on your way to the curb.  This type of relationship only damages the industry’s chances of successful, authentic social media engagement and is fueled by people chasing the quick buck rather than creating sustained value.

Instead, as agencies, we should be selling pharmaceutical companies on the real value provided by social media—a chance at authentic, transparent and meaningful engagements with key stakeholders.  This is a marketing vehicle that has never before been available on this scale.  However, there is no guarantee that those engagements will be one hundred positive.  Any agency that promises you otherwise is blowing smoke up your ass in an attempt to win your business.  If your product is bad, social media will expose it.  If your brand is damaged, the community will further poke holes.  If your outreach strategy is broken, social media will tell you why.

Scared yet?  You shouldn’t be. One positive about social media is that it is a sandbox of sorts.  It has the ability to weed out, expose and provide feedback on areas you may never have considered.  It’s a real-time feedback loop.  The trick is how you react to that feedback.  A pharmaceutical company that has been set up on empty promises has been set up to fail.  It has not been prepared for the possibility that a social media engagement will not consist purely of positive feedback.  The negative interactions can be just as valuable, if not more so, if a pharmaceutical company has been counseled on how to respond.

Pharmaceutical marketers: social media is your sandbox—are you ready for that?

It’s no secret that social media is the trend of the day in pharmaceutical marketing.  A combination of constant evangelism on the part of social media wingnuts (I mean advocates), an uptick in real-world examples from pharma companies and the FDA public hearing has vaulted social media into the limelight.  Since attaining such prominence, social media seems to have a stranglehold on the marketing discussion (or maybe it’s that whole echo chamber thing I posted about).  But the limelight can be so bright that it causes you to miss other things right before your eyes.

If you haven’t picked up on my thinly veiled metaphor just yet, social media is the bright light in this case.  In recent months, social media has been relegated to shiny object duty.  It’s the marketing tactic of the day being waived before pharma executives at every strategy session to increase patient engagement, raise brand awareness and break into new markets.  That’s a good thing.  The level of conversations that are occurring regarding social media is encouraging.  It indicates that pharmaceutical companies are slowly but surely buying into its potential.  But there is a fine line to walk between realistic potential and hype—we are getting dangerously close to the edge.

Social media enters into the hype zone when it causes otherwise level-headed marketers to write off alternative, viable marketing tactics.  And if they are not written off, they are certainly placed on the backburner.  As an aforementioned wingnut, I believe in the value of social media as much as the next guy.  But social media CANNOT exist in isolation.  It has to be conducted in the context of a larger marketing strategy that includes a broad range of tactics.  I’m a PR guy.  In fact, while I tout the benefits of social media on a regular basis, a large chunk of my work is dedicated to so-called traditional PR.  That’s right, writing press releases, reaching out to editors and forming relationships with the main-stream media.  Can you imagine?

(Warning, here comes a small commercial, bear with me, I think it is relevant).

At my agency, SHIFT Communications, we describe ourselves as a hybrid agency in the sense that we do both traditional PR and social media.  I think that’s crucial.  We do this not so we can sell both services, but because we firmly believe that social media, and traditional PR should happen in concert, not in isolation.

Social media is important.  It will only grow in importance as companies become better at engaging with relevant communities.  But remember, social media should not happen at the expense of the remaining parts of the marketing mix—even traditional PR.

One of the many smart people I follow on Twitter today Tweeted (the link to which I cannot find for the life of me) a question to the masses: “when is the last time you have read anything useful about pharma social media?”

While I do think there is a group of people putting out valuable content in this area, it is a question that warrants closer consideration.  One of the issues I constantly struggle with is the idea of a pharma social media echo chamber.

While I am thrilled to have any and all readers to this blog, my hope is that the content ultimately gets into the hands of pharma marketers.  Agency people, social media advocates and consultants are valuable resources because they contribute to the “think tank” we have created—but at the end of the day—we are trying to demonstrate the value of social media to pharmaceutical marketers.

Without question, the community that has started to form has moved the social media cause forward in the pharmaceutical industry.  But is that progress stifled by our echo chamber?  Are we often just convincing ourselves on the value of social media rather than tailoring our messages to the audience that matters most—the pharmaceutical companies?

There is evidence that suggests the pharma social media bandwagon is not confined to an echo chamber.  Jon Rich of Does of Digital has chronicled the slew of pharmaceutical companies that have engaged in social media.  Some examples are better than others, but the point is, people are taking notice and demonstrating varying degrees of success.  The recent FDA hearing on social media is another prime example of the grasp social media is beginning to hold on the industry.  Some may argue that the hearing was dominated by social media wonks and agency fat cats. They would be right in the sense that agency people dominated the podium, but the impact of that hearing was far more widespread then the four corners of the dingy D.C. conference room.  Anecdotally, recent conversations I’ve had with pharma marketers and projects I have completed lead me to believe that the pendulum is swinging in the right direction.  The pharma industry is showing an interest (we could argue the genuine nature of that interest in another post) in social media and its ability to enhance marketing efforts.

Returning to my original thesis: are pharma social media advocates part of an exclusive echo chamber?  I don’t think so.  But, I do believe that we need to do a better job of educating all stakeholders, focusing on the patients in our engagement strategies and demonstrating the real-world success that has been achieved through social media.  Echo chamber…no.  Need to press forward?  You bet.