In the rush to adopt social media, marketing folks seem to be throwing out the textbooks of yesteryear.  Everyone is eager to adopt the new paradigm and dispense of old tactics.  Abraham Maslow and Peter Drucker are probably rolling over in their graves.  Make no mistake; social media represents one of the most fundamental shifts in how we communicate in the last 100 years, but it doesn’t mean you should forget everything you learned in business school up until this point.

Instead of unlearning the communications and management models that have prevailed for the last several decades, we should look to see how we can apply these to the current environment.  As my colleague Bob Pearson states in his book, Pre-Commerce, most innovation is incremental and simply an iteration of an idea we’ve heard before.  With that in mind, it would be a fool’s mistake to think past lessons are irrelevant.  It’s the kind of mistake that has held some social media pros back up and isolated them to the fringes of the marketing department.  Disregarding the prevailing wisdom of the day is a surefire way to get laughed right out of the boardroom.  As communications professionals, we should strive to be a part of C-level discussions and that doesn’t happen without a pragmatic approach.  Radical shifts are rarely thought of as pragmatic.

For example, Maslow’s “Theory of Human Motivation” may be even more relevant now than Maslow could have ever imagined.  When has it ever been more important than now to understand human motivation?  Psychological needs, safety, love and belonging, esteem and self actualization are all innate functions of any relationship.  Maslow was even more of a visionary than anyone realized.

Likewise, things like the 4Ps of marketing still hold true.  All of Peter Drucker’s principles of management—most of those still work.

The point of this post is less about spouting off traditional business theory and more about encouraging people not to get ahead of themselves.  Careful, prudent strategy still works.  Social media is still business, not just fun. Just because Twitter is 140 characters doesn’t mean you should just fire off messages without thought.

The wave of social media has caused many to critically evaluate their approach to communications.  That’s a good thing.  Many of the old models were either fundamentally broken or don’t scale to social media.  But do yourself a favor; apply past lessons to your approach.  You will thank me when you are sitting at the table across from the CEO and CMO making critical communications decisions.

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 you probably have heard by now, biotech giant Genzyme is having some manufacturing difficulties at its Allston plant (pictured on the left).  The issues started when the plant had to be shut down over the summer due to a viral contamination problem and continued last week when shards of steel and rubber were discovered in some of the Company’s vials.

The second manufacturing defect only impacted about one percent of the vials leaving the plant and with proper precautions, should have minimal patient impact.  It was a relatively minor incident.  But you wouldn’t know it if you looked at some of the sensational headlines coming out that proclaimed “garbage” was found in Genzyme drugs.  That’s because this is a situation where perception has become reality.  Even though the most recent slip up should not trickle down to patients, when it comes on the heels of a 3-month plant shut down that caused the drugs for orphan diseases to be rationed, you are certainly in the midst of a communications crisis.

The thing about crisis communications is it should never sneak up on you, especially in a highly regulated industry such as pharma.  It should be an integral part of any public relations plan developed for a pharmaceutical or biotech company.  This plan should address the decision-making process and authority during a crisis, the primary messages that need to be communicated (i.e. patient safety), a philosophy around transparency and an approval process of official communications.  With all of this in place, you should never feel stifled by a crisis.

This isn’t to say every hiccup can be predicted and a specific plan should be in place for each possible scenario.  That’s neither feasible nor productive.  However, there should be a clear framework in place that allows you to take quick and decisive action in times of crisis.  Your ability to minimize the damage posed by a crisis communications situation comes down to your decision-making framework.

This is where a concept such as Return on Health (ROH) is particularly useful.  If the patient is at the forefront at all times, including during a crisis, your actions will certainly reflect that.  In the case of Genzyme, the first course of action would be to acknowledge the problem.  In evaluating the responses from the day the news broke of the second problem at the Allston plant, it appears the company was open and available to speak to the press.  That is a good thing.  Perhaps it was a lesson learned from the plant shutdown when the company took some heat for waiting two to three days to disclose the viral contamination.  While the company contended that it needed to get its messages aligned with the FDA before making any public disclosure and technically abided by all laws covering the dissemination of that type of information, it sent the wrong message.

When you look like you are covering something up, people are inclined to assume that you are.  In the case of Genzyme, it would have been better to immediately acknowledge the problem and commit to releasing another official statement once it discussed next steps with the FDA.  In doing so, you go on record as admitting a problem once it occurs and making an effort to solve that problem as quick as possible.  Patients and the general population are apt to forgive a manufacturing error; they are not likely to forgive an attempt at covering up that error.  With ROH at the center of your decision-making process, this becomes a simple course of action.  Patients feel it is their right to know when their health could be affected.  As soon as you know, they feel they should know.  If ROH is your guiding principle, you inevitably get out there early and often to minimize the patient impact of any problem.  The problem for Genzyme was that even though it probably had the best of intentions, a certain amount of skepticism had already developed once they did acknowledge the problem.

That skepticism resulting from the first incident is what the Company is currently experiencing.  The fact is: the most recent incident is fairly benign.  However, because it is the second in a short period of time and the perceived lack of response during the last situation, it is being overly scrutinized.  Genzyme has landed in the crosshairs of both the FDA and the public.

