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 Masters the Art of WOM through Its "Parrots," er, Spokespersons

Even Social Media Savvy, Personable, Fun-Loving Boehringer Ingelheim (BI) Can Bring Shame to the Pharmaceutical Industry!

No sooner did I give Boehringer Ingelheim (BI) kudos for its recent humorous and playful YouTube video (see here), than I learned it violated Clauses 2, 9.1, 3.2, 22.1 and 22.2 of the ABPI Code of Practice (see "Promotion of Pradaxa by Boehringer Ingelheim Breached ABPI Code of Practice").

You can read the details yourself in the above link. At the core of the case were stories published in UK newspapers based upon a BI press release. BI also provided reporters with access to paid physicians and patient spokespersons.

The case originated from a complaint by a "general practitioner" filed with the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA), which oversees the ABPI Code.

The PMCPA "was very concerned about the content of the press release and the briefing material for spokespersons. The [PMCPA] Panel considered that these would in effect encourage members of the public to ask their health professional to prescribe a specific prescription only medicine. The Panel was concerned about the lack of information in a consumer press release relating to side effects."

In the YouTube video mentioned above as well as in a recent tweet, BI said it "believes there are better mktg tools than FB & Twitter." It appears that BI thinks friendly news reporters are among the better tools available to it.

It's amusing that the news articles made some great marketing statements that BI could never make, such as referring to Pradaxa as a "super pill" and a "revolutionary drug." The stories also dissed the competition (warfarin) by referring to it as "rat poison." BI press materials did not refer to warfarin as rat poison and "otherwise made no disparaging remarks about the medicine," said PMCPA, which had no evidence about how warfarin had been described by Boehringer Ingelheim’s spokespersons or at any press conference. Therefore, no breach of the Code was ruled in that regard.

Obviously, what "spokespersons" say falls under "word of mouth" (WOM) marketing, which is what BI says is one of those "better mktg tools than FB & Twitter." As this case demonstrates, it is very hard to prove that pharmaceutical companies are responsible for WOM marketing that violates regulatory and industry rules.

Brits Beat FDA & PhRMA: Issue Social Media Guidance for Pharma. This BI Tweet May Not Pass Muster.

The Brits have won the race to issue social media guidance for the drug industry! (OK, it's NOT a race. Still, everyone says the EU regulators FOLLOW FDA's lead. Here's a case where the horse is following the cart!)

The Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA), which oversees the self-regulatory code of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI), just published "informal guidance" providing the drug industry advice on how to use online communications.

You can access the PMCPA "informal guidance" here.

While the US FDA (PhRMA too!) twiddles and delays, the British PMCPA tweets and delivers!

Most of the advice, however, is merely to follow the existing ABPI Code of Practice, which "applies irrespective of the method of communication." NOTE: In contrast to the British industry code, US PhRMA's DTC Guidelines specifically excludes online communications.

Regarding Twitter, PMCPA has this to say:

"If a company wanted to promote a medicine via twitter it would have to ensure that if the medicine was prescription only, the audience was restricted to health professionals and that the message, in addition to any link to further information, complied with the Code. In addition companies would also have to ensure that recipients had agreed to receive the information. Given these restrictions and the character limit on twitter, it is highly unlikely that the use of this medium to promote prescription only medicines would meet the requirements of the Code.

"Using twitter to alert health professionals about the publication of a study on a medicine is likely to be considered promotion of that medicine."

I interpret that to mean that Tweets such as the following from Boehringer Ingelheim (BI) may not pass muster with the Brits:

Back in October, 2009, I criticized tweets like this, which I thought violated FDA regulations (see "Boehringer's Branded Tweet Violates FDA Regulations Just Like Those 14 Paid Search Ads Did"). So far, however, FDA has not issued any NOV letters to companies who post such tweets. Maybe BI is out of the FDA's jurisdiction because the tweet was meant for an EU audience and not a US audience? And since BI is not a British Pharmaceutical industry, it is not obligated to comply with the ABPI Code.

While many industry pundits fault the FDA for not issuing social media guidance in a timely fashion, no one has put any blame on PhRMA (the US industry equivalent of ABPI) for not issuing its own voluntary industry guidelines regarding Internet and social media pharmaceutical promotion. No one but me, of course (see, for example, "PhRMA Finalizes DTC Principles").

Sex, Pharmaceuticals, and Selling Sickness: I'm Looking Forward to a Great Time In Amsterdam!

This October I will be in Amsterdam enjoying the sights and pleasures that city has to offer. But I am not planning to buy sex or to smoke pharmaceutical substances. I do plan, however, to attend and make a presentation at the Selling Sickness conference hosted by Healthy Skepticism (Netherlands), assisted by the Dutch Institute for Rational Use of Medicine and Healthy Skepticism (International). The sponsors include the Dutch Ministry of Health and the Dutch Health Care Inspectorate. You can find the program here.

I look forward to this conference because "Female sexual dysfunction will be used as a case study to explore problems with disease promotion as well as policy options." Ray Moynihan, journalist, co-author of the book "Selling Sickness: How The World's Biggest Pharmaceutical Companies Are Turning Us All Into Patients" and author of "Sex, Lies & Pharmaceuticals," is a featured speaker.

In preparation for the conference, I am following closely the news about flibanserin, a new drug developed by the German pharma company Boehringer Ingelheim (BI) for "hypoactive sexual desire disorder" (HSDD) in pre-menopausal women. Today, an FDA advisory committee will meet to review this drug's application for marketing approval. BI must answer the question FDA always asks: is the drug safe and effective. The FDA’s own review, out yesterday, says the overall response rate in clinical trials isn't "particularly compelling," reports the WSJ Health Blog.

Perhaps an even more interesting question is whether or not hypoactive sexual desire disorder is a real medical condition. FDA does not consider that question when approving drugs. Whatever compound comes their way for which a drug company has clinical data, FDA's only duty is to consider if it is safe and effective for whatever "condition" it is designed to treat. A drug company is free to invent a medical condition and FDA can't say a word about that.

Do pharma companies "invent" medical conditions in order to sell drugs? Is hypoactive sexual desire disorder an "invented" medical condition?

One case where there is "smoking gun" evidence of a medical condition being invented by a pharma company is "overactive bladder," another condition affecting mostly women. "Pharmacia instrumental in creating new disease," said a marketing VP in the notes to his PowerPoint presentation made at an industry conference in October, 2002 (see Overactive Bladder: "Pharmacia instrumental in creating new disease" says Former VP).

My fellow blogger, Rich Myer, reviewed all the PR that BI is doing to create awareness of hypoactive sexual desire disorder: "In the last month, Boehringer has been trying to lay the consumer groundwork with a promotional campaign about women’s low libido, including a Web site, a Twitter feed, a Discovery Channel documentary and a publicity tour by Lisa Rinna, a soap opera star and former Playboy model, who describes herself as someone who has suffered from a disorder that Boehringer refers to as a form of 'female sexual dysfunction.'" In his post Rich quotes Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman, an associate professor at Georgetown University’s medical school: "This is really a classic case of disease branding,” said Fugh-Berman. “The messages are aimed at medicalizing normal conditions, and also preying on the insecurity of both the clinician and the patient."

Oh, Oh, Rich! You are not in command of the facts. You should have read BI's "Key Facts on HSDD and Flibanserin". One fact cited is this: "HSDD is a medical condition – not simply 'low libido.'"

Anyway, this is sure to be a BIG topic for discussion at the Selling Sickness conference in Amsterdam. I wonder if people from BI will be there or invited to speak? Hope so.