October 21, 2008
Digital Expiscatoriation
by Peter Pitts
The always savvy Jim Edwards has a thoughtful and important article in this week’s edition of BrandWeek. Its title, “Why Pharma Fears Social Networking,” says it all.
Almost.
Edwards writes that, “Although a majority of marketers have embraced online social media and user-generated content efforts, one industry is conspicuously not taking advantage of the gold rush: pharmaceuticals.”
His use of the term “gold rush” defines the scope of the article. He’s talking about Pharma and social networking in terms of marketing and sales. Well, it is BrandWeek after all. But there's so much more to Pharma and social networking than just marketing. But I'll get to that in a minute.
Jim continues, “Marketers fear that user-generated content will include complaints about injuries caused by their drugs’ side effects. The law requires these “adverse events” to be reported to the FDA. The FDA’s adverse-event databases are regularly combed by lawyers looking for potential class-action suits. Thus, drug marketers have stuck with a decidedly Web 1.0 model, in which customer interaction is kept to an absolute minimum.”
Indeed. And what a truly 21st century malaise it is – being “decidedly Web 1.0” in a 2.0 world. A digital dilemma if ever there was one -- worse even than restless leg syndrome.
But Edwards believes that, “This head-in-the-sand approach may be about to change. A debate is raging in the drug business as to whether companies should adopt a Web 2.0 strategy. On one side are digital agencies telling companies that online customers generate far fewer adverse event reports than drug companies might expect. On the other side are brand managers, whose every published word must survive a thicket of in-house lawyers, some of whom aren’t Internet savvy. The pressure for drug companies to evolve is growing.”
And I am quoted as follows:
“Drug companies need to begin embracing ways to look for adverse events instead of hoping they don’t stumble across them. I think the attitude of ‘there’s safety in ignorance,’ or active ignorance, is no longer actionable or responsible.”
Looking for the early adaptor? The BrandWeek article calls out Johnson & Johnson for specific kudos.
Edwards writes, “One company is attempting to prove it either way: Johnson & Johnson, which in March acquired Childrenwithdiabetes.com, a community site for parents of kids with diabetes. The site has open bulletin boards and even takes ads from competing companies. Joe Natale, vp-new media, said J&J monitors the site for adverse events and people who give incorrect medical advice, but aside from that anyone can post whatever they want. “The best way to destroy that community would be to in any way hamper or infringe upon the way they create content or share information. If [a company thinks] that every post for every user has to be reviewed and copy-cleared in advance, I will tell you not to waste your time.”
Here is the complete BrandWeek article:
There are legal issues – and they’re important. There are marketing opportunities – and they’re exciting. But what really matters is that social media is a terrific opportunity to help educate the various constituencies of American healthcare about all sorts of important issues. Safety? Sure. But also safe use, compliance/adherence, and a host of others.
If safety is important (and it is very important), then pharmaceutical companies should seek out (rather than side-step) ways to uncover legitimate adverse events. By not engaging in 21st century digital expiscatoriation, industry leaves the FDA with little choice but to pursue its own well meaning (if questionably designed) communications vis-à-vis early safety signals. Silence is leaden. The obvious lines between social media and traditional DTC are obvious and will be used by legislators and pundits intent on hoisting the industry with its own petard. Pharma must lead, follow, or get out of the way. Complaining is not an option.
And neither is avoidance.
Posted by peterpitts at 09:17 AM
Comments (0)
| TrackBack | Permalink
