• Home
  • About Steve Woodruff
  • Contact
  • Let’s Talk!
  • About Impactiviti

Impactiviti blog

Best Practices in Vendor and Project Management

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« Impactiviti Daily 031510
“I Hate Her Uterus!” »

Pharma Blogging/Tweeting: One or Many?

March 15, 2010 by Steve Woodruff

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.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

Posted in Communications, J&J, Johnson and Johnson, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharma, Social Media, Twitter | Tagged Blogging, J&J, Networking, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharma, Social Media | 6 Comments

6 Responses

  1. on March 15, 2010 at 8:25 am Impactiviti Daily 031510 « Impactiviti blog

    […] 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? […]


  2. on March 15, 2010 at 8:29 am Liz

    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.


  3. on March 15, 2010 at 9:14 am smintern

    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.


  4. on March 15, 2010 at 5:03 pm harmel2

    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.


  5. on March 15, 2010 at 8:31 pm Miguel

    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.


  6. on March 26, 2010 at 10:18 am Shannon

    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.



Comments are closed.

  • Welcome!


    Steve Woodruff
    sw
    President, Impactiviti
  • Testimonials


    “Steve Woodruff is one of the most “networked” people I’ve found in pharmaceutical training. His communications are always smart and targeted, and I value his professional partnership.” -Jennifer Zinn, Director, Worldwide Marketing, Clinical Laboratory, Ortho Clinical Diagnostics

    Read More Testimonials
  • Subscribe to our e-newsletter

    Sign up for the Impactiviti Connection!
  • Subscribe to the blog!

    Subscribe in a reader
  • Subscribe via e-mail

    Subscribe to Impactiviti blog by Email
  • Recent Posts

    • Try Out the Random Vendor Generator!
    • Clocks, Toddlers, and Project Management
    • What are you delivering (via LMS)?
    • Today’s Pharma News 8/18/2017
    • Today’s Pharma News 8/16/17
    • Today’s Pharma News 8/15/17
    • Today’s Pharma News (8/14/17)
    • Lighting “afar” in Nashville – LTEN 2017 re-cap
    • Let’s Stop Committing Training Malpractice!
    • Getting Ready for Nashville 1-2-3-4!
  • Archives

    • November 2017
    • October 2017
    • August 2017
    • June 2017
    • May 2017
    • April 2017
    • March 2017
    • February 2017
    • January 2017
    • December 2016
    • November 2016
    • October 2016
    • June 2016
    • April 2016
    • March 2016
    • February 2016
    • January 2016
    • December 2015
    • November 2015
    • October 2015
    • September 2015
    • August 2015
    • July 2015
    • June 2015
    • May 2015
    • April 2015
    • March 2015
    • February 2015
    • January 2015
    • December 2014
    • October 2014
    • September 2014
    • August 2014
    • July 2014
    • June 2014
    • May 2014
    • April 2014
    • March 2014
    • February 2014
    • January 2014
    • November 2013
    • October 2013
    • September 2013
    • August 2013
    • July 2013
    • June 2013
    • May 2013
    • April 2013
    • March 2013
    • February 2013
    • January 2013
    • December 2012
    • November 2012
    • October 2012
    • September 2012
    • July 2012
    • June 2012
    • May 2012
    • April 2012
    • March 2012
    • February 2012
    • January 2012
    • December 2011
    • November 2011
    • October 2011
    • September 2011
    • August 2011
    • July 2011
    • June 2011
    • May 2011
    • April 2011
    • March 2011
    • February 2011
    • January 2011
    • December 2010
    • November 2010
    • October 2010
    • September 2010
    • August 2010
    • July 2010
    • June 2010
    • May 2010
    • April 2010
    • March 2010
    • February 2010
    • January 2010
    • December 2009
    • November 2009
    • October 2009
    • September 2009
    • August 2009
    • July 2009
    • June 2009
    • May 2009
    • April 2009
    • March 2009
    • February 2009
    • January 2009
    • December 2008
    • November 2008
    • October 2008
    • September 2008
    • August 2008
    • July 2008
    • June 2008
    • May 2008
    • April 2008
    • March 2008
    • February 2008
    • January 2008
    • December 2007
    • November 2007
    • October 2007
    • September 2007
    • August 2007
    • July 2007
    • June 2007
    • May 2007
    • April 2007
    • March 2007
    • February 2007
    • January 2007
    • December 2006
    • November 2006
    • October 2006
    • September 2006
    • August 2006
    • July 2006

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

WPThemes.


  • Follow Following
    • Impactiviti blog
    • Join 30 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Impactiviti blog
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Copy shortlink
    • Report this content
    • View post in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
%d bloggers like this: