As more and more pharmaceutical companies dip their toes into social media, one of the issues that surfaces regularly is this: do you put someONE in charge of a blog and/or Twitter account, or do you make it more anonymous? Or something else?
Let’s discuss this. I’ll put out my thoughts; add yours in the comments.
I’ve always advocated that pharma companies should use social networks to humanize their companies, which means employing human faces and voices – having real, authentic, and effective communicators working these channels. People. Folks you can relate to meet, meet at a conference, carry on backchannel discussions with, etc.
J&J has been very effective with this; Marc Monseau has served effectively as the “voice” of J&J in the socialsphere. Recently, Pfizer (@pfizer_news on Twitter) has updated its Twitter account to include a face and a name – Jennifer Kokell, self-identified as tweeting from Global Corporate Media Relations in NYC. Jennifer works with Ray Kerins, who has been aggressively shaking up the Communications practices at Pfizer, including a healthy push into social media.
But the question comes up – what if a company’s social media presence is too dependent on one person? And here the fine line must be walked – on the one hand, social media is all about individuals and personality and dialogue between people – but companies are not one person. And people move on.
By and large, people don’t want another nameless, faceless monolithic channel in social media – some unnamed drone churning out one-way communications in the name of “the company” who has about as much relational value as a dead fish. So – how to strike the balance?
Here’s one idea for larger companies – have a team presence for your blog and Twitter account. Multiple people – say, 3 or 4 – who contribute posts and tweets about a cross-section of the company’s activities. These would be real people with names, pictures, and off-line appearances – but the team approach would reflect the reality that a company IS made up of diverse individuals, and would also make the social media presence less dependent on a solo individual (reflecting the hit-by-a-bus reality of the non-expendable individual). While J&J’s social presence is spearheaded by Marc Monseau, their corporate blog actually has other contributing authors.
That would be one approach for an “official” social media presence. What about “unofficial” social media representatives? I like what is happening at Novartis, where various individuals such as Brad Pendergraph, Colin Foster, Mark Davis, Erik Hawkinson, Ben Atkins and others tweet as professional and accessible human beings who work at Novartis (thus achieving some humanizing of the company) but who have a unique presence reflecting their personal interests and professional perspectives. In fact, with Novartis, the “unofficial” social media presence has far outstripped progress on its “official” corporate social media footprint.
We’re all still on the learning curve with this stuff and companies are experimenting and evolving. What’s your take? One? Many? None? How can a company project humanity and authenticity without too much solo-representative risk?
———-
Subscribe to the Impactiviti blog via e-mail (which will bring you Impactiviti Daily – a brief of the day’s top pharma news)
Visit the Impactiviti Job Board
Sign up for the Impactiviti Connection twice-monthly e-newsletter (see sample)
Download free e-book: Getting Started with Social Networking.
[…] You’ve heard all about reach and frequency. How about each and recently? And, when it comes to Pharma and Social Media: One or Many? […]
As someone who tweets professionally for a company (non-pharma), I must say that I don’t necessarily agree with the statement about the monolithic presence with as much relational value as a dead fish. While this is often the case, it’s not always the case and I think that like any other type of marketing value, each case is distinct. Having said that however, if me and my team were to approach this again, we would do it differently and have unique voices in the fold. The challenge becomes continuity in the conversation; unique voices can both help and hinder an effort.
Another challenge is the Twitter interface, which doesn’t make it possible for more than one individual to tweet from a single account. That’s an important change that needs to be put into place.
Steve,
I totally agree with this and suggested it a couple of years ago. See “A Primer on Pharma Employee Blogging”; http://bit.ly/3mV9yA; use code ‘GSK222’ to download it free.
More than one person can log into and tweet from the same account. One approach could be to use initials at the end of the post that have identifiers on the Twitter identity page.
Twitter and other SM tools can be used in different ways. I think that a corporate and impersonal account can be as valid, useful and engaging as a personal account (linked to one o more individuals) depending on the content (messages, conversations,…) provided.
I currently follow corporate accounts that show greater interaction and engagement than some personal accounts. What’s matter is to have set clear objectives and with regards to strategy I think there is not a single approach that can work.
While I agree with the idea that a face behind the corporate brand is helpful and humanizing, and I think a team of people can help even more by providing multiple viewpoints and experiences, in Pharma it is key that all of those members understand the regulatory nature of this industry. Pharma may be slow to “dip” into the social media sphere because FDA regulation makes it a little more difficult to just say anything. If a team approach is your solution then someone needs to play an auditor role who has final tweeting authority or the entire team needs to be aware of the regulations that may or may not get them into trouble tweeting about their products.