Genzyme is doing the right thing by not hiding from this problem.  As mentioned earlier, company spokespeople seem open to addressing this problem with the media.  However, the message in that communication largely seems to downplay the significance of this event.  The tone and tenor of the remarks is to justify what happened as a normal part of operating procedure in a very complex manufacturing process.  Commentary from company executives has addressed that a 1 percent contamination rate is well within the industry norm and that the company already suggests doctors filter the drug before infusion (consistent with the FDA’s recommendation to combat the issue).  This approach may work if it were the first instance of a problem, but because it is the second; it does not display the right amount of patient empathy.

And while everything the company has discussed to date is accurate, I would take a different approach.  Because they are battling a perception problem, defending this manufacturing blip as something that happens across the industry doesn’t evoke the type of accountability patients are seeking.  Rather than justification, I would counsel Genzyme to tackle the problem head on right from the outset.

Here is what I would counsel Genzyme to say if I were handling its communications: “At Genzyme, we are in the business of developing drugs that treat orphan diseases.  There are few alternatives to our medications.  It is unacceptable that anything stands in the way of that commitment to get our patients treatment.  This latest manufacturing error does not meet the standard of excellence that we hold ourselves to as a Company.  And although only 1 percent of our vials have been impacted, we strive to lead the industry, not fall within the norm.  We will make every effort to ensure that this does not happen again and that our patients continue to get the treatment they deserve.”

What have we achieved with this approach?  Shown empathy, not defense.  Patients, and health care professionals for that matter, don’t want to hear how hard it is to manufacture drugs.  They want to hear that a commitment has been made to their health.  The difference is that this message not only conveys empathy but it also displays a human side.  Genzyme would be able to illustrate that it understands the impact its drugs have on patients and that it holds itself to a higher standard because of that impact.

Too risky you say?  Admitting to a problem would cause the stock price to plummet you argue?  Maybe so.  But I would also remind you that Genzyme’s stock plummeted about 7 percent immediately following the disclosure of this incident.  Certainly the current approach did not protect the stock price so why make decisions based on what the street wants to hear?  Why not instead make decisions geared toward the stakeholders that will drive your long-term value—patients?

The problem many companies make in a crisis situation is to attempt to solve it or downplay it one barrage of messages.  But that’s impossible to achieve.  A crisis communications situation is more about being part of the solution and conversation than it is about solving it right at the outset.

Genzyme has done a great job of not running from the issue at hand—now it simply needs to tweak its message and focus on the impact it has on the patient.

A typical start-up biotech CEO can probably be found in his or her office repeating two words over and over again. “Conserve cash.” “Conserve cash.” “Conserve cash.”

Raising, and slowly spending money is priority number one of any early-stage biotech company.  And for good reason.  Various estimates peg the cost of getting a drug from discovery through the clinical trial process at anywhere from $800 million – $2 billion.  Those numbers don’t even begin to account for the cost of marketing the product once it is generally available, training a sales force and ramping up manufacturing.  Bottom line: producing a drug is exorbitantly expensive, particularly in the world of biotech.

With this concern at the forefront, most biotechs spend a considerable amount of resources figuring out how to slow the burning of money.  The plan is to create as much of a cash runway as possible and rarely does that runway include spending money on PR.  Most biotechs prefer to operate in stealth mode until they have proved their compound is effective and have hit certain milestones in the clinical trial process.  A biotech CEO simply is not willing to spend money on PR or social media when the drug is still years away from being available to the general public.

But should that always be the script?  Is there a case to be made for investing in PR long before the drug becomes publicly available?  Or is that simply pouring gasoline on what is intended to be a slow burn of cash?

Ask Christoph Westphal, CEO of Sirtris Pharmaceuticals.  I recently attended a symposium put together by the folks over at XConomy and Westphal gave the keynote speech at the event.  His presentation was essentially a case study of how Sirtris rose to prominence and was able to have a successful IPO and eventually be acquired by GlaxoSmithKline for $720 million.

I was surprised to hear Westphal declare to a room full of people that PR was an integral part of Sirtris’ early strategy.  That’s right: this was an early-stage biotech that bucked the stealth mode operating procedure and came out publicly discussing its drug compound.  Westphal’s contention was that while cash was still king, investing in PR was integral to that end.  It was a risky bet in a world where few CEOs were willing to let go of their precious cash for PR.

The results speak for themselves.  When Sirtris looked for financing, the VC folks already knew the company—it was like skipping right to the second meeting.  In addition, the PR strategy led to interviews with Barbra Walters, a spot on 60 minutes and a Fortune cover article.  Admittedly, not every PR program is going to generate the types of results that Sirtris’ program garnered.  It’s not realistic.  The good news is that it doesn’t have to generate those types of results to be successful.  A targeted approach to PR and social media that lands you coverage in the medical journals and publications that will be seen your potential investors can be just as lucrative in the long run.

Sirtris’ PR program unquestionably enticed investors but also built up a public awareness that will serve the company well once it goes to market.  Investing in PR early helped spur a successful IPO and a very attractive acquisition price.  Doesn’t really seem like throwing gas on the burning pile of cash now does it?  Maybe it’s time we rethink the validity of staying in stealth mode.