PRforPharma

Discussions about social media, PR and marketing for pharmaceutical companies

Posts Tagged ‘Pharmaceutical Crisis Communications’

The Pharmaceutical Social Media Oath

August 4th, 2010

Raise your right hand and repeat after me:

I (Insert name here of pharmaceutical marketing executive) do solemnly swear to focus on the patient first in all my social media efforts.

I will ignore the desire to chase shiny objects, will not refer to Facebook as a strategy and will focus on setting a clear social media strategy before putting a finger to a keyboard.

All key stakeholders across the company regardless of department will be involved from the onset of a social media engagement (yes this means legal, regulatory and IT).

I promise to spend time listening to the social media communities I intend to engage with before I make assumptions on what they want. I will commit to always representing myself and my company in an ethical, authentic and honest manner.

When offering content or having discussions on social media platforms, I will not resort to promotional messages and will instead aim to offer educational and helpful resources. I will not merely use social media as a megaphone to shout messages to the masses. Rather, I will seek to engage in a dialogue on a one-to-one basis whenever possible.

I will expect a crisis to occur and when it does, I will avoid knee-jerk reactions such as shutting down all social media channels. There will be a crisis communications plan in place even when regulations limit what I can say. I will let patients know that they have been heard and offer alternative ways to get information.

When I receive criticism via social media they will not be discarded as some rogue, disgruntled individual. They will be considered carefully and remediation will be taken when warranted.

I will insist on social media measurement but not blindly demand ROI without a true understanding of what ROI is—a lagging indicator. When I measure social media, it will be with a more sophisticated set of metrics tied directly back to my original strategy (see sentence two).

Above all else, I will make helping the patient my central goal and will walk away entirely if that ever changes.

17 comments »

Posted in Pharmaceutical Crisis Communications, Pharmaceutical Online Marketing, Pharmaceutical Social Media, Return on Health

Crisis is the Mother of Invention

July 1st, 2010

There is an old adage that necessity is the mother of invention. Recently amidst the endless stream of Tweets I see, I saw a different take on this saying: “Crisis is the mother of invention.”

(I wish I could remember who Tweeted that so I could give proper recognition, but alas, I can’t. So to my stranger-Tweeting friend, thank you!)

It struck me as a particularly relevant comment for the world of pharmaceutical social media. I’ve touched on the fact that pharmaceutical stumbles in social media are a good thing and that it is indeed possible to use social media for pharma crisis communications. My contention has always been that each challenge along the way illuminates the fact that social media is not some fly-by-night marketing technique. There are always stumbles in a marketing program, and there will always be challenges, the belief that social media would somehow circumvent that has always hurts its credibility.

As pharmaceutical companies have encountered struggles in social media it has sharpened all of our thinking on the best approach to engagement. In the early phases of pharma social media—a company was praised simply for showing up. As well they should have been at the time. A pharmaceutical company showing its face online was a novel idea three years ago. During this period, our thinking was never stretched and our approach was never challenged. It was kind of like elementary school—everyone got a gold star just for trying their best.

No longer.

The recent string of pharmaceutical mishaps has been the crisis that will spur invention. It will force social media pundits to take a closer look at the thought process behind an engagement and reevaluate the best approach. More importantly, it will force pharmaceutical companies to ask the right questions before embarking on a social media journey, pinpoint the right goals and insist on outlining a strategy and crisis communications plan.

8 comments »

Posted in Pharmacetuical Public Relations, Pharmaceutical Crisis Communications, Pharmaceutical Online Marketing, Pharmaceutical Social Media

Tags: Pharma social media Pharmaceutical Crisis Communications Pharmaceutical Social Media PR for pharma

Social Media for Pharma Crisis Communications

June 4th, 2010

Brief Programming Note: Apologies for the slow going on posting here as of late. Between a work, real life and a vacation, it’s been difficult to carve out the time to write. But alas, things look to be freeing up so I’ll be back at it more regularly. I know; music to your ears.

Have you heard? A few pharmaceutical companies (and one oil company) have recently stepped into a healthy dose of crisis situations. As is always the case, the response to those crises has been sliced, diced and pureed in every way imaginable. The majority of industry pundits have been dissatisfied with the response of pharmaceutical companies in crisis situations and have pointed to their social media presence as proof of failed strategy.

I’m here to tell you it is not that simple.

In the midst of a crisis communications situation, there is a list 15 city blocks long of what a pharmaceutical company can’t say. This is never more true than in the public eye of social media. On the flip side, the list of things a pharma company can say when embroiled in a crisis is small enough to fit in your wallet. So, all those calling for full transparency using social media are naïve. I certainly would not suggest that a company should withhold pertinent information or intentionally deceive the public—but they simply cannot provide full transparency. Why? In many instances it’s illegal pending FDA review. There is also a litany of legal considerations that put the squeeze on communications during a crisis. For example, no legal team at a pharmaceutical company would ever allow a public apology before all the facts have been sorted out. In a legal sense, a public apology admits fault. Fault implies responsibility and responsibility brings lawsuits. It might seem callous, but that’s the reality.

Given the grim picture I have just painted, is there any hope for a pharmaceutical company dealing with a crisis. Should they even be considering social media as a platform for handling a crisis and protecting their reputation?

While there is a long list of what you are not able to say during a crisis, you should be prepared to quickly say whatever is within bounds. It sounds simple but too many companies get caught with their pants down under the assumption that a crisis won’t hit their companies. A few well-respected brands would beg to differ. You should enter a social media engagement expecting a crisis. If you don’t expect a crisis then shame on you. Knowing that a crisis situation may occur, you can then intelligently guess the areas where one is likely to arise. Product recalls, disgruntled shareholders and adverse events seem likely to tip off a firestorm. What are you doing to prepare for these circumstances?

Again, this is not about transparency for the sake of transparency. A pharmaceutical company should not be taking to social media channels discussing specific adverse events. But, it should be prepared to let the patient population know that they have been heard, the dialogue is open and they take the situation very seriously. Pharmaceutical companies should also be prepared to offer additional resources. Most pharmaceutical companies have case managers in their patient advocacy program—they should be at the ready during a crisis. Top management should be visible and active.

There is a common misconception when it comes to crisis communications—that if done correctly, it is capable of solving the problem. Regardless of how well you handle the crisis from a communications perspective, it still happened. Crisis communications is not about fixing the problem, it’s about putting forward the human dynamic of a company—and there is no better way to do that than with social media.

11 comments »

Posted in Pharmaceutical Crisis Communications, Pharmaceutical Online Marketing, Pharmaceutical Social Media

Tags: Pharmaceutical Crisis Communications Pharmaceutical Social Media Social media for pharma

Course Correcting the sanofi-aventis Social Media Firestorm

March 12th, 2010

Don't let your social media strategy go up in flames.

Nobody ever said social media was easy. sanofi-aventis is learning that lesson the hard way as its Facebook page has been the target of an onslaught of negative commentary from a patient named Shirley.

Before I go any further with this post, let me first point out that I am passing no judgment on Shirley and what she has gone through nor am I condemning sanofi-aventis. I fully realize that there is a heaping pile of information that very few people have access to in this case. So again, this is not about criticizing Shirley’s actions; it is about evaluating what we can learn from this situation as outside observers.

First a quick synopsis: basically, Shirley is contending she was deceived about the side effects of cancer drug Taxotere—which she claims is responsible for permanent hair loss. She goes on to indicate that after numerous efforts to get in touch with sanofi-aventis through traditional channels, she has taken her quest to social media channels. If that is in fact the case, then sanofi-aventis has a bigger problem on its hands—a fatally flawed customer relationship management process. Keep in mind, people don’t geenrally turn to social media as a first-line venting platform but your efforts on social media can bear the brunt of failures in other parts of your company.

In this case, the target of her attacks has been the sanofi-aventis VOICES Facebook page (after posting it to a fake sanofi-aventis page that tipped its hand by botching the proper company branding—another post for another day). She has also seemingly recruited her friends and family to join in the cause.

To sum it up: Shirley has hijacked a Facebook page to air her discontent with the adverse effects of a cancer treatment. Pharma social media folks: we have a problem.

