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

Impactiviti blog

Best Practices in Vendor and Project Management

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« Low-Hanging Fruit in Pharma
Recommended: Training Portal Development »

The FDA and Pharma Social Media: My View

February 8, 2011 by Steve Woodruff

I really probably shouldn’t write, or publish, this post.

You’re not supposed to write stuff up when you’re really infuriated.

I’m going to publish it anyway.

Today, at the ePharma Summit conference, we had the much-anticipated talk by Thomas Abrams, Director of DDMAC/FDA. Tom seems like a nice enough guy and this rant isn’t about him personally. We’d probably enjoy a nice talk over a Samuel Adams Winter Ale. It’s about the monstrosity we were subjected to – an overview of the no-decision-making process of this watchdog of American health, the FDA.

If you’re trying to keep up with social media, it’s like racing with speed skaters. What we were subjected to, for 45 minutes, was a description of a Zamboni. Now with bigger brakes!

DDMAC has ostensibly been on the verge, after many months of deep ponderings, of giving some BASIC guidance to the pharma industry about the use of social media in public communications. Turns out nothing of the sort is imminent. In fact, after today’s overview, I’ve sketched out what I believe must be the (simplified) version of the FDA no-decision-making process:

I am now convinced that the industry cannot count on helpful, pro-active, useful, timely guidance from DDMAC. If I’m not mistaken, FDA never even came out with guidance about the web 1.0 Internet. And now our digitally-networked world is evolving even faster (ironically, FDA is making pretty good use of social media tools – for themselves). Social media does not move at a glacial pace – it’s a sprint. Whatever comes out of this mill in 10 years or so will be about as helpful as guidance about the proper use of a FAX machine.

I’m sure there are some very fine people in the FDA, and when abstracted from the bureaucratic tangle that now engulfs what they do in relation to pharma, there are some noble goals about protecting patient health, etc., etc. But when the only deliverable is a process of considering a process to arrive at a decision-making process about reviewing possible preliminary guidance that may or may not be relevant by the time it sees the light of day, well, I’m sorry, but that has nothing to do with human health. It does, however, have everything to do with opportunity cost – the years and man-hours wasted only hold back the ability of industry and patients to get at useful ways to communicate. That’s what makes me so frustrated. The very folks charged with making sure that the right folks get the right message about the right medicines are prescribing beta-blockers when we need eyeglasses.

More research is not a result. It’s an excuse.

Now, let me temper my rant with this fact: short-sighted dolts in the pharma industry who continue to violate pretty straightforward practices about on-label and accurate marketing are bringing all this on themselves. When will we get more courageous leadership in the pharma industry that sees beyond next quarter’s numbers; that values ethics and integrity above maximized profit? When will we see the Golden Rule instead of the Gold-in Rule? I’m all for fair competition, sales, and profit – this is a business marketplace. And a good number of the folks within pharma are seeking to do things right (I know and work with many of them). But the regulatory tangle we are subjected to today is, at least in part, because of jerks who incentivize jerks to cheat the system.

People inside pharma companies cannot speak this bluntly in a public setting, but I’m an outside voice. I have a mind and a conscience and (hopefully) a few remaining shreds of common sense, and it’s time to just tell it like it is. This industry is in serious need of culture change. And so, evidently, is its watchdog. But maybe that’s a premature conclusion. It needs further study. I’d better hold a public hearing and bring in some experts for more advice…and please, just FAX in your comments.

I’ll post them on my Zamboni for public comment.

</rant>

UPDATE: forgot about this year-end spoof I did – now it looks downright prophetic!

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

Posted in epharma, FDA, Pharma, Pharmaceutical, Social Media | 22 Comments

22 Responses

  1. on February 9, 2011 at 12:42 am Leigh Fazzina

    Steve, EXCELLENT post! The industry is indeed in need of a serious culture change. Sometimes I wanna shake these good folks and say “Screw the process, and just cut right to the part that matters most so consumers/patients can benefit, and healthcare companies can do their thing to help patients.” I don’t think the wheel needs to be reinvented here.

    Ya, I get it. All the ducks need to be a row first… But in my mind, the time its taking is just too long and their delay is putting even more fear into those digitally unsavvy marketers who are too scared to do any “social” work until guidance is drafted.

    I had an experience with an organization who refuses to even “listen” to the social conversations b/c they want to see FDA policy in place first. I find that nutso! “Listening” to the social conversations is just that – listening. Are wrists really gonna get slapped by FDA for “listening?” Of course not. But I do think its time for a shaking.


