The rise of social media as an accepted marketing platform has brought with it a predictable rise in the companies that market “social media services.”  The land grab that is taking place has the potential to confuse an industry that is just in its infancy.

There are large digital agencies, advertising firms, branding firms, PR agencies and social media shops that claim to all offer similar services.  How is a marketing manager supposed to decipher the differences between these types of agencies and decide which is best suited for the job?

This isn’t an issue unique to the world of pharmaceutical marketing.  In all industries, companies are coming out of the woodwork with promises of improving social media engagement in (INSERT YOUR INDUSTRY OF CHOICE).  But the issue does threaten to gain a much stronger hold in pharma.  Why?  This is an industry that pumps money into traditional means of advertising and branding.  They are accustomed to dealing with the big conglomerates, so they are naturally inclined to stay with what’s comfortable.  Digital agencies and ad agencies are the natural choice to gain a piece of the emerging social media pie.  As a pharmaceutical marketing executive, you are faced with the same choice as any other industry—a bevy of options with no clear standout.  What type of agency should you go with?  Who is best suited to offer strategic counsel and tactical execution of a social media program?

My answer: it doesn’t matter.  Forget about, what type of agency you are considering and dig deeper into the types of services they offer.  B.L. Ochman wrote a piece today for Ad Age that suggests you ask two simple questions as a starting point: Do they have case studies to share?  And, do they walk the walk?  While that probably over simplifies the process a bit, I tend to agree.  Being and ad firm does not make you innately better at social media just like being a PR firm doesn’t lend added qualifications.

The land grab that is taking place around digital agencies, ad firms and PR shops is misguided.  In fact, the constant debate is probably causing us to miss major opportunities to work together.  There are many areas where these types of firms could partner to form a stronger engagement strategy but have largely overlooked that option.  The jockeying for position is a wasted effort.  Instead of spending time proving why a certain type of agency is better for social media engagements with pharmaceutical companies, we should spend a little more time demonstrating our social media chops.

Yesterday, I made the case that agencies have moved passed the stage of convincing marketers on the value of social media and are at a point where the focus needs to be on education.  Regulatory and legal departments inside pharmaceutical companies now stand as the major roadblocks to more widespread adoption and acceptance of social media for pharma.

Much of that urge to limit social media programs is discomfort around a lack of knowledge.  That’s on us.  We have spent so much time and energy in convincing the world that social media matters we forgot the basics—education.  What is this social media stuff anyway?

Dispose of terms like microblogging, social influencers, meme, folksconomy and del.ic.ious.  They will only hurt your efforts to educate legal and regulatory departments inside pharmaceutical companies.  Start with the basics.

To close out yesterday’s post, I asked an open-ended question: What role does an agency play in this process of educating internal departments on what social media is and what value it brings to the table?  I did receive some feedback ranging from: “Agencies should stay out of it; they don’t understand the internal politics.”  To: “Agencies only come across as salesy because we all know they have skin in the game.”  And some felt: “Agencies have been ahead of this stuff and pushing it for quite some time, perhaps it makes sense for the education efforts to come from that world.”

All of that is valid feedback.  For starters, as agency people, we probably don’t understand the internal politics at work and how to overcome that dynamic.  Second, you are right; we do have skin in the game. My agency and I would love to help more pharmaceutical companies with social media.  And as you might expect, I do believe that some agencies are better positioned to take up this education crusade because frankly, they’ve been at it the longest.

The job of an agency is to understand not only external audiences, but internal audiences as well.  The reality facing pharmaceutical companies is that legal and regulatory departments get queasy when you mention social media.  But again: it’s not because they dismiss the idea, it’s because we have done a poor job at educating them.  Shame on us.

So what can we do?

Think back to when you first started blogging, engaging on Twitter or corresponding with Facebook administrators.  Didn’t you feel a little lost?  When you attempt to educate, don’t forget that feeling of discomfort.  Even before you engage with a pharmaceutical company (yes before), offer to conduct Twitter 101 sessions.  Explain what it is in layman’s terms.  Pull up some recent examples of where their brand has been discussed or misinformation has been spread.  Don’t be afraid to show a real-time demonstration of how it works to provide a sense of the types of resources needed to manage this process.  Find an internal champion at the organization that can bridge the divide and smooth over any differences.  Maybe even start really basic and pull up a social media news release.  Sure, it’s a little rudimentary but everyone in legal and regulatory knows the format of a press release.  Pulling up a social media press release illustrates that this world isn’t that scary after all.  These are things that need to be done upfront, to help move the social media process forward.

The takeaway here is that agencies have a role, and even a responsibility to play in educating internal departments.  Without a solid education base for all stakeholders involved, we will never be able to bridge the gap that currently exists.  Take baby steps.  We will get there.

A lot of social media pundits (me included) have laid out a convincing plan as to why social media enhances the marketing program of a pharmaceutical company.  We’ve talked about measures like ROI and Return on Health (ROH). We have made a convincing argument that Health Information Seekers turn to the Internet in droves to educate themselves on diseases, treatment options and available medication.  We have worked tirelessly to dispel the adverse event myth and made suggestions on how to handle off-label discussions.  We even formed a united front and marched to capital hill to tell the FDA why it should issue guidance on how pharma companies are permitted to engage in social media.

All of this outlines a compelling picture as to why pharma companies should consider social media. But we haven’t touched on why pharma companies need social media.  As any marketer knows, there are two fundamentally different approaches to marketing—one based on wants and one based on needs.  Each has its merits and place in the marketing mix but a needs-based approach is the greatest motivator.  If a person doesn’t need something they can always choose an alternative.  So why does pharma need social media?

In order to tackle this question, we need to start by acknowledging the fact that the reputation of the pharmaceutical industry has been on a steady decline in recent years.  Right or wrong, the public at large has a distrust for pharma companies that has been mounting for years.  It’s a shame because there was a time when the pharmaceutical industry was revered for its impact on curing diseases and improving human health.

So where did it go wrong?

Many point to the FDA’s decision to allow Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) advertising as the tipping point for the industry.  The thinking at the time was that by allowing DTC ads that included fair-balance and a location to find more information, the consumers would be better educated.  As it turns out, the result has been exactly the opposite.  Presumably because of the inundation of information, patients are less educated than ever when it comes to their health and treatment options.  Not too mention, the link between DTC ads and prescriptions is tenuous at best.  To compound the issue, the ads that tend to stick in people’s minds are the ones that are highly emotional, such as male baldness, erectile dysfunction, etc…The perception that developed was drug companies were more interested in chasing the blockbuster drug than contributing to the overall improvement of societal health.  While in most cases, that does not tell the whole story, this was the reality that consumers formed based on a combination of DTC ads, pharma’s blockbuster drug strategy and the types of ads that first hit the airwaves.  It’s touch to argue that DTC ads did not play some role in damaging the reputation of pharmaceutical companies.  This is not to say it was solely responsible, or even that we should abandon DTC ads entirely, but some thought needs to be given to what weight they should play in the overall marketing strategy.

If DTC ads played a role in cultivating the distrust that currently exists, doesn’t it stand to reason that only a shift in the way pharma marketers approach building awareness will help rebuild that lost trust?  This is why pharma needs social media.  The very nature of social media is built on a foundation of trust and transparency.  It demands a level of engagement and investment in the community that does not exist with traditional DTC advertising.  More importantly, it takes an investment in patient health and a commitment to listen to the community.

These are noble goals.  But they are also the reason pharma needs social media.  Social media will allow pharmaceutical companies to begin the process of repairing a damaged reputation where it should start—with a dialogue.