Given the situation that sanofi-aventis has found itself in, what can it do to course correct? More importantly, how could it have better planned for such a social media calamity?

It is easy to point the finger at sanofi-aventis without understanding the dynamics of Facebook. Facebook itself has no advanced moderation functionality (again, a post for another day) if it is set up as an open group. This means companies setting up a presence on Facebook as an open group are provided two options: allow open commentary or disable the feature entirely. For some industries, that’s an easy decision, but for pharmaceutical companies the question is enormously difficult. sanofi-aventis is not the only pharmaceutical company to allow open and un-moderated comments on its wall. Johnson and Johnson has done the same and has weathered the storm during recent negative publicity events such as the Tylenol recall and a round of layoffs. But this is different. This involves the worst fears of every opponent of pharmaceutical social media—adverse events.

So was this preventable? Could sanofi-aventis have designed a social media strategy that would have prevented the firestorm that occurred? Here again I feel it is worth mentioning I am not suggesting sanofi-aventis should have covered up Shirley’s claims. Rather, I am suggesting that with better planning, those claims could have been directed to the right department and aired in the right forum. I have been sitting on this since the news first broke, racking my brain to pinpoint where it went wrong and figure out how to prevent future missteps. While I do think there were missteps, I’m not sure it was entirely preventable. sanofi-aventis made the decision to allow un-moderated content. Short of completely disabling conversation—this situation was not preventable. However, sanofi-aventis could have taken some precautionary measures to mitigate its risk. The other options with these types of groups would be to make them entirely closed off and not viewable by the outside world. This allows only members to comment and see the content. The group is not even searchable on this setting. There is an in between that allows the administrator to approve all members, but the content is still viewable by all.

Instead of preventing this from happening, what could sanofi-aventis have done differently to keep it under control? First, there is some benefit to limiting the hours during which comments are permitted on Facebook. For example, you can lock down the wall during the hours when there is no employee available to monitor commentary. At least this allows a company to prevent inappropriate comments during off hours. If they occur during office hours, they can be handled accordingly and directed to the right channels. Of course, this does not prevent the situation, but would help to mitigate the risk. In evaluating what happened here, most of the comments came during office hours. It begs the question: what took so long to shut the wall down? You can forgive one, but after the second comment, the wall should have been shut down entirely until further notice. Now you have to be careful here. It could certainly appear as though you are attempting to cover up information. People that work in the pharmaceutical industry know that there are far too many risks associated with having a discussion like this in a public forum. Upon shutting down the wall, sanofi-aventis could consider posting a message to the wall that indicates why the wall was shut down, that the compliant was being handled through appropriate channels and that once resolved it would be opened back up for discussion. In doing so, you would effectively acknowledge the situation and not hide from it, but allow it to be handled in an appropriate manner.

Another apparent misstep in this process was that there are no terms and conditions posted on the Facebook page of sanofi-aventis. While this would not automatically prevent a user from posting negative comments, it would at least lay the ground work for the actions that would follow and would set a standard for all users to abide by. It should also point patients to the easiest way to report adverse events.

Finally, sanofi-aventis seems to be caught off guard by this situation. It shouldn’t be. Any company opening itself up to the risks associated with social media should have a crisis communications policy in place. This policy should have pre-approved language that any approved administrator can use to handle an adverse event report, off-label usage discussion, etc…While you can never be prepared for every circumstance that develops, you can certainly put the pieces in place to act quickly and decisively.

What this recent social media challenge has demonstrated is what most social media advocates have known all along—it’s difficult and there are risks. That’s why as agencies we need to stop overpromising, neglecting strategy and following the shiny object. There are risks associated with social media and no program will go flawlessly—but your response to challenges will say as much as your initial foray. How will you respond?

19 comments »

Posted in FDA and Pharma Social Media, Pharmaceutical Crisis Communications, Pharmaceutical Online Marketing, Pharmaceutical Social Media

Tags: FDA and Pharma Social Media Pharmaceutical Crisis Communications Pharmaceutical marketing Pharmaceutical Social Media sanofi-aventis