Who Has Actually Played BI's SYRUM Game? The Silence is Deafening!

During today's #hcsmeu chat session (see archive here) I asked "Truthfully - has any of my EU colleagues actually played SYRUM?"

There's been a lot of hype about Syrum previous to its launch by Boehringer Ingelheim (BI) in the EU (see here), but I've heard nothing post launch from anyone who has actually spent time playing the "game" (I'm told that it's not a form of "gamification").

"Who's the EU 'pharmaguy' who will take on this task and report back?", I asked.

Turns out that one person (Maria Öst, Sweden, aka @mariaatomaca) admitted she signed on to a beta account, but she didn't actually play the game. By signing on, Maria gave Syrum (and BI) permission to "post on [her] behalf" and "read [her] checkins" even if she does not play the game (see here).

According to @fision (Kai Gait, UK) Syrum opens "lots of potential opportunity in the future by accessing the interest graph of players" -- even if they don't actually play the game ("If a user doesn’t ‘disconnect’ the game, they [BI] still have access to data in theory," said @fision).

Felix Jackson (@felixjackson, UK, founder of medDigital) actually has played the game and said "I ... enjoyed it! I liked the way it showed me drug development." I thank Felix for taking the time to give me a live tour of the Syrum via Skype during which I saw a few peculiar things such as a masked avatar that looked like an Al Qaeda terrorist! I guess it was supposed to be a surgical mask. I've worked in a lab and I never saw anyone wear a mask. Maybe drug development labs are different.

One of the features of the game is that you can see friends on Facebook who have also signed on to play the game. You can "recruit" these friends to be members of your drug development team or you can collaborate with them. Unfortunately, none of Felix's FB friends -- including BI's John Pugh -- were able to collaborate with Felix because they didn't have any molecules under development (ie, they currently are not playing the game).

Meanwhile, Helen Harrison (@harrassedmom) alerted me to this "walk through" on YouTube:



By the time you read this, one or two other people I know on Twitter may tell me that they also have played Syrum. These people, however, are mostly like me -- not representative of Syrum's target audience, which is the general public. We won't know very much about how many of those people have signed on to play, how long they have played, etc., unless BI shares that information with us. That make take another 3 years -- I'll wait :-)

"Gamification" (eg, Syrum) is Just Another Way for Pharma to Mine Our Personal Data and Wisdom

Everyone I know in Pharma Twitterdom is enamored by the launch of Boehringer Ingelheim's SYRUM FaceBook game, which is available ONLY to European FB users. BI says the game is "educational" for physicians and the public:

"The research driven pharmaceutical industry is immersed in education - whether aimed at medical or pharmaceutical professionals or providing information directly to the public," says John Pugh, Director of Digital at Boehringer Ingelheim. "Gaming is an experimental way for Boehringer Ingelheim to do this. The challenge is to do this in a truly engaging, educational and entertaining way that immerses the player."

Syrum allows players to create and run their own pharmaceutical company, using a virtual laboratory to discover and develop imaginary medicines to improve the health of the world.

But "educating" the public may be a minor goal of Syrum. It surely is not something that can be measured as a key performance indicator (KPI) to justify the years and money invested in developing this "game."

So how does BI justify investing all this time and money to develop a game if it cannot measure how better educated the public is about drug development?

I believe that Syrum is designed to educate BI and NOT to educate us. It's much easier for BI to measure how much better educated IT has become due to Syrum than to measure how much better I have become from playing the game.

What do I mean by BI being "educated" due to Syrum?

Firstly, BI requires everyone who plays the game to open up their FB information for access by the company.

I was able to access the game while in Spain recently. Before I could play the game, however, I had to agree to allow BI to gain access to practically everything I do on Facebook (see screen shot below).

This stopped me dead in my tracks. Perhaps this is a normal permission request for all FB apps, but I was loathe to "allow" this kind of access for a pharma company app. It seems that BI wants to do some market research about the people who opt in to play Syrum. This kind of data could be a valuable KPI for Syrum.

I must admit that I am mystified by FB. For example, what does "Post on my behalf" mean? Whatever it is, it doesn't sound good. "Reading my checkins" also does not sit well with me. 

I'm not the only one who doesn't use apps due to privacy concerns. More than half of mobile application users have uninstalled or avoided certain apps due to concerns about the way personal information is shared or collected by the app, according to a nationally representative telephone survey conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project (see "Privacy and Data Management on Mobile Devices"). What applies to mobile apps also applies to FB apps - maybe even more so given FB's bad rep viz-a-viz privacy (see for example: "How Facebook Plans On Using Your Prescription Drug Purchase History, And How To Stop Them").

Another way that Syrum can educate BI rather than educating us is by allowing BI to cash in on "crowdsourcing" WITHOUT financially compensating the crowd!

BI says it has steered clear of therapeutic areas it is involved with as potential areas of interest in the Syrum game, although it has left the door open to change that. Perhaps BI's objective is to test the social aspects of the game and access the "wisdom of the crowd" to help it develop new drugs.

The pharma industry seems ready -- even desperate -- for help from the crowd to develop new drugs. Ten top U.S. and European drugmakers -- including BI -- started a nonprofit organization, called TransCelerate BioPharma, to collaborate on the problem of developing new drugs (see here).

Meanahile, Lilly's Clinical Open Innovation believes that crowdsouring can help fix drug development, which it claims is "broken." Lilly believes that "Open Innovation models – focused on clinical drug development – can result in transformational gains in value-to-patients and efficiency. We also believe that open data, linked, crowdsourced, consumed and curated by experts outside (as well as inside) the walls of pharma will bring innovative insights and wisdom. And that open communities will set and meet objectives to reduce costs and improve outcomes" (see "OMG, LCOI! Open Source Pharma: Creative Commons Coming To Pharma").

Perhaps Syrum is a precursor to that kind of "collaboration" - what I call "semi-open access" drug research. This could be of tremendous educational as well as FINANCIAL benefit to BI. And all it costs is the price of developing a game with very little payback to the crowd other than "fun" and "engagement!" P.S. On KPI I forget to mention was ROI on PR. BI recently retweeted this tweet from the PM Society: "RT @PMSociety: How is PR ROI for Syrum being measured? 50 pieces of press just from launch party. Value in positioning of @Boehringer". 50 easy "pieces of press" -- some kind of "POP"!

Mirror Mirror on the Wall, Who's the Most Innovative of Them All? Pharma, Social Media Wise, That Is.

The pharmaceutical industry has consistently promoted itself as an "innovative industry" by which it means it discovers new, innovative drugs through research. No one ever claimed the drug industry was very innovative in marketing in general or in its use of social media. However, consultant and strategist Andrew Spong, just came close to doing that in a post titled "Innovation: the name of the game for Boehringer."

"By dint of the sheer weight of evidence that has accrued over the past three years alone," says Spong, "Boehringer Ingelheim may reasonably be identified as the pharma company that sets the pace for the industry in digital environments...Boehringer merits recognition as the digital leader in the pharma industry not because of what it has achieved, but because of what its activities say about the cultural evolution that has taken place within the company."

Spong and many others are lauding Boehringer's Facebook Syrum game based solely on hearsay evidence -- Syrum won't be officially released until September 13, 2012 (see "BI to Launch Beta Version of its Syrum FaceBook Game on September 13, 2012"). The "weight of evidence" comes almost exclusively from tweets, blog posts, and press releases written by BI PR people and John Pugh, BI's Director of Digital.

