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!

Beware of Subtle Changes to Social Media Sites that Can Impact Your Brand; e.g., Novo's Levemir

Keeping up with all the changes implemented by social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter can be a challenge for anyone. But it is especially important for pharmaceutical marketers to understand how such changes can impact their use of these sites and potentially get them into trouble with the FDA. An example of this was Facebook's new policy about comments and the implementation of Timelines. I have covered those issues by interviewing experts (listen, for example, to these podcast: "Facebook Timelines for Brands: The Implications for Pharma Companies" and "Pharma Facebook Commenting Changes: The Final Story").

Some changes, however, are virtually unannounced and may go unnoticed by brand teams. Twitter, for example, has made some changes to how things are displayed on its website when people are viewing accounts like Novo Nordisk's @racewithinsulin Twitter account. This is a fully "branded" account that features a celebrity endorsement of Levemir, Novo's long acting insulin used to treat diabetes. It's tag line is: "Racecar driver Charlie Kimball partners with Novo Nordisk to prove his high performance career is possible with insulin."

The "Race with Insulin" branded Twitter account is old news (listen to this podcast "Novo Nordisk's Race With Insulin Campaign: It's Not Just About Twitter"). What is new, however, is how information is laid out on the screen. Here's a screen shot (click on the image if you need a better view):

What I noticed is that the box that provides the "fair balance"/safety information is partially hidden by Charlie's tweet stream. I commented previously how this information is virtually impossible to read even when it is fully visible (read "Can You Read This Fair Balance on Race With Insulin Twitter Page, or Is It Just Me Having Problems?"). Now, however, it is even impossible for people with perfect eyesight to read fully.

No matter how wide I pull the screen, the safety information is blocked by the tweet stream. I also cannot scroll down to bring the bottom part of the safety information into view because that info is a static image in the background and only the tweet stream middle section of the screen scrolls up and down.

Novo Nordisk has changed the background image since the last time I visited the @racewithinsulin site. Part of that change was to move the safety information further down, which has lead to the second problem I noted above.

The first problem, however, is likely due to the new design implemented by Twitter. Novo Nordisk has not updated the background image to be compatible with this new design.

It's possible that the FDA may look at this branded site and determine that it violates regulations because the display of major safety information is not fully part of the branded message, which clearly is that Levemir is used for the treatment of diabetes and that you can live a "high performance career" with Novo's brand of insulin.

Of course, the FDA would have to read this blog post to learn about this.

Janssen to Shut Down Psoriasis 360 FaceBook Page Due to Lack of Commitment

Janssen Pharmaceuticals has announced it will shut down its Psoriasis 360 Facebook page, which was first launched in October, 2010. At the time, I praised this Facebook page as the "first [pharma FB site] to publish ALL comments BEFORE they are reviewed" (see "Markets as Conversations: Can You Have a Discussion with 'Psoriasis 360' on Facebook?").

Janssen cited its inability to moderate posts made to the Psoriasis 360  wall, one-third of which "mention[ed] a specific drug by name, or talk[ed] about the efficacy of a particular treatment is (or its side effects)." In such cases, Janssen had to ask for the post to be removed or to "pull" it, which I guess was too much work for them to handle after Alex Butler, former Janssen Digital Strategy and Social Media Manager, left the company. Alex was the person responsible for Psoriasis 360. For his efforts, I awarded him (not Janssen) the first ever Pharmaguy Social Media Pioneer award (see "First Pharmaguy Social Media Pioneer Award Given to Janssen's Alex Butler").

In a statement published on the Psoriasis 360 FB wall, the "Psoriasis 360 team" said "we have found ourselves removing a larger and larger proportion of posts, stifling worthwhile discussions." According a PMLiVE article, Janssen said that "within the last three months alone a third of all posts to the page had to be removed, the majority because they mentioned prescription-only medicines, but a 'significant minority' were disallowed because they included offensive language" (see here).

If one-third of the comments had to be removed or blocked, that means that two-thirds of the comments were NOT blocked. The total number of such comments I find on the Psoriasis 360 site is about 379, including 95 comments submitted by the "Psoriasis 360 team" itself. There were also several comments made by associates of Psoriasis 360 such as from "www.psoriasis360.com." That leaves 284 comments, which represents about 2/3 of the total comments Janssen had to review over the course of 18 months. Doing the math, I estimate that Janssen reviewed about 423 comments during that time for an average of 24 comments per month or less than 1 per day!

Holy cow! What a burden to bear!

What really happened was that when the social media pioneer Alex Butler left Janssen late last year, no one was left to manage the site and Janssen obviously did not feel it was worth it to devote 0.125 FTE (ie, one hour per day) to do the job or to outsource the moderation of comments.

It's obvious that Facebook did not offer Janssen a good return on investment however they may have defined that. There is still a psoriasis 360 YouTube site, which is NOT required to allow comments.

What I don't like about this is not the lack of commitment to social media conversation on Janssen's part, but using regulations as an excuse for its lack of commitment. Reviewing one comment a day is NOT a regulatory hurdle difficult to overcome. Even on sites that are not regulated -- such as this blog -- weeding out unsavory, "offensive," or spammy comments is a fact of social media life that has to be dealt with. Love it or leave it. Janssen has chosen to leave it.

The Coming Pharma Digital Depression Caused by Facebook

P&G Discovers It's "Free" to Advertise on Facebook!

That's the gist of an article written by Jim Edwards over at Business Insider - Advertising (read the article here).

Of course, advertising on Facebook is not really free, but it's pretty darn close when compared to TV. According to the article, "P&G said it would lay off 1,600 staffers, including marketers, as part of a cost-cutting exercise."

Interestingly, P&G CEO Robert McDonald had some interesting comments about the cost-effectiveness of digital advertising, including:

"I believe that over time, we will see the increase in the cost of advertising moderate. There are just so many different media available today and we're quickly moving more and more of our businesses into digital. And in that space, there are lots of different avenues available. In the digital space, with things like Facebook and Google and others, we find that the return on investment of the advertising, when properly designed, when the big idea is there, can be much more efficient."

If a packaged goods company like P&G is "moderating" its cost of advertising by shifting to digital and laying off marketers, then the pharmaceutical industry can't be far behind. A "recession" in pharma digital marketing is even more likely considering the well-known "patent cliff" that's currently in progress; ie, blockbuster drugs with a combined $170 billion in annual sales will go off-patent by 2015. That means even less mass media advertising and more digital advertising.

But "more digital advertising" does not mean that much more money will be spent in the digital arena. That's because of social media, where it's virtually free to advertise!

Today, I will present a webinar on this topic as part of a BrightTalk "Digital Marketing & Pharma Summit" series of webcasts. The title of my presentation is "The Coming Pharma Patent Cliff and 'Recession' in Digital Spending."

According to BrightTalk's Quoc-Thai Dang, "At this summit, we'll be exploring the realities of how Pharma is spending it's budgets on digital. Experts will critically evaluate the impact of social media and mobile marketing, and if this has had an impact on their business."

My webinar will be at 10:00 AM this morning (January 31, 2012). You can go here to attend live or listen afterward or use the widget below.

I admit that my ideas are only half-baked and invite your comments.

Taking the "Cool" Way Out of Having Rx Product Convos on Social Media

I have criticized pharma companies for mentioning Rx brand product names via social media. Mostly because they forget to include fair balance or don't educate the public (see, for example, "Novo Nordisk's Branded (Levemir) Tweet is Sleazy Twitter Spam!").

That doesn't mean, however, that I don't believe there is a way for pharma to engage in branded product discussions via social media such as Twitter and Facebook (see, for example, "Breaking the 140-character Limit of Twitter Opens the Door to FDA-Compliant Branded Tweets").

It appears that most pharma companies have decided not to engage in these kinds of discussions and are implying that FDA regulations prevent them from doing so.

Take for example a discussion about Paula Deen on the Novo Nordisk Facebook wall (here) . Amidst the criticisms and defenses of Novo was this statement by "Tanya", a representative of Novo Nordisk:

"Hi Darcy, I had to remove your post becuase (sic) you mention a product name, which we are not allowed to have on our page - even if you post it yourself. Can you repost without mentioning the product name? Sorry! -- Tanya"

Unfortunately, I can't see what product was mentioned because the post was deleted. Duh! However, it was probably Victoza -- the diabetes product that pays for the endorsement by Paula Deen.

I infer from Tanya's statement that there is some FDA law or regulation against mentioning product names on the Novo FB page. In fact, there is no such law or regulation. And in other "social media" contexts -- such as my BlogTalkRadio show -- Ambre Morley, Associate Director, Product Communications, Novo Nordisk, didn't seem to have any problem mentioning the product name. In fact, she didn't point out the possible side effects (fair balance). I'm not sure if she broke the law there or not (you can read a summary of that discussion here; use code '1111nvd' to get it free; or listen to the podcast here).

Are pharmaceutical companies missing an opportunity to educate people about their products by "handling" posts as Novo did in the above example?

Some people actually think this policy of removing posts that mention products is a good thing. Idil Cakim, for example, said "the Novo Nordisk community manager 'played it cool' by only reminding the fans of the FDA guidelines" (see "Novo Nordisk Handles Paula Deen Reactions on Facebook").

I should have put a "sic" next to "FDA guidelines" because there are NONE! Tanya only reminded people what Novo Nordisk's POLICY is. [To be more clear, Tanya SHOULD have said "it is our policy not to mention product names."] I guess Idil -- one of "the world's best social media thinkers" featured on socialmediatoday.com -- also inferred from Tanya's statement that there was a LAW or guidelines.

There are, in fact, some new FDA guidelines for dealing with certain branded communications on social media (see "Review of The Social Media Guidelines Nobody Expected!"). These guidelines only apply to "off-label" discussions on social media sites. I don't know if these guidelines were applicable in this case.

Tanya may have "played it cool," but she missed an opportunity to really inform her FB visitors about Victoza, assuming that was the product mentioned in the deleted post.

But without more encompassing FDA social media guidelines, every pharma company will just continue to take the easy "cool" way out and censor any mention of product names on its social media sites.

P.S. Dear Novo Nordisk: Sorry that I seem to be focusing on you these past couple of weeks! But you ARE in the news a lot these days. I'm not sure it's helping or hurting the sales of Victoza because you don't mention the drug much in public statements about Paula Deen or on your Facebook page. That's fine. Just so you know. I'm not picking on you exclusively. I've gone on posting binges against Pfizer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and practically every other pharma company. So, please don't take it personally.

Are You Part of My Social Media Mosaic?

For a buck ninety-eight, I was able to make and download the following Pharmaguy mosaic image comprised of photos of my Facebook friends and in my photo album. Your face may be one of the images that was used to create this image on the mo.saic.me Web site.

Sorry if no one asked your permission to use your image!

At $1.98 a shot, it's going to take a lot of mosaics to pay for that ".me" domain name!

I got the idea for this from Marc Monseau's mosaic (here) where my image appeared just below his nose -- like a booger!

Pfizer's Facebook Fiasco: Chapstick Slapstick Ad Uses Woman's Ass as a Prop

The AdWeek article "ChapStick Gets Itself in a Social Media Death Spiral" caught my attention yesterday. It describes how Pfizer mishandled negative comments about a Chapstick ad image posted on its Chapstick Facebook page. Here's the play-by-play of the "death spiral" as reported by AdWeek:

"ChapStick posts weird image on Facebook of a woman, ass in the air [see photo at left], looking for her ChapStick behind a couch. Blogger is disgusted, blogs about it. Blogger tries to reply on Facebook too. ChapStick deletes her comments. Others object to the image. ChapStick deletes their comments. ChapStick's ads with the line "Be heard at Facebook.com/ChapStick" start to look foolish. People keep commenting. ChapStick keeps deleting. People get angry. ChapStick gets worried. The image isn't even that big of a deal—it's ChapStick's reaction to the criticism that galls. 'What asses,' people say of ChapStick (get it?). People start commenting about why they can't see their old comments. ChapStick can't keep up with all the deleting. Comments are getting through, and they're nasty."

Eventually, Pfizer apologized (sort of). The official Pfizer Twitter account (@pfizer_news) said: "The ChapStick ad was not intended to offend anyone & we R pulling it ASAP. Thank you to our ChapStick fans for providing this feedback". It also apologized on Facebook:

"We see that not everyone likes our new ad, and please know that we certainly didn't mean to offend anyone!" the post says. "Our fans and their voices are at the heart of our new advertising campaign, but we know we don't always get it right. We've removed the image and will share a newer ad with our fans soon!"

But then, says AdWeek, there's this "very strange" second paragraph: "We apologize that fans have felt like their posts are being deleted and while we never intend to pull anyone's comments off our wall, we do comply with Facebook guidelines and remove posts that use foul language, have repetitive messaging, those that are considered spam-like (multiple posts from a person within a short period of time) and are menacing to fans and employees."

I emphasized "have repetitive messaging" and "those that are considered spam-like." "Repetitive" and "spam-like" are pretty subjective terms that can be interpreted differently by different people. I wonder if this comment moderation policy can be found in Pfizer's secretive social media "playbook" (for more on that, see here).

