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.