I doubt if Spong or any other laudatory commentator has actually played the game. If they did, I am sure they would have mentioned it and actually written something new about it.

I am not sure what kind of "cultural evolution" is going in within BI, but I know that the company has exhibited some PR and marketing behavior that regulatory agencies have frowned upon (see, for example, "BI Masters the Art of WOM through Its 'Parrots,' er, Spokespersons"). This is not indicative of a cultural evolution in pharmaland.

Spong also mentions BI's "experiments with outré humour" and links to this "Famously Unpronounceable" YouTube video as an example.



Spong neglected to mention that the above video is NOT found on the official BI YouTube site, which no longer hosts the video in question. BI yanked it because of negative comments from industry commentators such as myself who are “slow to acknowledge its transformation” (see “BI’s Famously Unpronounceable Video Lives On!”).

With regard to the Syrum game, BI has been milking that for almost a year making it one of the more spectacular examples of “vaporware” I have ever seen (again not culturally evolved). BI, IMHO, would have been much better off sticking with real world exhibits (see “'A Drug is Developed:' Easier than Launching an Educational Facebook Game about Drug Development?").

Before you label me solely as a negative commentator, I offer you this: “Boehringer Ingelheim Shows How to Support Patients via Twitter and Beyond”.

Just like every pharma company, BI has its social media triumphs and failures – or “Trials & Tribulations” as I like to call them. See my latest Slideshare presentation on that here.

FDA Caught Speeding. Puts Public Safety at Risk.

"An FDA effort to speed approval of new medicines allowed drugs for stroke prevention, cancer and multiple sclerosis onto the market without proper safety analysis, according to two drug-safety experts," reports the Wall Street Journal in a review (here) of a "viewpoint" recently published in JAMA.

Peter Pitts of Drug Wonks says: "As usual, Janet Woodcock [Director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at FDA] places the matter in the appropriate perspective. 'I'd like to stress that where there are unmet medical needs, the public has told us they are willing to accept greater risks,' Dr. Woodcock said. "The cancer community in particular says we haven't used accelerated approvals enough.'" Pitts adds this zinger:

"Here’s the truth -- there is no such thing as a 'safe' drug. It's the patient who must understand the risks required to achieve the benefit. That’s why the patient voice must be heard during all phases of the regulatory review process."

Unfortunately, I don't think Pitts actually read the piece in JAMA. The drug safety expert authors of that piece (Thomas J. Moore and Curt D. Furberg) did not claim that drugs approved by the FDA should be "safe." They made the argument that accelerated approval by FDA of several powerful drugs with UNKNOWN safety issues were no better at improving outcomes than drugs currently on the market whose safety issues are well-known.

"Although enabling new drugs with a favorable benefit-to-harm balance to become available to patients more rapidly is a laudable goal," said Moore and Furberg, "the underlying question is what public health risks are taken when drugs are approved for widespread use while important safety questions remain unanswered."

The authors cite several specific drugs that were fast-tracked for approval without adequate safety information available. I'd like to focus on one: Dabigatran for prevention of stroke. Dabigatran is marketed as Pradaxa by Boehringer Ingelheim (BI).

According to Moore and Furberg, Pradaxa benefited from "3 different FDA policies promoting innovation. This drug received both Fast Track and Priority Reviews and was studied in a single large phase 3 trial rather than in at least 2 pivotal trials, as normally required...Within less than a year of approval, 1 survey showed that dabigatran accounted for more serious adverse drug events reported to the FDA during the second quarter of 2011 than any other regularly monitored drug. Risk of hemorrhage was prominent in older patients (median age, 80 years), a subgroup for whom declining kidney function or other factors may have increased bleeding risk. Both a manufacturer package insert revision and the European Medicines Agency have called for closer monitoring of kidney function, a needed step because even moderate kidney impairment increases dabigatran levels more than 2-fold. In addition, unlike warfarin, no antidote is available for use in bleeding emergencies related to dabigatran. Evidence was beginning to emerge that dabigatran-related bleeding— whether from trauma or as an adverse effect—may be more difficult to treat than warfarin-related bleeding."

Couple this safety issue with the promotion of Pradaxa in the media as a "super pill" and a "revolutionary drug" (see "Bad Journalism or Bad Pharma?") and you end up with a real public safety issue that patients should be concerned about. BI itself stoked this Pradaxa-mania (read, for example, "BI Masters the Art of WOM through Its 'Parrots,' er, Spokespersons" and "Full BOEHR(inger) Social Media Reporting of RELY Trial Results").

Sadly, Woodcock may have heard from "patient advocates" paid by pharma companies to testify before the FDA, but who advocates for the patients harmed by drugs like Pradaxa? Their stories are locked in the FDA's adverse event database, which is not generally cited during drug approval Hearings at the FDA.

Not to mention the impact of DTC advertising on the public's willingness to accept greater risk:

BI to Launch Beta Version of its Syrum FaceBook Game on September 13, 2012

John Pugh, Director of Digital for Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH (BI), announced that BI will release a BETA version of the FaceBook game SYRUM at a PSFK conference in London on September 13, 2012.

I have been anxiously awaiting the launch of this game after I first heard about it 10 months ago at a pharma industry conference (see "Pharma & Fun, Not Oxymoronic? Here Comes Gamification!" and "BI's Facebook Game Syrum to be Launched 'When It's Ready'"). At least BI is speedier than the FDA in delivering on long-awaited promises!

I have not heard of the PSFK conferences until now. According to its website, PSFK "conferences offer a diverse program of speakers with backgrounds in art, technology, design, marketing, and media, creating an environment where disparate ideas can come together in new ways to fuel work that changes the world for the better. We set an agenda that allows participants to meet and discuss with one another, together sharing and building upon the ideas brought forth from the stage."

I am a bit surprised, however, that Pugh/BI did not choose to launch SYRUM at a pharma industry conference such as DigiPharm Europe, which will take place less than a fortnight later, also in London. Over the past year, Pugh has been making the rounds at such industry conferences promoting SYRUM. I'm not one to speculate (ha ha), but is Pugh getting ready to move on to greener pastures in another, more "innovative" industry? To be fair, it's important for pharma company employees to make connections with like-minded people in other industries to get new ideas that may be applied to pharma.

In any case, here's some of what Pugh revealed to PSFK (read the full interview here):

“We are taking a Silicon Valley approach,” said Pugh, “where we know we have got a really good game that’s stable but we’ll launch a beta version. We really want to make it so that we get lots of feedback from the people who are playing.”

“We’re offering rewards and prizes for people to give feedback so that we can really create the duration of the game, and develop it, and have more of a crowdsourced collaborative effort to develop the future stages of it, so the game will grow and evolve, as more people play it. This is a very unique offering from a highly regulated industry.”

"Crowdsourcing" seems to be all the rage now in the pharmaceutical industry. See, for example, "Crowd Sourced Creative Commons Drug Information" (free subscription required).

Meanwhile, here's a first glimpse of actual SYRUM game screens - previously, we've only been able to see the opening screen with the message "coming soon."

"A Drug is Developed:" Easier than Launching an Educational Facebook Game about Drug Development?