Obviously, this moderation policy can be used selectively to allow only positive posts such as these "repetitive" messages currently found on Chapstick's FB page: "I ALWAYS have Chapstick with me everywhere I go.", "ChapStick is an everday part of me:)", "Chapstick and my lips are bffs.", "i always have one in my pocket!", "I LOVE CHAP STICK".

But it's not Pfizer's moderation policy that Chapstick consumers originally complained about. It's the image of a "woman, ass in the air" that compelled this sort of comment:

"Have we really become so desensitized as women that we just ACCEPT that our bodies are used as props to sell products? That women in sexually suggestive poses and naked women (google "Chapstick and Amanda Ware") are being used to sell LIP BALM? That we just look the other way and say "eh, what's the problem?" There is a problem. A big one. By sitting on the sidelines and being ok with such images, you essentially give a thumbs up to the overt sexualization of women in the media. Look around. Pay attention. If that was your daughter's rear end showcased for all the world to see, how would you feel about it? -- Tasha Burwinkle Murphy (Redmond, WA)."

Of course, not all women commenters agree:

"People have too much time on their hands if they are worried (and harassing) a company for a silly ad like this. There is NOTHING offensive about it, unless someone is looking to make something offensive out of it." -- Nicole Leigh (Chalfont, PA)

There's a long-standing tradition of using women in ads -- including most direct-to-consumer (DTC) Rx drug ads. I've pointed this out many times here on Pharma Marketing Blog (most recently here and here). Until social media, however, women haven't been able to submit comments directly to advertisers about offensive ads. And women are VERY important when it comes to social media marketing and communications.

Women and Social Media
According to a Pew Research Center Internet & American Life Project survey (see here), "Young adult women ages 18-29 are the power users of social networking; fully 89% of those who are online use the sites overall and 69% do so on an average day. Looking more closely at gender differences, women have been significantly more likely to use social networking sites than men since 2009' (see chart below).




How can marketers better communicate with women via social media? That's a topic that I will explore in an upcoming Pharma Marketing Talk LIVE podcast: "How to Score With Women (as a Marketer) via Social Media." I invite you to participate and/or listen live or listen to the podcast archive afterward (here). You can also participate in the ongoing Twitter discussion using the hash tag #SMXFactor.

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.]

Social Media "Flash Mobs": Pharma's Worst Facebook Nightmare!

Last week I  presented two case studies of how pharmaceutical companies are dealing with Facebook's new commenting policy that requires most pharma pages to allow commenting (see "Pharma Facebook Pages Being Phased Out: A Good Run While It Lasted! Did Facebook Kill the Beast?"). These cases illustrated two different approaches to shutting down pharma FB pages in anticipation of the commenting policy change.

The trend seems to be to shut down pharma product or disease awareness FB pages while maintaining the corporate pages. Two examples of this trend are the Pfizer (here) and GSK (UK; here) FB pages, which are open and allow comments (with post-moderation; ie, deleting offending comments AFTER posting).

So, how's that working for Pfizer and GSK?

GSK is experiencing the kind of attack that beset one of Sanofi's Facebook pages awhile ago (see "Disgruntled Patient Shuts Down sanofi-aventis Facebook Page"). That is, an organized attack by disgruntled patients. In fact, a blog post (here) gives specific instructions for how to participate in this Facebook "flash mob" action:

1. Sign up to the GlaxoSmithKline Facebook page.
   [Do this by clicking the 'Like' button.]


2. Open comments under the "Glaxo "Builds Bonnie Babies" advertising hoarding opposite Kings Cross Station, London in 1921, UK" thread.


3. Ask them a question about one of their products.


4. Sit back and watch consumer queries get deleted.

GSK is now busy dealing with all the comments coming in.

Here's a typical exchange:

"Joanne" posts this: "Hi , A friend of mine is taking paroxetine and she is thinking of having a baby. Is paroxetine a teratogen?" 

To which GSK responds: "Hi Joanne – We are not allowed to discuss product information or offer advice to individuals about medicines. Please ask your friend to speak to her healthcare provider if she has any concerns about her medication." 

To which Joanne responded: "i too would like to know why the only answers here appear to be consult your healthcare provider, surely we should be asking GSK the makers of these drugs as surely GSK would know more than any GP? after all surely it is GSK who do all the trials ect and not the gps?" 

To which GSK responded: "Unfortunately, we have had to remove from this thread a series of comments that mentioned prescription medicines or contained defamatory messages. Due to the regulations that govern our industry, we are not able to discuss our medicines or offer advice to individuals about medicines on this Facebook page."

Whew!

Pfizer took a pro-active approach and opened a thread on its new policy with this post:

"Now that you can respond to our posts, please know that we may sometimes need to remove a comment. Click on the 'Not Seeing Your Comment?' link on the left to learn why. Thank you for visiting us!'

Pfizer was immediately embroiled in a comment war with "Dana" and removed one of her posts and added this comment: "Hi Dana – It looks like your earlier post was blocked, as it led to a discussion about products. As a regulated industry, there are a number of rules that concern how we talk about our medicines. In light of that, we have elected not to have any conversations regarding prescription products on our Facebook page. That being said, why don’t you reach out to us at www.pfizer.com/contact, and we can address your question."

Of course, Dana expected this, having previously posted "Take your time. I bet you're just thinking of a really good answer to my question." After Pfizer explained why they deleted her question, Dana said "'Reach out to us'. What a cute marketing phrase. What genius thought of that. So you won't tell us, the American people, why our hospitals don't have the supplies they need. Also cute."

And so it goes.

All this raises a number of questions:

• Will these types of comments and exchanges continue to plaque pharma FB pages?


• Will pharma need to employ additional internal or external resources to manage FB comments? Is it boom time for vendors offering this service?


• Considering that corporate pages are targets for "muppets" -- a term @Alex__Butler uses to describe people who attack pharma pages -- will pharma EVER re-open product and disease specific pages that are even more juicy targets for social media "flash mobs?"

Only time will tell.

Pharma's Facebook Free Ride is NOT Over! Take Advantage of This Loophole Dudes

Today is the day that Facebook will no longer allow pharmaceutical companies to disable comments made to their Facebook pages.

"Today is the day that many pharma and healthcare companies that like their Facebook Pages hoped would never come. Remain calm," said Jonathan Richman on his Dose of Digital Blog.

As Jonathan noticed, so far it doesn’t appear that Facebook has actually turned on comments on any pharma pages.

Facebook may be tardy in carrying out its threat, but that's NOT the "free ride" I am talking about.

