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?

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.

The always thought-provoking John Mack of Pharma Marketing Blog fame wrote a post today about the idea of “shouting” as a legitimate social media technique.  Head over to John’s blog for the full context but to sum it up here, John was referring to the practice of broadcasting a slew of messages via social media channels.  The hope would be to bombard the networks with so much positive company information that it buries any negative information that may appear.  “Shouting” amounts to gaming the almighty Google and moving positive commentary up in the rankings.

John contends that left to their own devices, pharma marketers may be tempted to fill the social media void with self-promotional messages with the goal of driving down negative search engine results.  He may be right.  It’s no secret that SEO techniques have changed the face of marketing and any savvy marketer should consider how it can highlight positive results and mitigate the negative.  This is a core function of marketing in today’s new media landscape.  But is “shouting” an acceptable means to this end?

The short answer is no.  The goal of pushing negative search results down is certainly a worthy goal, particularly if that negative result contains misinformation.  But simply broadcasting company infomercial is not the best way to achieve that result.  In fact, by simply following a social media strategy that abides by the principles of honesty and transparency, a marketer can achieve the same result without resorting to questionable tactics.  Borrowing from the comment I left on John’s blog, take for example a case where a ticked off patient writes a post called, “Big Pharma Company A Sucks.”  The post is likely to appear prominently in search results. But instead of “shouting” (i.e. broadcasting a rebuttal), what if a pharma company was present in the discussion happening on that post in an attempt to address some of the patient’s concerns? What if that participation spurred a follow-up post praising the company for its proactive outreach, which would help to balance out the negative view? That has to count for something right? The point is: pharma marketers should be encouraged to partake in and spur conversation. This will inevitably help their brand and also achieve the same outcome as the “shouting” mentioned above.

Even if we are in agreement that social media can serve the purpose of increasing positive search results in an ethical manner, the obvious lingering concern is if pharmaceutical marketers can stick to the straight and narrow.  What few people realize when they embark on social media engagement strategies is that it not only takes an abundance of planning, but dogged commitment and significant time resources.  It’s not easy.  “Shouting” is a far easier and quicker solution—but at what price?

In order to avoid the temptation of the easy route, pharma marketers need to be engaged in social media for the right reasons.  Before hitting send on the keyboard, ask yourself: “why am I here?”  If your first answer is “to post corporate information because there was a negative post about our company” then step away from the keyboard.  Go no further.  That line of thinking fails miserably in the world of social media—particularly pharmaceutical social media.  But if you are focused on the Return on Health of your patients and generally engaged in that goal, proceed at will.  Your engagement will be welcome, thoughtful and informative.

Here is the challenge should you choose to accept it: define social media and its value to pharmaceutical companies in two sentences.

In a world where 140-characters has emerged as the de facto standard for communication, it should be simple to sum up social media in two sentences—that’s practically a novel.  Not so fast.  As I described in a recent post, social media for the pharma industry faces a significant knowledge gap that needs to be bridged.  Because the marketing pundits have been stuck in evangelism mode they have neglected the need to educate a.  In addition to a knowledge gap, this passionate evangelism has created a bit of confusion. With every marketer looking to jump on the money-making scheme of the day, some people aren’t quite sure what the heck social media is.

This fact was driven home to me in a recent conversation I had with a former pharmaceutical executive.  This is a reasonably smart person that ascended the top ranks of a major pharmaceutical company before his retirement.  In short: he’s no slouch.  His question to me was: “Okay, you have told me a lot about social media and its benefits, but if you are sitting in a meeting and staring down a high-level executive, what would you tell that person in two sentences to get your point across?”

I struggled to answer that question concisely in the first go around.  I’ve written 30 posts amounting to somewhere in the neighborhood of 15,000 words in the last 6 weeks—but when you ask me to sum that up in two sentence I am hard pressed.

Here was my response: “Social media flies in the face of the marketing efforts that are based on hitting as many eyeballs as possible—the same marketing efforts that have failed pharmaceutical companies.  Instead, social media is a more targeted form of marketing that requires a company to engage in a two-way dialogue, add more value than it extracts and provide content of value to a community of people, congregated online, that have expressed an interest in that topic.”

See, not so easy is it?  It took me two run-on sentences to get in the vicinity of my point.  What’s your answer?  In two sentences, tell me what social media is and the value it brings to pharmaceutical companies.