About six months ago in December, 2011, Boehringer Ingelheim (BI) teamed up with the Mainz Natural History Museum in Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany, to create "Ein Medicament Entsteht" ("The development of a medicine"), which was an educational exhibit seen by more than 30,000 visitors who "marvelled at the story of a drug's development cycle from the first project outline through to market authorisation." Here's the YouTube video:



Meanwhile, back in October, 2011, BI's @johnpugh was tweeting about a "kick-ass [Facebook} game" called Syrum, in which "a player must first investigate molecular compounds at a research desk before putting them to the test in the laboratory, then conduct clinical trials and, if successful, advance a treatment to market." For more about this game read "BI's Facebook Game Syrum to be Launched 'When It's Ready'."

It turns out that Syrum has been much more difficult to "bring to market" than the Mainz Museum exhibit. Syrum is still not ready to be played and is "Coming Soon" (see screen shot below taken today when I clicked on the "How to Play" button).

I'm supposed to be a "beta tester" -- someone who reviews the game before it is launched to the public -- but, so far, I haven't been given anything to test. I'm afraid this game might take longer to develop and bring to market than an actual drug!

Meanwhile, John Pugh continues to talk about Syrum at industry conferences. Most recently, Pugh presented at "Doctors 2.0 & You™" and he is scheduled to provide "A Detailed Update on the Development and Continued Use of Syrum" at ExL's 6th Annual Digital Pharma East Unconference on October 17, 2012. Of course, that depends on the gamiification development process, which we know can take years!

Boehringer Ingelheim Shows How to Support Patients via Twitter and Beyond

One of the uses for pharma Twitter accounts that many ePatient advocates recommend is to directly support patients seeking help regarding their Rx products (see, for example, this Pharma Marketing News (PMN) article: "Use of Twitter for Patient Support" [free pdf]).

Although nearly two-thirds of respondents to a PMN survey thought that using Twitter for patient support activities would be somewhat or very effective, relatively few pharmaceutical companies are doing this on a regular basis. From time to time, however, I do see it happening.

Today, for example, I discovered that Boehringer Ingelheim tweeters in Germany (@boehringer) responded to a tweet from a U.S. caregiver who was seeking help in purchasing Spiriva HandiHaler for her mother. First, this person complained to @BarackObama because of the high cost of the product:

@BarackObama @Messina2012 cam some1 tell me y my moms ESSENTIAL medication is $135.00 a month? That's 2 MUCH 4 some1 on a fixed income :-(

She then followed up with a tweet sent to the attention of @Boehringer:

@Boehringer hellol My mother needs 2 purchase Spiriva HandiHaler & her insurance wont cover it. Are there any coupons or assistance 4 this?

Although @Boehringer is the German-based Twitter account of BI, it did respond. Here's the conversation:

I commend BI for using Twitter to carry on a conversation about a product rather than just providing @Shaundre an 800 number to call. Also, BI -- in Germany -- has taken the extra step in contacting the US office on @Shaundre's behalf. Good job, BI!

Note that BI first asks if @Shaundre spoke to her (or her mother's) doctor about the issue. Preserving the patient-doctor relationship is important when pharma deals directly with patients or caregivers. About 57% of respondents to the survey mentioned above were of the opinion that use of Twitter by pharma for direct-to-patient support activities could be viewed by physicians as coming between them and their patients. Only 30% said these activities would not interfere with the patient-physician relationship.

UPDATE: @boehringerus, BI's U.S. Twitter account, posted this tweet:

@Shaundrie: Thank you for your message. Send your contact info to usnews@boehringer-ingelheim.com and we will contact you directly.

Pharma Urged to Employ Wikipedia Editors: Ain't Goin' to Happen

My friend, Dr. Bertalan Meskó (@Berci) writes (here):

Dear Pharma Companies,

The place of Wikipedia in the dissemination of medical information online is indisputable now. If you want your customers to access information about your products from the quality perspective and in the simplest way, you have to deal with using Wikipedia.

Based on the pretty negative past encounters between pharma employees and Wikipedia editors (pharma employees trying to edit entries about their own products in a quite non-neutral way), we advise you to employ a Wikipedia editor if you want to make sure only evidence-based information is included in entries about your own products. Appointing someone from within your company as a “spokesperson” in Wikipedia who would perform all edits on behalf of the company is an excellent way to update those entries.

For more details, please see our open access social media guide [see my review here].

But basically, we, Wikipedians, are more than open to starting a discussion about this with you.

I’m looking forward to working together.

Dr. Bertalan Mesko
Webicina.com

I respect Berci and agree that pharmaceutical companies should employ full-time resources to monitor social media sites like Wikipedia and submit what they consider "corrective" information about products. But, IMHO, it ain't goin' to happen!

Boehringer Ingelheim (BI) responded to Berci via Twitter: "We look for patient safety issues & react. Its important to stick to Wikipedia policies too, so all transparent." But when asked by Berci if BI had posted anything online about this, BI responded "No at this point in time we have not....yet," seemingly leaving the door open.

But I am sure that no pharma company will ever -- in this economy -- hire someone just to monitor Wikipedia and write Wikipedia entries.

But why stop at Wikipedia? There's are other social media platforms that also need dedicated resources -- such as Twitter, Facebook, numerous patient discussion boards, and now Pinterest.

Many brand managers have probably hired outside agencies to monitor what people are saying about brands on social media sites, but the goal is not to issue "corrective information." It's more a matter of market research and measuring share of voice, that sort of thing (maybe also actively monitoring for safety issues as BI mentioned). These agents are temporary help and the companies will never hire anyone to do this full-time in-house. In fact, many social media pioneers within pharma companies have "moved on" (ie, lost their jobs); see, for example, "Is There an Upward Career Path Within Pharma for Social Media Pioneers?"

BI Dumps Celebrity COPD Spokesperson and Seeks Inspired Facebook Fans Instead

Today Boehringer Ingelheim (BI) sent out this tweet: "We have just launched a new #hcsm activity within Facebook....want to find out more? Check out all the details here http://t.co/gwLgMe0D"

The link leads to "COPD Inspirations - The BIG Picture," a FaceBook page that encourages fans to submit images that reflect "the positive fight against COPD and will inspire others to take back control of their lives. So to get involved 'get creative, get emotive, get artistic!' and upload your image," says BI.

Recently, BI handed over the keys to its public health initiative, Drive4COPD, to the non-profit COPD Foundation (see here). That initiative features racecar driver/celebrity Danica Patrick who is more well-known as a swimsuit model and expletive-deleted competitor (see "Pharma Celebrity Spokespersons: Unrepentant, Secretive, and (Expletive Deleted)!").

BI's new Facebook-based COPD awareness initiative/campaign may signal a trend away from the use of paid celebrities to the exploitation of real patients, who will not receive any compensation whatsoever for the use of their images and stories. BI will, however, offer entrants a chance to win an iPad 2. (Why not a third-generation iPad? Perhaps BI has a surfeit of iPad 2's they need to get rid of.)

Here are the eligibility requirements:

1. Entrants must be aged 18 or over. 
2. Entrants cannot be employees of Boehringer Ingelheim (BI), or respective affiliate companies / be an employee of any pharmaceutical company 
3. Entrants must have a personal connection to COPD – i.e. either have the disease themselves, or be a carer / friend / family member of someone who has or has previously suffered with COPD. 