No matter when the new policy is implemented, pharma Facebook pages such as this one for Lunesta (see screen shot below) can STILL have comments disabled (listen to this podcast interview of Jonathan Richman for the details).

The difference between the Lunesta Facebook page and the standard www.lunesta.com Web page is:

The Facebook page is FREE! The pharmaceutical company that markets Lunesta (Sunovion; formerly Sepracor) pays Facebook NOTHING to create and maintain this page, whereas it pays to create and maintain the drug.com site.

This is the best deal in town! Call it CUGC: "Corporate User Generated Content."

I hope the pharmaceutical industry doesn't cry too hard if and when Facebook implements its comment policy change. After all, there's a loophole you can drive a truck through.

Pharma Facebook Pages Being Phased Out: A Good Run While It Lasted! Did Facebook Kill the Beast?

August is the cruelest month, especially for pharmaceutical company Facebook pages.

No doubt you've heard that as of August 15, 2011, Facebook will be opening up comments on ALL pharma pages with some exceptions (listen to these podcasts: "Implications of Facebook's Page Commenting Changes: Turning Off Comments May Be a Problem" and "Pharma Facebook Commenting Changes: The 'Final' Story"). That means that the pharmaceutical industry will no longer be able to shut off comments on their Facebook pages. This has lead to speculation that many pharma FB pages will be shut down come August 15.

A couple of pharmaceutical companies have already taken down their Facebook pages or announced they will do so. These include Janssen's ADHD Moms page, which was the first pharma Facebook page, launched in June, 2008, by McNeil Pediatrics (see The Pharmaguy Social Media Timeline™).

"A new Facebook policy, scheduled for Aug. 15, will specifically impact communities that are formed to help people learn more about disease conditions, such as ADHD Moms™, which we sponsor," says a note on the ADHD Moms page. 

"This new policy will alter our ability to consider the appropriateness of comments before they are posted which is important to us as a company in a highly regulated industry." 

"As a result, our ADHD Moms%reg; community will not be available after Aug. 14. Additionally, as of Aug. 9, our Moments™ tab will no longer be available. We want you to know that we value the community formed on this page and this was a difficult decision, but necessary given the Facebook policy change. We apologize to anyone in our community who may be disappointed by this decision."

Sanofi-Aventis said it would discontinue its VOICES page, which became infamous when it was attacked by a "disgruntled" patient (see "Disgruntled Patient Shuts Down sanofi-aventis Facebook Page").

"Please note that we will be discontinuing the sanofi-aventis VOICES page, effective August 9. We would like to continue this conversation with you, so we ask that you go to the Sanofi US Facebook page to do so."

This marks a turning point in pharma social media. Janssen effectively abandoned 23,725 (more or less) people (including 28 0f my Facebook friends) who "liked" ADHD Moms. It offered no alternative to these people other than third-party resources. Sanofi-Aventis, on the other hand, directed its 859 friends (including 22 of my friends) to its Sanofi US Facebook page, which currently is liked by 360 people (including 11 of my friends).

On the Sanofi US Facebook page, the company states that "To comply with applicable Laws and regulations, we do not use the standard Facebook wall for discussion." It does, however, allow comments on a special "Discussions" page where it previewsthem before being posted. "Just a friendly reminder that all posts are being moderated to ensure they comply with our Terms of Use," said Sanofi.

I had problems finding the Terms of USe, so I posted a question asking where I could find them. I received a reply within 2.5 hours (see screen shot below). The time stamp is odd - I actually posted my question around 3 or 4 PM Eastern US, but the time stamp says 2:20 AM; perhaps my Twitter pal @jonmrich can explain this discrepancy. Another thing Jon might be able to explain is how come Sanofi can still have comments shut off on its wall?

Did the new Facebook policy actually cause these companies to shut down their pages? Janssen seems to put all the blame on Facebook whereas Sanofi seems to blame "Laws and regulations," implying government interference. Of course, there are NO federal Laws or regulations specifically prohibiting Sanofi or any other pharma company from using the "standard" Facebook wall for discussions.

Blaming Facebook or "Laws and regulations" for this reminds me of the final scene of King Kong where the beast is lying dead at the foot of the Empire State Building:

Police Lieutenant: Well, Denham, the airplanes got him.
Carl Denham: Oh no, it wasn't the airplanes. It was beauty killed the beast.

I think there are other reasons why these pages are being shut down -- (1) one (ie, ADHD Moms) may have outlived its usefulness, and (2) one (VOICES) may have been ill-conceived in the first place, giving no benefit to the company and having a tainted history. In these cases, it's just best to shut them down and move on.

Unfortunately, Janssen doesn't seem to have an alternative FB page. It just "abandoned" its 23,725 FB friends. In the scheme of things, this is not a big number considering that Janssen claims ADHD "impacts five million children in the United States, while nearly eight million adults have been diagnosed with the condition" (see here). 23,725 represents only 0.47% of the children's ADHD market. In other words, ADHD Moms was a dismal failure in terms of reaching this market - maybe.

Over the next few days I will maintain a vigil over the pharma Facebook death march. Help me by letting me know of other pharma Facebook pages that announce their demise.

PR vs Interactive: Agencies Vie for Pharma Social Media Campaign Crumbs

Yesterday, I received a call from a friend who works in an interactive ad agency. He/she was eager to point out that hackers gained access to Pfizer's Facebook by discovering an administrative password based upon information that Paul Dyer, the "guy in charge of this [Pfizer's] Facebook" (according to the hackers) placed on his LinkedIn page (here).

Dyer is employed by WeissComm Partners (WCG), a PR agency that Pfizer employs to manage at least some if not all of its social media campaigns, including the corporate Facebook page. Dyer oversees the WCG social media team in North America.

My anonymous informant made some very disparaging remarks about WGC in general, and Dyer in particular. Dyer, said my informant, is a twenty-something with experience only in the packaged goods industry and has little knowledge of the pharma industry -- Dyer's previous clients (at another agency) included Coors Light, New Balance, Hansen's Natural Soda, and PURE Bar.

My informant dissed WGC, claiming they have no knowledge of the pharma industry and should not be employed by pharma to do social media.

It's not the first time that a PR agency was dissed by one of my friends who specialize in developing interactive communications and marketing programs for the pharmaceutical industry.

