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?