    • on February 9, 2011 at 6:21 am Steve Woodruff

      Leigh – what stands out most in your comment is the “ducks in a row” mentality – that is EXACTLY what we saw on display during the presentation. You can work so hard to get your ducks in a row that you don’t notice that, 1. we’re really dealing with swans now, and 2. the line for the row has changed. The futility of the exercise is vexing.


      • on February 14, 2011 at 9:11 am Leigh Fazzina

        I mean generally speaking… I do agree that the line for the row has changed, and with it, they (FDA) now need to change. The longer it takes them the row(s) will need to change many times.


  2. on February 9, 2011 at 8:50 am David Harlow

    It certainly is frustrating. However, a number of companies have taken some baby steps into this minefield, and while some get their wrists slapped, some have had a modicum of success in building a digital footprint in a manner consistent with the regs and the regulators’ view of the world (however impenetrable that may be). Them that continues to wait for the issuance of the long-awaited guidance will be sorely disappointed. Much ground will be lost, and the guidance is not likely to yield a lightning bolt of illuminating clarity. I recognize that we’re talking about a highly-regulated and in some respects risk-averse industry, but safe steps forward into social media may be taken, just as they may be in other regulated industries. My personal experience also extends to the legal profession and the health care industry, but movement is afoot in the financial services industry, and other regulated industries as well. Bottom line: Can’t wait. Need to start now. If guidelines come out that allow more than what you start out with – fantastic. If not – you’ve still started something worthwhile.


    • on February 13, 2011 at 9:10 am Steve Woodruff

      I’m beginning to think that a bunch of us need to crowdsource a basic guideline document – Practicing Safe Social Media in Pharma – based on the general principles that exist, and the things we’ve learned from the first generation of attempts thus far. It wouldn’t have the imprimatur of FDA Guidance, but as a common-sense summary, it could help companies feel more comfortable getting into the shallow end of the pool.
      I bet it could be done in four weeks!


      • on February 14, 2011 at 9:12 am Leigh Fazzina

        I think this is a great idea.


  3. on February 9, 2011 at 9:32 am Karen Settlemyer

    Steve,

    When I read your last two paragraphs, I couldn’t help but reflect on a book I just finished by Jim Collins, author of “Good to Great.” His latest book is called “How the Mighty Fall” and one of the companies highlighted in it is Merck. He posits that they diverted from their core ideology upon which they were founded and got caught up with short term profit and growth for its own sake. It’s an excellent read–I recommend it.


    • on February 10, 2011 at 10:46 am Steve Woodruff

      Hadn’t heard about that one – thanks, Karen!


  4. on February 9, 2011 at 10:32 am Jane Chin

    I never liked how the FDA remains vague and slow in the past, but today I am much more forgiving of the FDA than I am of pharmaco management.

    I was looking at a recent run down of 2010’s lawsuits settled by drug companies and to say that I’m disappointed with industry’s continual hypocrisy. It’s one thing when you can say that you’re working toward implementation of compliance practices. It’s another when you take one step forward and 3 steps back as an industry in something as “common sense” as “don’t mislead the public” (in every which way that can be done via old media/new media).

    For so many years whether as employee or consultant, I have heard company management say “Patients are our #1 concern! People are our greatest asset! We want to do the right thing!” in public forums and company meetings. Then I look at the actions that are motivated by incentives and hidden rules at companies.

    I’m not surprised why the government keeps ramping up its prosecution arm. I get that pharma changes are slow, but this looks almost as if pharma wants to test how slow it can change. I’m not surprised the FDA has to “slow down to keep up”.

    I have read some of the recent untitled warning letters sent to pharmacos, and the violative actions from pharmacos. If I had to cull through the sheer amount of garbage that pharmacos continue to churn out as sales aid, my resources would come up short as well.


    • on February 10, 2011 at 10:48 am Steve Woodruff

      Good points. The industry brings some of this on itself, no? Maybe pharma marketing/commercial people should organize a new organization under the banner, “Don’t Be Stupid!”


  5. on February 9, 2011 at 10:54 am FDA Has to Slow Down to Keep Up with Drug Companies

    […] Woodruff is hopping mad with the apparent gross inefficiency and indecision of the “guidance process” for […]


  6. on February 9, 2011 at 7:51 pm Phil Baumann

    Sharp, to-the-point words, Steve.

    I’ve been saying this for a while, and none of it surprises me.

    What the industry could have done – years ago – is focus on the parts of social media that don’t need guidance.

    Ambient content creation, accrued over time, would have at least angled up the trust ramp the industry sorely needs.

    It’s not just culture – it’s behavioral change that’s needed. Both are going to be difficult on the regulatory and industrial sides.