After I outed an AstraZeneca Facebook blunder by Edelman this past February (see “AstraZeneca Hosts “Take on Depression” Facebook Discussion – Seroquel Lurks Behind the Scenes”), my friend Rich Myer at World of DTC Marketing had this key lesson to share: "Don’t hire an agency to implement your social media strategy especially if that agency is Edelman" (see "The key lesson in AZ’s Facebook mess"). Then he REALLY laid into them:

"Now I am not a big fan of Edelman. They are a 'legend in their own mind' and have made way too many mistakes for my money. What I do have a problem with is THE LARGEST INDEPENDENT PR FIRM IN THE WORLD just announced in the Chicago Tribune that the people who are supposed to be setting social media strategy in conjunction with communication strategy for their clients HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY’RE DOING!"

Myer cited this SpinSucks blog post: "Edelman Admits They Don't Know Social Media," which noted that Edelman has "what they call their 'Rotnem' program (which is mentor spelled backwards – in case you missed that) where 95 percent of their senior executives are mentored by Gen Y."

It may have been no coincidence, therefore, that Edelman recently hired Shwen Gwee -- who may be Gen X, not Y -- as VP of Digital Health. Shwen was the former Lead for Digital Strategy and Social Media (Marketing) at Vertex Pharmaceuticals. He will have his work cut out for him at Edelman.

BTW, Myer also has criticized Gwee, giving him the honor of "Most overrated industry person" (see here), claiming he doesn't deserve all the social media accolades laid upon him despite never having developed a social media campaign for a marketed drug. But just before Shwen left Vertex, he did develop a disease awareness SM campaign (BetterToKnowC.com and the HepC.TV YouTube channel).

After my informant called, there was further outing of Dyer on the MM&M Blog: "Did a PR firm's lapse give hackers keys to Pfizer Facebook page?", which adds further fuel to the current fire consuming PR agencies and social media.

This morning, I asked this question during the #hcsmeu chat: "PR vs Interactive agencies -- who's best for developing HC social media campaigns?" and got some interesting responses, especially from current and former pharma people.

Gary Monk (@GaryMonk), UK Managing Director at Across (a management consultancy and marketing management group), said: "I generally find Pharma #PR agencies utter crap when it comes to socmed. Better trust it to a gorilla in a wetsuit," which I found interesting, coming from a former brand manager and e-Business exec at Johnson and Johnson (Janssen division).

Monk could be biased now that works for an outside marketing company that competes with PR agencies. But a current insider, @DanBax76, who works in sales at BMS, "massively" agreed that "PR agencies are indeed more in the promo sphere, Pharma should move from promo to support."

At Pfizer, it seems pretty certain that Corporate Communications (ie, PR) is in charge of all its social media campaigns. Pfizer's head of Corp Communs, Ray Kerins, has done a lot to build the company's massive social media presence, which is ALL geared toward PUSHING messages out like a good PR machine. It's no surprise, therefore, that they would hire a PR agency like WCG. But other pharma companies are also turning to PR agencies to handle their social media campaigns, even campaigns that are more marketing focused.

My informant tells me that this is changing. As more and more social media faux pas are exposed and it is discovered that incompetent PR agencies are at fault, I expect change will happen -- more brand managers inside pharma will engage interactive marketing agencies to get the social media crumbs.

If you are a YOUNG internal pharma marketing employee with good knowledge and experience in social media, but getting nowhere in your job (listen up Pfizer people), NOW is a great time to jump ship and join an outside agency. The BIG question is: Should you join a PR agency or an innovative marketing agency?

BTW, if you opt to work for a PR agency, Gary Monk recommends Aurora (@Aurorahealthpr).

[This post originally appeared in Pharma Marketing Blog. 

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

Four Useful Lessons Pharma Can Learn from the Pfizer Facebook Hack

By now, you've probably heard that Pfizer's US corporate Facebook page was "hacked" by some "Kiddies" (see "Pfizer, If You Are So Smart, How Come You Were Hacked By 'Kiddies'?"). For several hours, the page was reconfigured to display messages and images from the hackers, including "**ATTENTION** Pfizer must be stopped. They're corrupt and the damage they create is senseless. Carelessness! Putting a scare on these blokes who deserve one...".

[The hackers may have targeted Pfizer because of its Nigerian litigation case. See "WikiLeaks: Pfizer Hired Investigators to Smear Nigerian Prosecutor in Press"]

Pfizer's FB page is now restored to its original state of corporate banality (see here). A message from Pfizer on the wall states:

"As you might have noticed, our Page was compromised last night. We have been working with Facebook to understand what happened so we can guard against it in the future. Thank you for your patience while our page has been down, and we are pleased to be sharing our news with you once more."

Several interactive agency experts who no doubt have Pfizer as a client are trying to focus the blame on Facebook. Bruce Grant, senior VP, business strategy, at Digitas Health, is on the record, quoted in MedAd Blog (see "Lessons from Pfizer Facebook hack").

According to MedAd, Grant "points out that the The Script Kiddies [the hackers] did not have a reasoned grievance against Pfizer [huh? see above], but were just repeating things they had found in the media. Pfizer was a 'villain of opportunity,' he says, and the hack was not something that Pfizer could have prevented, since the security issues were all on Facebook’s end."

Some biased observers (ie, consultants who currently work for Pfizer or may wish to work for Pfizer in the future) are reluctant to blame Pfizer and tend to shift the blame to Facebook. As I mentioned in yesterday's post, I believe Pfizer is to blame, not Facebook. As the hackers themselves said, it was easy for them to guess Pfizer's Facebook password.

What are the lessons should Pfizer and other pharma companies learn from this?

Grant suggests that when using social media, pharma companies must "control the conversation." He said: "Our advice is you don’t have a choice as to whether you have a page – your choice is whether you want to maintain appropriate control over the conversation."

I'm all in favor of having control over the conversation, but what exactly does that mean? It probably means different things to different pharma companies, which should have explicit policies in place defining what they mean by "appropriate" comments from users and what "controls" they have in place. To moderate or not to moderate, that is the question. For more on that, see "Moderation of Pharma Social Media Discussions" and links therein.

But, what are some USEFUL lessons Pfizer and other pharma companies should learn from this?

I had an interesting discussion relating to this during last night's #socpharm Twitter chat session (find the transcript here).

LESSON #1: Obviously, this first lesson is to IMPROVE your security measures. Contrary to the opinions expressed by observers such as Grant, Pfizer's security problems had nothing specifically to do with Facebook or social media. Pfizer used a WEAK password. The hackers said as much: "Hint for next time: protect the company with a LITTLE better security. One Google search and I'm in." I only hope that Pfizer uses robust passwords to gain access to its clinical trial data!