Oh, I forgot to mention one other criterium for eligibility: you must be a Fan of BI on Facebook. So BI gets new fans and free images for its COPD campaign. Sweet!

Since I was eligible -- my mother-in-law, Irene, has COPD -- I thought I'd submit an entry and see what happens. It was pretty easy. I had a photo of Irene that I think is inspirational (see below):

Along with an image, BI requires entrants to submit an "inspirational" comment, so I wrote: "COPD does not stop my Mom-in-Law, Irene, from enjoying the beautiful world around her, especially when she is with her family. Her daughter, Debbie, took this photo while they hiked in Pine Creek Gorge, commonly referred to as the Grand Canyon of Pennsylvania."

While I was at it, I also posted the photo to my Facebook page (BI's terms and conditions have no qualms about me using my photo elsewhere). The terms, however, do state: "Each entrant grants a worldwide licence to BI to use the images in any way the companies deem fit (e.g. to feature any or all of the submitted images on their websites and/or in any materials it develops for media, HCPs or patients, with acknowledgement of the entrant. Images will be used by BI to highlight understanding and awareness of COPD. Again, the entrant may be contacted to provide further background to the imagery and will be notified ahead of use)."

The competition opened  today and will close on the 18th July 2012. So, hurry, and enter those photos or other creative images TODAY!

Shire Seeks to Maintain YouTube "Loophole" in FDA's Draft Guidelines for TV Ads

FDA has received several comments from the pharmaceutical industry regarding the agency's "Draft Guidance for Industry Direct-to-Consumer Television Advertisements." In past posts I reviewed comments from PhRMA (the drug industry U.S. trade association) and Sanofi (see here and here). In this post, I report on comments made by Shire (find Shire's comments here).

Shire, like Sanofi, Novo Nordisk and Boehringer Ingelheim (BI), believes that submission of a final recorded version of a TV ad for FDA approval prior to being aired would be "burdensome." Shire specifically cites the optional two-step process FDA suggested; i.e., first submit an annotated storyboard and then a final recorded version of the ad. "This sequential two-submission process would double the time and resource burden on sponsors as well as the Agency," says Shire.

Serial OPDP Review Blues
BI also mentioned the "burden" of a two-step process in its comments to the FDA (find them here). But BI was referring to the need to resubmit a new version of the ad after receiving critical comments from the FDA concerning the first version submitted for review. 

"BIPI is concerned with the incremental time and cost that would be incurred by sponsors to routinely produce and submit multiple broadcasts for the purpose of OPDP [FDA's Office of Prescription Drug Promotion] pre-dissemination review," says BI. "BIPI is similarly concerned that the repeated submissions of storyboards to capture serial sets of OPDP suggestions (i.e., the submission of modified storyboards for advisory comments following integration of initial advisory comments) would greatly increase the time, if not the cost, of producing DTC broadcast ads." 

BI says that it "behooves sponsors to ensure storyboards submitted for advisory comments are representative of the final ad and to ensure that the Agency's comments are incorporated into the filmed version." In other words, BI suggests FDA just look at storyboards and trust that the sponsor will create a final "filmed" ad that is revised according to FDA comments.

Shire, however, was the only pharma company to point out a "loophole" that I revealed on Pharma Marketing Blog in March (see "A Loophole (?) in New FDA Guidance on Pre-Dissemination Review of TV Direct-to-Consumer Ads"). In that post, I said:

"FDA does not define what exactly it means by 'dissemination.' Perhaps it has defined this term elsewhere in it regulatory archives, but I assume in this case it means airing the ad on mass market TV. Does that include uploading the video to YouTube? A drug company could upload a video of a pre-approved ad to YouTube at the same time that it submits the video to FDA for 'pre-dissemination' review. The video can then be embedded in the drug.com website or promoted via Twitter."

Shire pointed out the same lack of clarity in its comments. "...there has been increasing availability and use of vehicles other than broadcast TV to present video advertising, such as on-demand viewing via the Internet," says Shire. "Shire recommends that FDA affirm that the scope of the guidance includes only DTC advertisements disseminated through broadcast television."

FDA and the drug industry continue to see no need to issue any mandatory or even voluntary guidelines specifically for drug promotion via the Internet. Shire points out, for example, that there already is an "advisory review process" that applies to video advertisements disseminated through "other viewing platforms' (i.e., the Internet). That process (see here) says "a sponsor may voluntarily submit advertisements to FDA for comment prior to publication."

However, if "dissemination" is defined according to Shire's rules, then it is possible for a drug company to run a video ad on YouTube months before it airs the same ad on TV without having to submit anything to the FDA for review -- the current "advisory review process" that Shire refers to is voluntary.

As part of that process (e.g., submission of static storyboards for video ads), FDA estimates that "approximately 2 hours on average would be needed per submission, including the time it takes to prepare, assemble, and copy the necessary information." Compared to that, the creation of "final filmed" versions of TV ads is indeed a significant burden on sponsors. However, since FDA's new guidelines are specifically aimed at products with significant safety concerns, it "behooves" the drug industry to carry that "burden" in the interest of patient safety, IMHO.

Pharma Celebrity Spokespersons: Unrepentant, Secretive, and (Expletive Deleted)!

I have documented the rise and fall of several pharma celebrity spokespeople (see, for example, this list) . This past week two such celebrities made the news: Paula Deen and Danica Patrick. These are two examples of celebrities with "baggage" that may hurt the image of their pharma company partners. Paula Deen's baggage concerns secrecy and her unrepentant recipes whereas Danica Patrick's baggage includes swimsuit and bikini pictures and colorful language. I just imagined Paula and Danica "switching" their baggage (ewww!).

Paula Deen continues to express no regrets about delaying her announcement that she has Type 2 diabetes for nearly three years until she secured a lucrative deal as "a paid pitch person for drug maker Novo Nordisk's new online program, Diabetes in a New Light, and for its pricy (sic) drug, Victoza, which she takes" (see USA Today article, "Paula Deen: no regrets"). She will continue to cook sugary, fattening meals as she always has done, declaring "I'm Southern by roots. I was taught (to cook) by my grandmother and nothing I can do would change that."

However, she said that "when she begins shooting new episodes of her show this spring, the recipes will offer something for everyone, including people who want healthier recipes."

Unfortunately, there will also be a delay before those new recipes are available because "filming and production schedules are set well in advance, it could take up to two years before those episodes are aired," notes the USA Today article.

Meanwhile, Deen remains silent about how much she is being compensated by Novo Nordisk to be a paid spokesperson, citing an excuse as American as her own "Savannah High Apple Pie" (see recipe, which includes at least 2 and a half cups sugar, one whole stick of butter, and 2 cups butter-flavored solid shortening (recommended: Crisco)):

"Yes, I am being compensated," she said Friday. "It's the way of the world. It's the American way. But I am taking a portion of that compensation and giving it back to the (American) Diabetes Association."

Deen would not reveal what portion of her compensation she would donate to the American Diabetes Association. That too is the "American" way?

To learn more about Novo's reasons for choosing Paula Deen as a spokesperson, I invite you to read the Pharma Marketing News article "Novo Nordisk Defends Choice of Paula Deen as Diabetes Spokesperson". You can download this article after taking a short survey that asks two short questions:

1. When it is proper to use paid celebrities - e.g., movie stars, TV personalities, sports figures - as spokespeople for drug brands?
2. Should pharmaceutical companies reveal how much they pay celebrities?

You can Take the Survey here and see the results to date afterward as well as getting a FREE copy of the article.

"Was das F**k!"

That's what Danica Patrick, spokesperson for Boehringer Ingelheim's DRIVE4COPD™ awareness campaign said after teammate Cole Whitt "nudged" her rear in the Drive4COPD 300 race this past Saturday. Actually, Danica spoke in English, but that is what I imagine Boehringer Ingelheim executives were saying when they heard about this latest news about their "bad girl" spokesperson.

"The (expletive) 88 hit me while we were in a big pack! What the (expletive)?" Patrick screamed. ESPN has the video and audio from her in-car radio (here).

"I don't think it's ever great when teammates come together," Patrick said. "So we'll have to figure out what happened and move forward." Patrick didn't complain, however, in the beginning of the race when another racer, Dale Earnhardt Jr., "pushed" her to the lead position at the beginning of the race. She dropped way behind after that and grazed the wall once on her own before the second incident occurred.

Coincidentally -- or maybe NOT! -- the DRIVE4COPD Web site (here) is undergoing a revision (see below). I entered my email address to be "notified when the new site is live." Will Danica still be there?

[UPDATE. 29 Feb 2012]
I was contacted by a Public Relations person at Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. who said:

"Just wanted to clarify an item in your recent post re pharma celebs. The DRIVE4COPD website has been "under construction" since December 28, 2011, as we work to revise it to reflect changes to the campaign going into its third year. Since 2010, Danica Patrick has helped drive education and awareness about COPD among NASCAR fans and has been a committed and passionate spokesperson for the cause due to her family’s personal connection to the disease. The status of the website has nothing to do with any specific recent events and is on track to be fully up and running by next month. "

Thanks for the update. I didn't really think one thing had anything to do with the other :-)

Pharma Social Media Silent About Drug Shortage: Boehringer, Novartis, #FAIL!

The pharmaceutical industry is not interested in using social media to inform or support patients using their products. It's only interested in using social media to push out positive news about their companies and products. This is evident by the industry's deafening silence regarding the shortage of cancer drugs such as methotrexate, a drug used to treat children's leukemia among other maladies.

Letters from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Cancer Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology and Children's Oncology Group, a nationwide network of researchers, were sent to top executives at four U.S. makers of the drug pleading for help. Two of these companies -- Ben Venue Laboratories and Sandoz -- are owned by major non-U.S. Rx pharma companies (Boehringer Ingelhein and Novartis, respectively). The letters state in part:

"As you know, since December we have seen a significant decline in the country’s production of preservative-free Methotrexate (MTX). This drug is critical to the treatment of children with ALL. Approximately 3,500 children and teenagers are diagnosed with ALL each year, with cure rates approaching 90%. Without this drug, patients are at dramatically heightened risk of dying."

As reported in the Chicago Tribune (see here), "the FDA says the main reason for the shortages is manufacturing deficiencies leading to production shutdowns. Shortages also are resulting from companies halting production of drugs with low profit margins, companies consolidating in the generic drug industry and supplies of some ingredients shrinking."

"Established in 1938, Ben Venue Laboratories is the manufacturing arm of Bedford Laboratories, a Boehringer Ingelheim company," says the company's web site. "Bedford Laboratories is one of the largest generic injectable pharmaceutical companies in the United States, offering a broad range of multisource injectables across multiple therapeutic classes."

In November, 2011, Ben Venue Laboratories (Boehringer Ingelheim), for example, shut down its manufacturing and distribution operations at its site in Bedford, Ohio due to significant manufacturing and quality concerns (see here).

Meanwhile, the Twitter accounts of Boehringer and Novartis roll merrily along posting positive tweets about their commitment to cancer patients, while completely ignoring the cancer drug shortage issue. Here are some recent tweets:

• @BoehringerUS: "@WHO estimates that 84 million people will die of cancer between 2005 and 2015 without intervention. #WorldCancerDay"
• @Boehringer: "@martin_dudziak Very true. We are also committed and believe in continued research & clin trials as a major key factor in fighting cancer!"
• @MylanNews: "Mylan Committed to Expanding Access to High Quality, Affordable #HIV/AIDS Treatment. Company Honors #WorldAIDSDay"
• @Novartis: "Novartis continues to research ways to control tumor growth in advanced #breastcancer"

The Rx drug industry is betting its future on developing complex biologics to treat major diseases such as cancer. If the current crisis is any indication about how successful they will be in (1) manufacturing biologics and (2) using social media to inform the public about the products and support patients who depend on these products, then, IMHO, I  doubt they will be successful.

P.S. Meanwhile, Boehringer is developing a Facebook "game," Syrum, which is designed to "educate" the public on how the drug industry develops drugs (see "Pharma & Fun, Not Oxymoronic? Here Comes Gamification!"). I suggest the company's PR people can better spend time and resources using Facebook to support their patients. Currently, BI's Facebook page does not mention the drug shortage problem nor anything else that can be considered helpful to patients who take their drugs!

BI's Facebook Game Syrum to be Launched "When It's Ready." Needs to Obey Privacy & FTC Laws First!

I wrote a review of Boehringer Ingelheim's (BI's) long-awaited -- but not yet available -- Facebook game, Syrum, in yesterday's post to Pharma Marketing Blog (see "Pharma & Fun, Not Oxymoronic? Here Comes Gamification!"). Today, I brought up the topic of pharma-sponsored "gamification" during the #hcsmeu chat. BI's John Pugh -- who is in charge of the Syrum project -- saw the "bat signal" that was raised when the subject of Syrum came up and he joined the conversation.

One question I asked during the chat was "@JohnPugh When is Syrum actually going to be launched? Hope not same schedule as FDA guidelines! :-)" to which John responded: "@pharmaguy Syrum will be launched when its ready, but I expect the first round of testing to be B4 the end of this year."

Oh, Oh! This sounds suspiciously like FDA's "promise" to come up with social media guidelines by the "end of the year" (ie, 2010).

So the timeline for the ACTUAL release of Syrum is sometime in 2012 (after 1st round of testing) -- maybe even ONE WHOLE YEAR after the game was announced on Facebook! Related to that, I posted this comment to the #hcsmeu chat: "Personally, I'm a little miffed at BI for promoting Syrum so far in advance of its actual launch date! All hype, no substance!"

How can BI justify announcing Syrum on Facebook (and at several industry conference presentations) a year or more before the game is actually available to be played? Hint: note the signup section at the bottom of the screen:

Of course, I signed up. I'm not sure how many other people also signed up, but is this BI's way of trial ballooning the concept? I mean, will the game be developed only if a certain number of people sign up?

John Pugh suggested that people who wish to beta test the game (me! me! pick me!) should use this form to sign up. I pointed out that the sign up form seems only for people who want to be notified when the game is launched ("Sign up below to be the first to know about the official launch or come back soon... the health of the world depends on it!").

After signing up, I received the following email message in my SPAM filter/box:

A "Syrum - Out of Office" message? Very odd! What's BI trying to do here? They are certainly not opening up to communicate with potential game players. I have NEVER received an "out-of-office" email from a pharma company! It shouts to me "We don't care very much about you." A pharma company should NEVER send an "out-of-office" reply! First of all such messages may end up ignored or, as in my case, get caught up in spam filters and never seen!

BI Ignores My Privacy Concerns and May Violate COPPA
Another point I made to John Pugh was that the Syrum site does not include a privacy policy or even a privacy statement! The "out-of-office" email message also does not include a link to a privacy statement, although there IS a link to an unsubscribe function/form.

The Syrum site also may violate US and other laws regarding Web sites that may be intended for or used by children under the age of 13 (eg, The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)). These laws do NOT allow collection of personally-identifiable information from children without the consent of parents. Since Syrum is a game site that John Pugh says is intended for "everyone," then it is also intended for kids.

I hope that BI will fix these problems as soon as it reads this post. Consider this my first beta test report!

Update (31 Oct 2011): I am happy to report that BI -- after reading this blog post -- has added this notice to the bottom of the Syrum Game promo screen: "Data collected form this web page will not be passed on to third parties. It will not be used for any other purpose than to contact you regarding your request or comment. All data will be deleted upon your request or as soon as they are no longer needed in order to contact you regarding your request or comment."

However, there is still the issue of collecting personally-identifiable information from children. BI needs, at least, to add a statement such as "This site is not intended for use by children under the age of 13."

BI's Famously Unpronounceable Video Lives On!

A day or two after I posted my impression of Boehringer's (BI's) new YouTube video that spoofs efforts to pronounce the company's name through "word of mouth" (WOM) marketing, BI made the video private and unviewable by the general public. BUT, thanks to "crazyparrot1000," the video has been uploaded here. I have also embedded it below:





Last night, I tweeted: "@Boehringer Sorry to see that the parrot video was made private. Was this a project approved high up in BI?" As of yet, I have not received a response to that tweet.

Why did BI decide to block viewing of this video less than 48 hours after it debuted on YouTube? In a tweet, BI said "The vid was made for a test & the period of time was short, so that is why the vid must be made private for now."

Sorry, but I'm not buying that.

I think my followup post (BI Masters the Art of WOM through Its "Parrots," er, Spokespersons) nudged BI into realizing it had made a mistake. In that post, I pointed out that BI was slapped by the PMCPA regarding how it may have dissed the competition via its real-life Word of Mouth "parrots" -- ie, patient advocates, key opinion leaders, and the press. The following image sums it up nicely, IMHO:

Sexist?
I sincerely wish BI gave me a chance to preview this video while I was at a recent pharma eMarketing conference in Lisbon where I first learned that BI was going to launch something big on YouTube the following week. I may have criticized the video for being too sexist (the women are all very well endowed and are referred to as "lovely ladies").

Maybe -- just maybe -- it could have been negative reaction from BI's employees regarding the inappropriateness of buxom lab techs that got BI to remove the video. If so, I think BI should make that known and offer a public apology. What do you think?

Is this BI parrot video sexist & does BI need to apologize publicly?
	Yes and BI should apologize
	Yes, but no need for BI to apologize
	Not sexist and no need for BI to apologize
	Not sexist but BI should apologize anyway for wasting money on this

In any case, perhaps the video was not green-lighted by the higher ups in BI, but I bet it was shut down by them!

Lessons Learned
P.S. A lesson learned by BI is that you often cannot take back what you did via social media and YouTube. Despite the attempt of BI to block the viewing of its video, it lives on in the version that was copied and re-uploaded by "crazyparrot1000." BI acknowledged this in a retweet of a tweet notifying them that the video was still on YouTube: "Yes we are! Power of #sm :) RT @xilede: @Boehringer you are aware that the parrots are still around on #youtube, right?"

BI is now backpedaling and claiming the whole thing was sort of a university thesis project: "As @BoehringerUK said, Uni of Mainz is now preparing thesis on vid. Entire prject was trial balloon & now analysis comes! #hcsm"

In previous tweets, however, BI was making a big deal about how this video is ushering in its new emphasis on word of mouth marketing:

"Embarking on a new comms journey, @Boehringer has started to push the idea of WOM. Watch to learn more http://ow.ly/6zD1u #hcmktg #pharma"

"An idea needs to fly and we take this literally. Take a moment & watch our short video on #YouTube http://ow.ly/6Akmu #mtv @raycokes #pharma"

Unfortunately, it seems the idea of this video should NOT have flown!

Will BI, however, try to get YouTube/Google to remove the copy of the video uploaded by "crazyparrot1000?" It's possible. I suggest you copy it ASAP before this happens. One thing I learned at the Lisbon conference is how to do this: Go to site KeepVid.com

BI's Famously Buxom and Unpronounceable YouTube Video

"In this brave new world there are better marketing tools than Facebook o Twitter," says Ray Cokes (@raycokes), the actor who plays the "new head of marketing" at Boehringer Ingelheim (BI) in a new YouTube video that spoofs efforts to pronounce the company's name through "word of mouth" (WOM) marketing. The agents for this campaign are parrots who are being conditioned from egg to adulthood to correctly pronounce "Boehringer Ingelheim." The parrots are then shipped out to do their WOM thing.

[I accessed the original video is here when I first made this post. A day or day later, however, BI made the video private and unviewable by the general public. In a tweet, BI said "The vid was made for a test & the period of time was short, so that is why the vid must be made private for now." BUT, thanks to crazyParrot, the video has been uploaded here.]

The parrot in the following frame captured from the video is having a problem and says Sauerkraut! instead of Boehringer Ingelheim. Obviously, the bird is distracted by one of the buxom "lovely ladies" that comprise the BI training staff. By the way the bird is staring into the woman's cleavage, it could have said Spaltung! Whatever ... Ray is not happy!

Another lovely lady -- Faith Busch (@faithandcomm), who tweets for the @Boehringer Twitter account -- told me last week during a conference in Lisbon to expect something exciting on YouTube from BI. I guess this is it.

The new video, IMHO, is not as funny -- and maybe not as "famous" -- as the one I found over a year ago (see "How DO You Pronounce 'Boehringer Ingelheim'?" and below).



It turns out that the above video was produced on spec by an agency trying to win BI business by showing off their creativity. I guess it wasn't "new world" enough -- in fact, it has a certain "iron curtain" feel to it compared to the sterile, all-white "new world" feel of WOM!

I'm becoming more and more interested in BI because it is "pushing the envelope outside the boundaries" in social media. See, for example, "Boehringer vs Facebook Social Media Socialism." BI also seems to have a sense of humor.

It's also a "personable" company -- Faith told me that she often runs into Mr. Boehringer (Jr?) in the BI cafeteria and says hello. I can't imagine the CEO of a publicly traded US pharma company eating in the cafeteria with the minions!

I too would like to meet Mr. Boehringer in Ingelheim and say hello. Maybe he'll invite me in to make a presentation to the lovely BI marketing people about what I've learned from observing pharma's social media efforts during the past 5 years.

UPDATE 22 SEPT 2011: No sooner did I give Boehringer Ingelheim (BI) kudos for its recent humorous and playful YouTube video (see above), than I learned it violated Clauses 2, 9.1, 3.2, 22.1 and 22.2 of the ABPI Code of Practice (See "BI Masters the Art of WOM through Its 'Parrots,' er, Spokespersons").

Boehringer Ingelheim and Ashoka Make More Health via Social Media

In preparation for my participation in the panel discussion entitled "Social Media and Professional Marketing…What’s Really Working?" on October 4, 2011, during the PharmaForce conference (see here), I am on the lookout for examples of "what's really working" in the pharma social media realm.

I did warn program director Kristin Paulick that I usually focus on what's NOT working. Kristin, however, noted that what’s not working is just as important as what is working!

Still, I feel compelled to start looking at the glass half full and come up with some examples of successful, useful pharma social media endeavors. The "Making More Health" partnership between Boehringer Ingelheim (BI) and Ashoka Changemakers is a good and timely example (see Ashoka and Boehringer Ingelheim Partner to Promote New Ways of "Making More Health").

“Making More Health brings together two organizations committed to finding innovative people and ideas to help shape the future of the health sector,” said Prof. Dr. Andreas Barner, chairman of the board of managing directors for Boehringer Ingelheim. “Through this partnership we will bring forth meaningful and sustainable solutions that can achieve individual and family well-being in communities around the globe.” 

Ashoka Changemakers "is a global online community that supports everyone’s ability to be a changemaker by inspiring, mentoring, and collaborating with other members of the community at every level of changemaking. Changemakers hosts collaborative online competitions to identify and connect the best social innovators and implementers. Participants compete to surface the most promising solutions, and then collaborate to refine, enrich, and implement them. Changemakers builds on Ashoka’s three-decade history of transforming the citizen sector by building the largest association of leading social entrepreneurs in the world."


Part of the "Making More Health" social media campaign is a competition whereby anyone can submit ideas to improve health. Eligible entries "may target a wide variety of populations throughout the world and include (but are not limited to) those that:

• Increase access to quality health services and treatment: Innovations may incorporate strategies such as addressing cultural and financial barriers, lack of transportation, decentralized medical resources, and gaps in education and knowledge.
  Solutions may include initiatives for disease prevention and diagnosis, developing healthy lifestyles, or advocacy and awareness programs relevant to any life stage.
• Empower individuals, families, and communities to address local health issues:Innovations may engage and inform individuals, families, and communities, and allow them to directly participate in the management of their own health. These span a range of solutions from communal patient care initiatives to programs that nurture a culture of health within communities.
• Target vulnerable and underserved populations: Entries may include those that address conflict and/or post-crisis environments, poverty and development as related to health, mental health, or rural health."

So far, 186 entries have been submitted -- a record number for Changemakers. It shows how a little pharma support in terms of money AND willingness to participate in social media can make a difference.

In fact, today between 3 and 5 PM Eastern US, BI and Changemakers will host #SocEntChat -- "a Twitter-based, real-time discussion about social entrepreneurship that focuses on specific issues, areas, or events. It is designed for current and aspiring social entrepreneurs, funders, media, and supporters to share their ideas, discuss the state of the field, identify the latest innovations, and pinpoint areas requiring more exploration. It is also an open forum for the global public to voice concerns and hopes, and propose ideas of their own!"

I plan to participate.

Of course, many of the innovative ideas submitted to "Making More Health" involve innovations for healthcare delivery in underdeveloped countries. Just yesterday, however, I was reminded that the US healthcare system also needs help. A @Pfizer_News Twitter post noted that "9 million Americans lost their healthcare in the last several years." What is Pfizer doing to help? They urge you to visit the "Pfizer Healthful Answers" website.

Pfizer, however, is not engaging in social media to discuss helpful ideas; they are just offering a "handout;" ie, free or discounted medicines for people who qualify for one of the programs they support.

IMHO, we need to find a way to PREVENT millions of Americans from "losing their healthcare" in the first place! Now, that would be an innovation!

[This post originally appeared in Pharma Marketing Blog. 

Make sure you are reading the source to get the latest comments.]

Boehringer vs Facebook Social Media Socialism

Now that Facebook's new commenting policy is forcing every pharmaceutical to rethink it's Facebook strategy -- ie, take down all disease-specific pages but keep corporate pages -- many drug companies are revising their corporate FB pages.

Boehringer-Ingelheim (BI) stands out in its attempt to stand out from the crowd of pharma FB pages by designing a colorful Welcome page and icons (see image below; click on image for enlarged view).

Compare this with Pfizer's Info page:

Pfizer's page is an example of the sameness seen in almost every Facebook page created by dolts like you and me who cannot afford to allocate resources on customizing our pages. It's what I call "social media socialism" -- the least common denominator available to all users (regardless of their ability or resources) that satisfies a minimal need: ie, to have a presence on Facebook.

Boehringer's FB page, however, shows what you can do with dedicated resources and creativity.

Yet it's still a mystery to me how Pfizer is able to have 31,656 "likes" versus BI's paltry 13,008 "likes." Yes, Pfizer is probably much more widely known among the general population than is BI. But even the #2 pharma company (GSK) has only 14,074 "likes" (Astrazeneca has 10,035 "likes").

BI and AZ are doing almost everything right in social media in terms of allocating resources and engaging in conversations (see "OMG! AstraZeneca Hosts Twitter Chat & World Does NOT End!", for example), yet they are not getting the ROI -- in terms of numbers of followers and "likes" -- that Pfizer gets. Recall that Pfizer has NO dedicated social media resources and does NOT engage in meaningful SM conversation (see "Pharma Tweets: Followers Trump Content. Pfizer vs. Sanofi Case Study" and "Pfizer, Show Us Your Social Media 'Playbook'").

Something's not right.

[This post originally appeared in Pharma Marketing Blog. 

Make sure you are reading the source to get the latest comments.]

Did Boehringer Mishandle This Adverse Event Report on Twitter?

I follow many pharmaceutical companies (and employees of pharma companies; eg, these people) on Twitter. @BoehringerUS is one of them. To keep track of these accounts, I cross-post the tweets to this Pharma Marketing Forum (News Direct from the Pharmaceutical Industry), which automatically sends me a daily email message telling me what's been posted there. It's a good way for me to filter through all the tweets from the over 2,500 people I follow on Twitter.

Today, I received notice of the following tweet from @BoehringerUS:

@professorbunbun Please call Boehringer Ingelheim @ 800-542-6257 option 4 to report adverse events or product complaints.

I traced back the Tweet timeline of @professorbunbun -- "Meredith: Just a girl trying to aclimate to the 21st century corporate world after three years as Betsy Ross in 1776." -- to find the tweet that triggered that reply from @BoehgingerUS:

Also @boehringerus your drugs, (Mirapex,) didn't work and made my mom's hair fall out so that is a double-strike as far as I am concerned.

Here it is in context via Twitter:

Does this tweet by @professorbunbun satisfy FDA's four criteria for a REPORTABLE adverse event (AE), namely:

1. An identifiable patient - Meredith's mom
2. And identifiable reporter - Meredith
3. A suspect drug, biological product, or device - Mirapex
4. An adverse event or fatal outcome - hair loss

The second criterion -- identifiable reporter -- is the problem. We don't know the true identity of "Meredith."

So, Boehringer did not have enough data to issue a report to the FDA, which has not (yet) issued any guidelines on what constitutes an "identifiable reporter" on social media. For more on that topic, see "Uncertainties Regarding Reporting Adverse Events Found on Social Media Sites."

Instead of telling @professorbunbun to call an 800 number and press "4" to report the adverse event, @BoehringerUS could have been more proactive and asked Meredith to identify herself so that an AER (adverse event report) could be made to the FDA. However, it would not have been a good idea to ask Meredith to reveal her identity via a public reply on Twitter. @BoehringerUS, however, could have sent @professorbunbun a direct message (DM), which is NOT public and Meredith could have DM'd a reply. But that would require @professorbunbun to be a Twitter "follower" of @BoehringerUS and vice versa. It's not likely they follow each other, although the two parties could have agreed to do so.

All this, however, is probably not the job of the people behind @BoehrinerUS, who are mostly public relations/corporate communications people -- although I believe AEs SHOULD be their concern (see "Adverse Event Reporting -- Pharma Puts Profits Before Patients. A Missed Opportunity"). Hence, the tweet telling @professorbunbun to call the 800 number.

Making a public announcement via Twitter on who to contact to report an adverse event is probably a good idea. Perhaps pharma companies should make such tweets from time to time even if they are not responding to a potential reportable AE tweet.

But I question the use of an 800 number in this age of technology, especailly when you are communicating with technically savvy people who use Twitter! Why doesn't Boehringer -- and other pharma companies -- have a more convenient online mechanism for reporting adverse events DIRECTLY to the FDA as I suggested in this post: "Tit-for-Tat Tithe on Pharma Marketing. How It Can Work."

BTW, the AE exchange between @professorbunbun and @BoehringerUS began almost as an after thought prompted by a different sort of adverse event suffered by Meredith herself: the failure of a Boehringer "resistance band" at the Parkinson's Unity Walk (Boehringer was a Diamond Sponsor). Here's @professorbunbun's tweet about THAT adverse event:

Also, @boehringerus next time you hand out resistance bands at @unitywalk it might be a good idea to make sure they don't snap at first use

Pharma Brands Benefit from "Mack Attacks" Say Attendees at DigiPharma EU

Last week I attended the DigiPharm EU conference in London and had a great time meeting old friends and people I have only interacted with through social media such as Twitter and FaceBook. Several EU pharma people presented at the conference, including candidates for the Pharmaguy Social Media Pioneer Award. I'll have more to say about these people and their presentations later, but right now I'd like to focus on me.

First of all, I gained 2 lbs! It was the English comfort food I was exposed to at a couple of tweetups and during the buffet lunch at the conference. Food such as bangers and mash, roasted pork belly, and Shepherds pie. And the drinking!

I blame it all on Alexandra Fulford (@pharmaguapa) and Sam Walmsley (@sammielw), two English women who are my new best friends on FaceBook.

Alexandra coined her Twitter handle after some Spanish guy said she was "muy guapa," which means "very pretty." Of course, I immediately said I was going to reserve "pharmaguapo" -- handsome pharmaguy -- as a new twitter handle.

I don't think anyone in Spain would say I was "muy guapo," but Miguel A. Tovar (@blogaceutics), who is a native of Barcelona, was happy to see me and I him.

Alexandra likes to cook and gave me some Aromat Savoury Seasoning, which I smuggled back to the US. I used it last night to season my roasted chicken and salad. Alexandra, meanwhile, cooks Bangers and Mash for her lunch! I look forward to having Alexandra on my BlogTalkRadio show as a guest and learn more about her pharma-related expertise. We'll also talk about cooking.

Sam Walmsley and I shared an interesting Q&A session at the DigiPharm conference. Sam is the head of digital & social media at Chandler Chicco Companies, an advertising agency. One question Sam came up with was "Did a 'Mack Attack' help your brand?"

I didn't have to explain what a "Mack Attack" was because I had just finished my presentation (find it here), which included a reference to my famous attack against Novo Nordisk's Levemir-branded tweet (see "Novo Nordisk's Branded (Levemir) Tweet is Sleazy Twitter Spam!"). I don't know if that attack helped Levemir sales, but I am sure it helped drive traffic to the @RaceWithInsulin Twitter account and Ambre Morley (@ambremorley), Associate Director of Product Communications at Novo Nordisk always favorably refers to me in her presentations.

Surprisingly, practically everyone agreed that a "Mack Attack" helps brands. Judith von Gordon, Head of External Communications at Boehringer Ingelheim, commented that BI experienced a "Mack Attack" in relation to its COPD Youtube channel (see "Danica Patrick: NASCAR Driver, Super Model, Superbowl Lingerie Ad Model, & COPD Spokesperson All Rolled Into one!").

"The 'Mack Attack' helped us internally tremendously," said von Gordon. "Our US colleagues cried 'fire' and as a consequence I had three US lawyers [contact me] complaining about what headquarters in Europe was doing." It turns out that the US lawyers were "terrified that the FDA would see the Mack Attack."

von Gordon said BI learned from this experience. "The [Mack Attack] helped us define our position," said von Gordon, "what can we do, how far can we go. More importantly, we learned we can contact John and have a debate on his website (see "Pharma on Twitter: Boehringer Ingelheim")."

I was very happy to hear von Gordon's comments and hope that all the pharma "victims" of a "Mack Attack" agree with her. But you don't have to be a Mack Attack victim to be a guest on my Pharma Marketing Talk show or a candidate for the Pharmaguy Social Media Pioneer Award. Just send a message to pharmaguapo@pharma-mkting.com and ask if you qualify!

Pharma, Facebook, and Inappropriate Ads

The following tweet from Boehringer Ingelheim (BI) was posted to the "News Direct from Drug Industry" forum on Pharma Marketing Network:

Boehringer: Thank you. RT @Pharmafocus: Digital Pharma: Boehringer gets social with Facebook http://ht.ly/2DWD8

This is a typical corporate Facebook page that includes general information about the company -- including information about the company's Jubilee (125th) celebration. It has a Wall with comments, but you cannot post comments to it -- it seems only invited guests can do that.

CORRECTION: Anyone can post comments as long as they first click on "Like This" on the page. Still, most pharma companies don't allow comments. Even when they do -- as in BI's case here -- they have the ability to delete comments they don't link. That's fine.

Let's get over the fact that pharma companies don't want to include comments from visitors -- at least not the negative comments or comments they don't like. I understand all the reasons for this. But what I don't understand is why a pharmaceutical company would stand for having a site where they appear to have no control over the ads that appear on the page. Take a look, for example, at the top ad on BI's Facebook page (see screen shot below; click on image for a larger view):

The image of a woman (I assume) "eating a banana" is not something I would like to see on my official FB page if I were a pharmaceutical company.

It's interesting that pharma companies are so reluctant to have negative comments placed on their Facebook pages, but obviously turn a blind eye to inappropriate ads being served up on the same page! Does BI think having a presence on FB is so critical that it can overlook the fact that it's image is being tarnished by suggestive advertising?

Visitors to BI's Facebook page may be well aware that BI has no control over the ads displayed on the site. But, still, it's a bit embarrassing, don't you think?

UPDATE (Sept 18, 2010): Upon revisiting the BI FB page, I no longer see ANY ads in the right-hand column (see screen shot below). There is only a FB "house ad" and a link to "More ads," which will show you the ads by themselves and not in conjunction with BI content. It appears that BI was able to suppress the ads. Not sure how they do that, but it is a trick I'd like to learn more about. 

UPDATE (Sept 22, 2010): John Pugh (Director of Corporate Communication/External Communications, Boehringer Ingelheim) posted this comment on my FB page: Hi John. I just answered you comment on our Facebook page. Here's what I said: "Facebook does allow ads to be turned off in the right rail for any pharma page that requests it. So, after your blog post, we requested it. Best, John"