Today is a (relatively minor) milestone day in the relationship of pharma companies and social media – this is the day when Facebook no longer provides exceptions to including comments on walls. Some are even on a “deathwatch” – how many pharma Facebook pages will come down because of the regulatory ramifications? The Washington Post has the story here (I’m quoted along with several other industry colleagues).
I say it’s a relatively minor milestone because it is one change on one platform. There’s really a much, much larger question on the table, and maybe we should ask it.
Does Pharma (a company and/or brand) really have anything uniquely valuable to offer on social media platforms?
I’m not asking if pharma can participate – that’s already happening (mostly at the shallow end of the pool). What I’m asking is: does pharma have anything to offer in the public sphere that isn’t already being offered by others – who don’t have the same legal/regulatory handcuffs? The issue isn’t just, can we do social media – but can we uniquely add value (a question every company should ask, by the way). And if so, how?
Now, I have wrestled long and hard with this issue over the years, and have my own opinions, but if you believe a pharma company or brand does have a unique value and voice in public social media, here’s what I’d like you to do: put that thought in the comments. I think it’s time that we wrestle with this fundamental question, and if pharma has an important role to play in the social sphere (not just a “let’s-burnish-our-image-by-being-on-popular-platforms” role), that we articulate what that is clearly.
Ready -> Go! (if you want to carry on discussion on Google+: www.gplus.to/connectionagent)
Also be sure to read Andrew Spong’s post on the Facebook change.
Recent Impactiviti posts:
_________
Impactiviti is the Pharmaceutical Connection Agency. As the eHarmony of sales/training/marketing, we help our pharma/biotech clients find optimal outsource vendors for training, eMarketing, social media, and more.
Learn more about our free services here
_________
Sign up for the Impactiviti Connection weekly e-newsletter (see sample), chock full of news and resources for pharmaceutical professional
I think pharma has one thing to offer and they are almost required to do it if they hope to ever change the public’s perception about them (i.e., “Evil Big Pharma”).
I say, forget about offering product information or even discussing specific diseases. Like you said, there are a lot of other sources for this that people will always trust more than pharma companies. Instead, focus on using social media to add a little bit of humanity to the company. That is, use social media to change your perception as some faceless, corporate monolith that seeks to suck money from the system while giving nothing back and instead show the real face of pharma. I worked for a pharma company for 11 years and, while not perfect, they do a lot of good. That’s what they should be talking about.
The best at this right now is J&J and Boehringer (both with Facebook Pages that have always allowed Likes and comments). Check out what they share via social media and you’ll see what they’re trying to do. They’re adding humanity to their companies and giving it a face that people can connect with. Social media doesn’t need to be complicated. Share stuff like a human being and people will follow and connect with you.
John, I’ve always agreed with that. And I think it does add some value – though mostly for the pharma company itself (it’s PR. That’s not wrong, but where’s the unique value – information, offering, etc., for the audience??) That’s what I wonder about.
Steve, the answer to your question is loaded. In a situation such as this, where faceless monarchs like pharma are working to develop a social media presence, the unique value does not, and should not, relate to special offers and details on products, but rather creates an open forum for individuals to connect based on their unique experiences. The “unique value” you are asking about, is a general FEELING that the reader is not alone in their plight, not something that can be measured on a pie chart. For example, if a woman has become the primary carer for her aging mother, she will be going through daily struggles with medications and challenges regarding basic care, as if the fact that her mother growing increasingly ill in front of her eyes was not bad enough. By creating this forum to allow people to share in experiences, the “careless company” proves that they are concerned with the well-being and opinions of their clients. This level of humanity that John mentioned is going to become significantly more imperative in the physician/medical selection process for patients in this time of health care reform, due to the fact that a number of individuals will be making their decisions based on price points and emotional experiences since they will be much more aware of exactly what they are paying for. I think that having a positive social media presence is the only valid option for companies like this in order to maintain any sense of dignity and goodwill.
Although Canadian pharma companies are highly restricted in what they can offer in terms of product information on social media (or any other media for that matter), they can provide value by providing Canadians with a common place for patients and caregivers to join in on the discussion of the disease. The only problem is that if any of these members mention a product name, their comment will have to be removed in order to remain within the guidelines (or edited and approved by regulatory bodies – honestly, can you imagine how long it would take to get each comment sent in for review, edited and approved and then re-posted on the site? Don’t think that will be happening anytime soon.) So there is value, but it’s limited. Accu-Check is one Canadian pharma example that does social media well, but they are not an RX product, so they can get away with a lot more. MSWatch.ca does as good a job as possible while staying within the regulations. One way to get around this, is for Canadian pharma to sponsor a medical non-profit organization that deals with the therapeutic area in question. With existing guidelines, this might be one of the best avenues to allow patients to talk as freely as possible with one another, and frankly, isn’t that the whole point?
Nat, I like what you’ve spotlighted. Here’s the thing – providing discussion formats for various healthcare stakeholders is something anyone can do, and much easier than a pharma company. Participation in discussion is the one thing that a pharma/brand cannot easily accomplish – so can they really add value? I do agree about sponsoring social sites – but again, that’s just dollars. Where’s the unique value?? Playing devil’s advocate here…:>}
Steve – you ask the question about what pharma can offer that is unique.
For me there is one obvious area – pharma should know its products (drugs) better than anyone else and should be the one providing useful information and resources to physicians and patients on these. The challenge to being able to do this in the past has always been the perceived impartiality of pharma, hence heavy regulations stopping “promotion” to patients.
But look at one example outside pharma where this is done well – Apple with its army of “geniuses” on hand to advise on its products, which creates a great “buzz” in any of their stores. Perhaps we need to think hard about what is stopping pharma doing this in a non-promotional way? The benefit to patients, prescribers and pharma of providing this service would be enormous – to pharma mainly through better PR and patient compliance. Regulations should protect patients, not hinder their pursuit for useful information.
And no, I’m not saying patients should circumvent the trained physician, but pharma could play a larger role in helping resolve problems with medicines and help coordinate such discussions.
Just a thought.
Paul, when you look at the landscape of what uniquely resides inside of pharma’s walls, deep knowledge of the product is the clear goldmine of information. Here’s the deal, however – can pharma really put that to good use on public social media platforms? There are many other ways in which that information is currently shared (journals, detailing, med ed, etc.) – and in all those channels, pharma companies have managed to forfeit public trust repeatedly. Given how regulated one-to-one interactions are, I’m just wondering how that potentially valuable info can be more widely distributed (and applied) in a useful and compliant – and trust-building – manner. It’s a complex conundrum.
[...] Does Pharma Really Have Anything to Offer on Social Media? (impactiviti.wordpress.com) [...]
[...] brings forth a great argument to this issue questioning how pharma can add-value on social media platforms. A particularly prominent response from @jonmrich highlights that the key is interacting and [...]
I agree with Jonathan: pharma has one place in social media and that is to inject some humanity behind the “social”. Pharma sees the word “media” and goes straight into data-dump broadcast mode, never mind how poorly this has worked in the past for its physician customers.
DTC is somewhat different because you’re limited by time and you try to connect by using visual images with an ad. You can say that the audiovisual dimension of a DTC flattens some time limits to making that first connection, by getting people’s attention.
On the internet however it’s not microwave “connection” but more of a slow crock-pot cooking. Pharma companies look at terms like “internet speed” or “going viral” and mistaken these for dissemination speed.
Again the risk behind injecting humanity into social media is that pharma has to risk being vulnerable. You can read this as legal vulnerability or relational vulnerability, maybe both — both pharma’s already liable in these areas because they are seen as covert, deceptive, and hypocritical.
Becoming more human by behaving like one in social media may be a step in the direction pharma’s always been claiming: helping patients.
which opens up a broader question – can a huge, and highly regulated corporation, really be human and vulnerable on these platforms?
Of course. Being human and vulnerable means having the guts to say “I don’t know”.
It means being willing to say, “I’m not the best person to give you this advice, your doctor is, how may I help you engage your doctor so that you can get meaningful dialog going?”
(By meaningful dialog I don’t mean “here’s how you trap your doctor into prescribing a drug”)
It means admitting, “we have seen this side effect in our clinical studies that we’ve submitted to the FDA” (for example, when patient complains about a certain side effect), “how can we assist your doctor with information about this so s/he is better prepared to work with you on managing it?”
Being human also means having the courage to say, “I’m sorry.”
What could be done on this platform is to invite public input on how to make drug/device product information and clinical trial information better. That’s the social side that this medium can be used for. Asking questions like “what’s missing for you when you think about disease X and possible treatments?”, “where do you go for information and what can we do to help?”, “are we doing a good job of relaying information in ways that make sense to you? If not, what would be on your wish list?”, “what sorts of concerns do you have as a patient when thinking about clinical studies?”, “what do you want to know about a clinical trial for a loved one as a caregiver?”, etc. These are the questions pharma should be asking openly and humbly of the public. By inviting real dialogue they would gain huge insights to improve their products and develop their pipeline. If sincerely pursued, they would gain a great deal of good will and newfound trust. Most of all, they would be helping the patients they seek to serve.
Carmen, I’m going to play devil’s advocate and suggest that all of that can be done in a safer, more controlled way using targeted surveys. Not to say that your idea is a bad one – quite the opposite – I just wonder if social media is the best way to get that done, or if there is unique value provided that counteracts the potential landmines…
To truly gain trust and use the medium for its greatest advantage, then that openess must be attempted, even if in the end they find it unworkable. I can envision ways that allow for some gatekeeping, as Pfizer stipuates on its Facebook page, yet provides greater balance in welcoming input. What people find suspicious and what often spurs a rumor mill is not seeing their legitimate questions being tackled. While not every question is proper for a FB conversation, many are. I agree with PhillyArch below that leadership is required here. If what pharma wants is a better reputation and access to the market through social media, the price is offering legitimate engagement. If it wants the veneer of conversation or a completely controlled environment, then SoMe is an ill-suited platform.
I would say yes, especially if you are dealing with a drug that serves a small patient population. Why can’t a pharma company be the ones who provide the tools and platforms to connect a community? Why can’t pharma be the ones who provide their experts? I like Alex Butler of Janssen Pharmaceuticals (JNJ) quote on this: ““Compliance and resource challenges can be overcome, if the business is genuinely determined and passionate about sharing information. If you are a leader in a disease area, it would be a shame not to share information where people will find it, on the kind of social platforms that people use.“
Well said. If there is an unmet need, and a company can meet it with caring and transparency – there’s value.
[...] Does Pharma Really Have Anything to Offer on Social Media? (impactiviti.wordpress.com) [...]
[...] to offer on social media platforms? And he asks for us to leave our comments at the bottom of this post (where there is a pretty robust and very interesting discussion [...]
I think Pharma COULD offer a lot. Pharma just has to get creative about what they do on these platforms. I understand the FDA leaves their hands tied so it makes it difficult and risky to even enter the platforms. I agree with Jonathan that these pages give companies a face and a voice. For example it’s not Pharmaceutical Company INC. it’s John or Beth at that company. This in returns builds peoples trust especially when you start listening to their suggestions. That information push by the company will have a better chance of getting through to the consumer.
[...] I found most of these Facebook pages. The next question to ponder was raised by Steve Woodruff, Does Pharma Really Have Anything to Offer on Social Media?, and also addressed by Gigi [...]
As everyone knows, social media is a great platform to market your products, create a customer service hub, and keep customers up to date on your company. Pharma is obviously different than most companies because of the FDA’s rules and regulations regarding what they can and can’t share.
Some companies have shown, by their actions, that they will not be able to provide any unique value to their social media presence. They have shown this by removing their Facebook pages. Some of the pages that have been removed on August 15th include; ADHD Allies, ADHD Moms, Take on Depression, Fit in Your Skin, Breakaway from Cancer, Epilepsy Advocate, Strong@Heart, Lysteda, Voices in PAH, MS Voices, and In The Face of Pain.
Until the FDA changes or fortifies their rules and regulations for social media, I believe that pharma will not fully be able to take advantage of the true meaning of social media.