LESSON #2: Don't have technically naive people, such as corporate communications people, in charge of your social media campaigns. Pfizer even claims it has no FTEs devoted to social media (see my interview with Pixels & Pills' Sarah McLellan, here). This is a BIG mistake. When Pfizer first started its @pfizer_news twitter account, it was so unprofessional that many people thought it was a fake account. Because no one was monitoring Twitter full time for them, the conversation on Twitter proceeded without them as Ray Kerins, Pfizer's head of corporate communications, was in court fighting a traffic ticket!

BTW, Pfizer employs WeissComm Partners (WG) to manage its social media campaigns, including its Facebook page. In fact, the hackers identify Paul Dyer, who oversees the WCG social media team in North America, as the "guy in charge of this Facebook." Word is the hackers found hints to Pfizer's FB password in Dyer's LinkedIn profile (here). There, you will find that Dyer is a "Soccer player for life." Perhaps the secret password was "soccer"? Dyer's previous clients (at another agency) included Coors Light, New Balance, Hansen's Natural Soda, and PURE Bar.

LESSON #3: Don't outsource your social media projects to agencies that are even less technically savvy than you are. Take the case of Edelman creating a Facebook page for AstraZeneca (see "AstraZeneca Hosts 'Take on Depression' Facebook Discussion - Seroquel Lurks Behind the Scenes"). I was able to use Google Earth, WHOIS, etc. to discover personal information about the consultant hired by Edelman (hired by AZ) to program the discussion app on that page. If I were a hacker, the next step would have been to try and guess his password. Instead, I wrote about it and informed him of his security lapses. As a result, AstraZeneca was able to fix the problem before it became a problem.

LESSON #4: Don't blame others for your mistakes. We all are witnessing Ruppert Murdock blame his "trusted" underlings for the phone-hacking scandal in England. Similarly, we are hearing industry consultants blame Facebook for Pfizer's hack. The blame is even being extended to social media in general. @SpitzStrategy (VP, Digital Strategy at Ignite Health), for example, said "#pharma has to get used to things "going wrong" wtih SM -- that's its nature -- controlled chaos like all human communication" during last night's #scopharm chat (see here). This sends a message to other pharma companies that "shit happens" when you get involved with social media and it's OUT OF YOUR CONTROL. To which I say BULLSHIT! That is NOT the proper message to be sending to pharma. Own up to your mistakes and fix them. More importantly, don't tell us that you are working with Facebook to discover what happened and then share unspecific "lessons learned" with others.

To properly learn from these social media faux pas, pharma companies must first correctly assign blame. Let's see who Pfizer blames.

[This post originally appeared in Pharma Marketing Blog. 

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

FaceBook Tweaks "Whitelisting" - No Problem for Pharma, Though

I've heard of placing your e-mail address on a "whitelist" so that you can continue to receive "junk" e-mail whose sender may be on a "blacklist" maintained by Spam Haus or some other agent that ISPs subscribe to. But I just learned from Intouch's Wendy Blackburn and Jim Dayton that social networks like Facebook also engage in a practice called "whitelisting."

"Over the last year," said Dayton, "Facebook has recognized the need for Pharma companies to disable certain functionality of their Pages due to FDA regulations. Most notably, this includes the disabling of the 'comment' functionality. Some companies have even requested the Like button be removed. As far as I know, Facebook has worked with companies to get this functionality disabled on an as-needed basis. This practice is called 'whitelisting'" (see "Understanding (More) Recent Facebook Changes").

IMHO, it is NOT true that FDA regulations require the disabling of certain FB functionality. I don't find any regulations from FDA regarding that. Nor warning letters. FDA, for example, did not send Sanofi-Aventis a warning letter about the comments published on its FB page by a "disgruntled patient" (see "Disgruntled Patient Shuts Down sanofi-aventis Facebook Page").

In fact, there is at least ONE pharma FB page that has comments turned on (see here).

Obviously, most pharma companies have what I call Social Networking Idiosyncratic Dysfunctional Episodes (SNIDE). Due to SNIDE attitudes, most pharma companies prefer that no consumer/patient communicate with them via social networks. It's just too much trouble and besides, we're not use to that! Of course, SNIDE sufferers blame FDA regulations instead of their own aversion to social networking.

Meanwhile, Facebook is in a quandary. If they make it easy for just anyone to turn off comments, then everyone will want to do that and there goes their social network. So they are now making it harder to get on the list (the "whitelist," that is). Dayton advises pharma companies that they "must contact your [Facebook] rep and discuss the use case and justification for needing any functionality changes." I don't think it will be much of a problem for pharma companies to be "whitelisted." Do you? BTW, I don't even have a Facebook rep. Do you?

FOLLOWUP: A conversation with Matthew Snodgrass, Social Media Director at WCG, about Facebook's planned changes to its "whitelisting" policy and its implications for pharmaceutical marketers:

Listen to internet radio with Pharmaguy on Blog Talk Radio

AstraZeneca Hosts "Take on Depression" Facebook Discussion - Seroquel Lurks Behind the Scenes

You may have missed the tweet by @AstraZeneca yesterday that announced "Join the #depression discussion on the #TakeonDepression Facebook page http://ow.ly/3Zihl". This tweet was posted just a few hours after my podcast of a conversation with @TonyJewell, Senior Director for External Communications at AstraZeneca and editor of AZ Health Connections blog, about the recent #rxsave Twitter chat and plans for future pharma-hosted chats (listen to the podcast "The Future of Pharma-Sponsored Twitter & Other Social Media Chats: A Review of the First Pharma-Sponsored Twitter Chat").

Screen shot of the AZ "Take on Depression" FB discussion page. Click for an enlarged view.

I'm surprised Tony didn't mention this Facebook depression chat during my interview. The "Take on Depression" FB page itself was launched back in October, 2010 along with an @FaceDepression Twitter account. I notice that only 2 of my FaceBook friends "Like" the Take On Depression page.

According to the press release (here) "The "Take on Depression" Facebook page will provide tools and resources to individuals who are struggling to manage their symptoms of bipolar depression and MDD [major depressive disorder]. The @FaceDepression Twitter feed will provide articles, links to Web sites, tips, and community events that will help people learn more about their illness and have a more effective dialogue with their physician."

In the press release, Sandy Sommer, Executive Director and Commercial Brand Leader at AstraZeneca said "With the launch of these Facebook and Twitter pages, AstraZeneca hopes to amplify conversations about mental health and provide important health information in innovative ways."

AstraZeneca includes several "rules" at the top of the FB discussion page, including "please refrain from mentioning specific pharmaceutical products by name" and "all comments will be evaluated by AstraZeneca before posting," etc.

"Want to join the discussion? Chime in on the discussion board or start your own thread now!" says AZ. But there was only 1 topic/post for discussion entitled "Welcome." It was made by "Take on Depression" -- a non-person representing the site -- back on January 4, 2011. It said: "Hey Take on Depression fans! Use the Take on Depression Facebook page to review information and connect with others who have been affected by bipolar depression or major depressive disorder. You can use this DISCUSSIONS tab to post about what you’re going through in order to help others."

There were no responses, so I decided to post a reply asking for a definition of bipolar depression and MDD. The following notice popped up (click on image for an enlarged, readable view):

This is pretty typical stuff; ie, absolutely no mention of product names will be tolerated. There's one small problem, however.

Seroquel Lurks Behind the Scenes
I noticed that it took a long time to display the discussion page and posts. During the minute or so the application was loading, I also noticed the following URL being accessed: http://www.seroquelfbdiscapp.com/, which contains a product brand name; ie, Seroquel!

In fact, you can type that URL in your browser and you will see the "naked" app without the surrounding FaceBook stuff, as in this screen shot (click to enlarge):

Most users would never notice the URL, but there it is. Will the FDA notice? Will it matter? It's a small issue, but I can't explain why AZ would need to use the trade name in the app URL when it could have just as well done without it. If AZ has changed the URL by the time you read this, Nevermind!

I'll keep you posted about my attempt to get the discussion going.

Meanwhile, I also checked out the @FaceDepression Twitter account. That account is "locked," which means @FaceDepression's Tweets are protected and only confirmed followers have access to @FaceDepression's Tweets and complete profile." You need to send a request before you can start following this account. I sent a request.

I'm not sure why AZ would do this. "When you lock your Twitter account," says wiki.answers.com, "only your followers can see your updates. Also, you will have to approve any new followers. It's like as if only your friends have the option to see you, kind of like being a king, you approve and see who can do stuff, but only a few people can see you."

Being the "King" these days is not very popular with the populace as we are witnessing in the Middle East. But I suppose pharma companies are comfortable sitting in their media throne issuing edicts for the populace to read, but only the elite, chosen members of the populace are invited into the conversation!

UPDATE: 2/20/2011. Tony Jewell emailed me soon after this post was published and said "I have directed your questions about take on depression to brand corporate affairs, which handles these subjects (I handle the corporate stuff). Let me know if nobody gets in touch." It's the weekend, so I haven't heard anything yet.

Meanwhile, I notice that the URL for the discussion app was changed after I made my post to www.takeondepressionfbdiscapp.com/, which proves that I provide useful insights.

I did a little WHOIS search on these domain names to get some idea who was responsible. It turns out that Edelman PR Worldwide registered both domains (see WHOIS results in the composite screen capture below; personal information has been redacted from this image at the personal request of the person whose name was used to register the domains. As I recommended below when I first made this post, the domain registration is now private. See here.).

Edelman is an Advertising Age "Top Ranked PR Agency" with 3,600 employees in 53 offices worldwide. I did not know that this agency had an office in Brooklyn Heights, NYC, one of the many New York neighborhoods I lived in. So I used Google maps to see exactly where their Brooklyn office was located and found an unassuming townhouse on a (nice) side street (I removed the image of the building I found upon request from the person who lives at the address). I was expecting something a little more impressive!

Here are a couple of reasons why I find this interesting:

(1) AZ used a PR agency, which may have "farmed out" the Take On Depression discussion board programming to another agency; ie, [redacted], "a next-generation digital marketing firm that designs and executes integrated digital marketing programs enabling clients to achieve scale in their digital marketing." I discovered this by finding the domains' administrative and technical contact person on LinkedIn, who -- according to his LinkedIn profile -- was Edelman's SVP of Interactive Solutions and is now CEO of [redacted].

NOTE: This person contacted me by e-mail and claimed "My credit card was used to set up all manner of accounts over those 11 years [that he was at Edelman; beginning in October 1998, ending in September 2009]. It appears that after I left in September 2009 that some of the accounts were not updated, hence the WHOIS data shows my address and name." But the WHOIS entry was created on 18 October 2010, more than a year after this person left Edelman. Why Edelman was still using his credit card and private address a year after he left the company is a mystery. I also do not know why it was used AGAIN just a few days ago to create the new WHOIS entry for the takeondepressionfbdiscapp.com domain.

(2) Using someone's private home address in domain registrations is NOT cool! As noted in wikipedia (here) "Currently the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) broadly requires that the mailing address, phone number and e-mail address of those owning/managing a domain name to be made publicly available through the "WHOIS" directories. However, that policy enables spammers, direct marketers, identity thieves, or other attackers to loot the directory for personal information about these people."

When registering a domain name it is possible to use a "private registration" proxy so that your personal information is not readily available in the WHOIS database. Godaddy, which was the domain registrar in this case, offers that service. But, unfortunately, the cat may be out of the bag.

P.S. If Edelman does make the above domain registrations private, then I will -- if formally requested -- update this post and remove personally-identifiable information (but not corporate information).

NOTE: The person whose name is being used

P.P.S.  Wow! I no longer have the "creds" to view the discussion on AZ's #TakeonDepression Facebook page. Maybe nobody does!

UPDATE (2/21/2011):

I received this email today from Stephanie Andrzejewski, AZ's Director, Brand Corporate Affairs:

Hi John -

AstraZeneca is aware that the name of one of our products, SEROQUEL, was inadvertently included in coding in the Take on Depression Facebook page. No product name was ever included in the actual contents of the page and the Take on Depression Facebook page is not intended for the promotion of products. As soon as we became aware of the error, we immediately amended the code. AstraZeneca is fully committed to open, honest, transparent, and ethical social media practices.

Regards,
Stephanie

I responded:

Stephanie,

Thanks for getting back to me. I am impressed that this error was corrected in a timely fashion considering it is a holiday weekend!

But this error could have been averted if -- as suggested by commenters to my blog -- AZ had chosen a more regulatory-savvy agency to handle at least the technical aspects of its social media campaign. The problems I cited indicate that this important AZ social media initiative may not have been given the attention necessary to convince people that AZ is committed to open, honest, transparent, and ethical social media practices, IMHO.

Guess What Site Online Health Info Seekers are NOT Visiting So Much

The press release announcing Accenture's new "Consumer Survey: The Evolving Consumer and The Pharmaceutical Company Relationship" claims that the survey "suggests pharmaceutical companies are falling short in addressing this captive audience" (my emphasis; find the press release here).

It's unfortunate that the press release uses "captive audience" to describe consumers who go online for health information. To a marketer, a captive audience is a technical term (jargon) that merely means "people who cannot avoid being exposed to an advertisement."

The top line takeaway from the press release is that only "slightly more than one in 10 (11 percent) [of consumers who go online for health information] regularly turn to a pharmaceutical company’s website to seek information about an illness or medical condition, compared to nine in 10 (92 percent) who look to other online resources more frequently."

The press release then goes on to say that "pharmaceutical companies that are not fully leveraging multiple online channels are missing a real opportunity to address this captive audience. It also demonstrates that the fundamental shift from a predominantly one-way company-to-patient dialogue to enabling a patient-to-patient – and even a patient-to-physician dialogue – through the evolution of social networks and online communities, has resulted in fragmentation."

From this, you -- and probably many reporters as well -- might conclude that the answer to my question is that consumers are not going to pharmaceutical company web sites so much and that the drug industry better engage in conversation with consumers on social networks and patient communities.

But if you look at the details of the survey, you'll discover that social networks such as Facebook are visited even less often than pharma sites by online health information seeking consumers. See chart below (I created this chart from detail survey data sent to me by Accenture):

"Medical Web Site"=such as WebMD; "Informational Website"=news, government, Wikipedia; "Pharma Company Website"=I presume this means brand drug sites; "Online Patient Community"=a group of members with the same or similar condition or illness such as patientslikeme; "Social Media"=such as Facebook or Twitter

In other words, consumers are NOT flocking to Facebook to find health information.

So, why are pharmaceutical companies so interested in having Facebook pages, which, BTW, often do NOT allow comments? Simple. Facebook has surpassed Google in terms of Web site traffic ("eyeballs") and pharma marketers are still seeking this "captive audience" to display ads (ie, Facebook pages), not to engage in conversation (for more on this, see "Drug Companies Are Flocking to Facebook for Eyeballs, Not Conversation").

Markets as Conversations: Can You Have a Discussion with "Psoriasis 360" on Facebook?

Alex Butler, Digital Strategy and Social Media Manager at Janssen and candidate for the Pharmaguy Social Media Pioneer Award, just informed me by email that he and his team have launched the Psoriasis 360 Facebook page, which is part of a larger disease-awareness campaign.

Alex wrote:

"The Psoriasis 360 campaign has been developed by Janssen as part of an ongoing commitment to improving the lives of patients through the provision of useful and relevant information about psoriasis. We know that people who live with psoriasis don’t always get the help and support they need to manage their condition. Many people are not aware how severe their psoriasis is, the impact that this has on their life and how to speak to their doctor about managing the condition.

"This information forms the core of the content on the psoriasis 360 website. We would like people to join our community on Facebook and share their experiences with ourselves and others. They can also connect with us and follow the latest psoriasis and 360 community news on twitter. Shortly there will also be a YouTube channel that has been set up with the primary goal of YouTube itself in mind-letting people touched by the condition broadcast themselves and share their stories with others, helping people to live better with psoriasis.

"We believe strongly that people should be able to share their views in an open a manner as possible for a regulated industry and the commenting policy reflects this attitude."

I think this pharma social media site is the first to publish ALL comments BEFORE they are reviewed. Janssen, however, reserves the right to remove any comments "if they directly talk about medication or could be offensive to people."

It also appears that Janssen will allow links to third-party videos and other information: "Janssen are (sic) not responsible for third-party materials appearing on the Psoriasis 360, including but not limited to linked third-party videos, linked third-party sites, and third-party advertisements," says the comment policy. "Janssen does not control or endorse this third-party content and makes no representations regarding its accuracy."

Of course, this leaves the door open for Janssen and/or their agency partners to post all kinds of links to information that Janssen MAY endorse and be responsible for under other circumstances.

But let's not put the cart before the horse and start criticizing this policy before we see more "conversations" on the site.

Speaking of "conversations," I will be interviewing Doc Searls, one of the authors of the Cluetrain Manifesto, about the relevance of the Manifesto for the pharmaceutical industry in today's social media world.

According to the ClueTrain Manifesto "A powerful global conversation has begun. Through the Internet, people are discovering and inventing new ways to share relevant knowledge with blinding speed. As a direct result, markets are getting smarter—and getting smarter faster than most companies."

The first 6 theses of the Manifesto state:

1. Markets are conversations.
2. Markets consist of human beings, not demographic sectors.
3. Conversations among human beings sound human. They are conducted in a human voice.
4. Whether delivering information, opinions, perspectives, dissenting arguments or humorous asides, the human voice is typically open, natural, uncontrived.
5. People recognize each other as such from the sound of this voice.
6. The Internet is enabling conversations among human beings that were simply not possible in the era of mass media.

I'm most interested, however, in latter theses that are relevant to the growing list of pharmaceutical Facebook pages; namely "The ideal, according to the manifesto," as reported in wikipedia, "is for the networked marketplace to be connected to the networked intranet so that full communication can exist between those within the marketplace and those within the company itself (thesis 53.) Achieving this level of communication is hindered by the imposition of ‘command and control’ structures (thesis 54-58) but, ultimately, organizations will need to allow this level of communication to exist as the new marketplace will no longer respond to the mass-media ‘voice’ of the organization (theses 59-71)."

What I notice on the "Psoriasis 360" FB Wall as well as other pharma FB Walls is that often the response to comments come from unidentified, branded accounts that may or may not be real "human beings." On Psoriasis 360, the responses come from "Psoriasis 360." It's a closed loop that does not bring me to any real human being.

Therefore, I made this post today to the Psoriasis 360 FB Wall:

"Good luck on your new FB page. A piece of advice I'd like to see implemented is for the Janssen people who are responsible for this FB page AND for the ppl who are part of the psoriasis team at Janssen to perhaps identify themselves and/or post their photos to the site. I know this is sometimes a problem because of pri...vacy issues, but eventually the general public would like to know who they are talking to. Having replies come from REAL identifiable ppl may help generate discussion better than having replies come from 'Psoriasis 360.' What do you think?"

Until pharma can break down the "command and control" structure within its marketing organization and allow voices from real people within the organization to respond to consumers, it will never achieve the vision of the ClueTrain Manifesto.

---

The Relevance of the Cluetrain Manifesto in a Social Media WorldWhat's Still Not "Conversational" in Today's Markets?


A conversation with Doc Searls, Senior Editor of Linux Journal and co-author of The Cluetrain Manifesto, about the relevance of the Manifesto for the pharmaceutical industry in today's social media world. Doc will preview the keynote presentation he plans to make at the upcoming Digital Pharma East conference. (See guest bio.)



Airs LIVE on: Thursday, October 7, 2010 * 2 PM Eastern USA

Go to this Pharma Marketing Talk Segment Page to listen to the LIVE show via streaming audio on the Web or to listen to the podcast archive afterward.

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"