    Phil


    • on February 10, 2011 at 10:49 am Steve Woodruff

      Phil, it’s true that there’s still a bunch of stuff that pharma companies can do – and increasingly are doing – apart from any particular guidance. Looks like that will be the New/Old Normal for the coming days…!


  7. on February 9, 2011 at 8:06 pm Richard Meyer

    Welcome to reality ! Anyone that thinks that social media is going to save DTC marketing is sadly mistaken. Research now shows that more and more people are leaving brands behind on social media because brands have not learned that they are media today. Do we really expect at a time of downsizing that pharma is going to add people to implement social media ? Do you really believe that people want to have a social media relationship with a pharma company ?

    The FDA is looking at budget cuts again and right now they have other fish to fry besides social media & DTC marketing. What should be happening is that DDMAC should be allowing the one click rule to fair balance. If they believe that someone is going to see a sentence or two on a search that is promotional and then ask their doctor without doing research than they are truly living in the past.

    DTC marketers have always shortchanged interactive marketing. Hell most of them don’t even understand web analytics or how consumers are really using the Web for health.


    • on February 10, 2011 at 10:51 am Steve Woodruff

      Rich, I’ve always felt that the “one-click” principle of access to complete product information is valid and workable. Though it actually doesn’t go far enough – what we really need is a far more approachable way of expressing product information rather than the nearly useless ISI/PI format.


  8. on February 10, 2011 at 8:42 pm Tom Furlong

    The first part of your “rant” hit on an issue I have seen in many bureaucratic organizations (both public and government)- the negative effects of NOT making a decision. Usually the worst decision is no decision. There are many situations throughout various industries where meetings are held to determine when to have a meeting to decide if a decision needs to be made…. all the while small and nimble competitors rise up to take their marketshare.

    Perhaps a solution would be to limit the FDA to drug/med device approval and allow the FTC to handle how manufacturers could market said products (I know that goes against the current movement to consolidate and streamline govt agencies but if the FDA will not join the 21st century maybe another agency will).

    Such initiatives could be handled by the manufacturing associations but, as the second part of your note demonstrates, the manufacturers can not really be trusted to promote their products in an ethical manner due to the recent instances of off-label marketing, etc.


    • on February 13, 2011 at 9:11 am Steve Woodruff

      And therein lies the conundrum!


  9. on February 12, 2011 at 3:21 pm Ellen Hoenig

    Stevem
    love it when you rant…:-)

    Between the lack of action/decision making by FDA and the lack of ‘right’ action by many [not all] pharma cos–it is disappointing–and the only ones really hurt are the patients…what gets me going is all the patient-centric rhetoric on both sides…
    Ellen


    • on February 13, 2011 at 9:12 am Steve Woodruff

      It’s all about the patients, Ellen. Not turf. Not profits. Not CYA, Not power. The patients… :>(


  10. on February 12, 2011 at 11:33 pm Fabio Gratton

    Steve,

    What bums me about the most of what you’ve written is how much this whole thing has gotten under your skin. I get it, trust me. Meaning, the frustration. That’s why you’re not seeing much of me these days in “the circuit”. I figured, I have a choice. I can either continue to slam my head against a wall hoping something will give, or we simply stop, think, re-group, and channel my energies into how we are going to change the world. The FDA is not the answer. Their guidance is not the answer. How pharma cos behave in light of regs or no regs will also not be the answer. The answer will come from identifying the problems we want to solve, picking the solutions we want to try, taking the risk and trying, not giving up when we fail, then getting up and going at it again … regardless of what the rest of the world is doing / or what they think of us. If you (we) genuinely believe that what is important is indeed important (as it clearly is to you, based on what you have written), then we owe it to ourselves (and perhaps the world around us) to do everything in our power to fight the good fight. I know you know this, but I thought I might as well write it down so I remind myself why I sometimes feel this way too, and what I need to do about it. So thank you for giving me a reason to remember why I fight.


    • on February 13, 2011 at 9:14 am Steve Woodruff

      You know, Fabio, I really didn’t and don’t expect the FDA to be our knight in shining armor, leading us into the promised land of SocMed. I was just appalled at the blatant display of bureaucratic wheel-spinning. No help is coming from that quarter. Maybe it’s time to resurrect our idea of “Safe Social Media” Principles and just do it ourselves, as a common-sense crowdsourced outline of what seems to be do-able in the environment thus far. In?


      • on February 13, 2011 at 1:24 pm Fable gratton

        It was a good idea then, it’s an even better idea now. Yes, I’m in.



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

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
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: