Pharma Finds its Voice on Twitter

In case you don't have the time to keep track of all the pharma co's joining Twitter recently, we created a chart (current as of Sept. 29, 2009), with every known pharma company currently actively tweeting on Twitter, courtesy of the Intouch Solutions Emerging Media team.

[Side note: Yes, I'd love it if the chart were dynamic and updated itself regularly, but alas, our developers are mega-busy on client projects and other internal endeavors to build something like that for my lowly blog. So yeah - I recognize it could be snazzier - but this is all I got for now...]

And at least it's a snapshot at this moment in time that I hope you find useful for things like:

• Keeping track of who's on Twitter ... and who isn't (top 10 pharmas not on Twitter? Just Abbott, Wyeth, Merck)
• See which corporate presence has been on Twitter the longest (a tie between Boehringer Ingelheim & Novartis) and who tweets the most (not surprisingly, J&J)
• Seeing how the different pharma co's leverage Twitter - As a dialogue (BI & AZ), as a press release vehicle (Novartis; probably all they could get regulatory to agree to), and for branded tweets in the case of Novo Nordisk.
• Making the case, if needed, with your regulatory folks that "everyone else is doin' it." At this point, they practically are, if even at the corporate level.
• Exclaiming "wow we've come a long way" in comparison to even 6 months ago!

Seen by the statistics, many new pharma names have started to participate on Twitter just within the last 6-9 months. The variety of Twitter uses is interesting, and -- for those of us in the business -- surprisingly engaging! If you're interested in a deeper analysis, I recommend this WhyDotPharma post.

If we missed anyone, please let us know. Personally, I've really enjoyed watching this group grow and evolve over the past months. As more pharmas join Twitter and find their own voices, the more we'll all learn.

See you on Twitter! ( www.twitter.com/wendyblackburn or www.twitter.com/intouchsol)

PHARMA CO'S ON TWITTER

Company	Twitter Address	Following	Followers	Updates	Date Joined
Allergan	@Allergan	0	585	0	(Inactive Account)
Amgen	@Amgen	0	1377	55	May 2009
Astellas US	@AstellasUS	142	407	36	July 2009
Astra Zeneca US	@AstraZenecaUS	305	1818	217	Jan. 2009
Bayer	@Bayer	50	237	Request to follow pending	Request to follow pending
Boehringer Ingelheim	@Boehringer	2011	2768	339	Nov. 2008
BoehringerUS	@BoehringerUS	220	457	13	Aug. 2009
GE Healthcare	@GEHealthcare	1122	1153	59	July 2009
Genentech	@Genentechnews	78	1889	35	May 2009
Glaxo GSK US	@GSKUS	90	1569	118	May 2009
Johnson & Johnson	@JNJComm	1121	2203	419	Feb. 2009
Novartis	@Novartis	10	3040	89	Nov. 2008
Novo Nordisk Race With Insulin	@RaceWithInsulin	0	688	168	June 2009
Pfizer	@pfizer_news	829	2383	41	July 2009
Roche	@Roche_com	316	1926	355	Feb. 2009
Sanofi Pasteur	@sanofipasteur	3	472	21	June 2009
Sanofi-Aventis TV	@sanofiaventisTV	511	527	81	May 2009
Sanofi Voices	@sanofiVOICES	112	153	57	May 2009

A special shout-out to Sarah in our Emerging Media dept. who's updated this chart already about a million times, and helped me get it into Blogger too!

Google Sidewiki: How Will Pharma Respond?

It's hard to keep track of all of Google's new technology launches. Sometimes I pay attention, sometimes I don't. But the launch of Google's sidewiki this week certainly caused a stir in our pharma marketing agency. Here's why:

• Google sidewiki is a sort of browser-add on tool that allows commentary on ANY site.
• When installed and enabled, users can freely post comments that appear in a box beside the web site being viewed. (See image of the sidewiki concept above on Google's own sidewiki page. I tried to find a branded product.com site with sidewiki comments but didn't find any. yet.)
• It's easy to install.
• It's Google, and they are promoting it through Google Toolbar, so it's likely going to stick around and have decent levels of adoption.

Our Emerging Media department immediately wrote a brief and distributed it to our clients (did your agency do the same? they should have.). Here are some points we made:

This idea of universal commenting could be a problem for regulated industries like pharma. The control of content is further in the hands of consumers. For example, marketers will not be able to control the user-generated comments in the sidewiki window appearing alongside a branded Web site. However, Google did build in the following controls:

• Sidewiki posts are arranged by a Google-created algorithm that lists posts according to usefulness and quality
• Quality is determined by indicators like user votes, author’s authority, and text analysis
• Users can vote on a comment’s usefulness and report abuse
• “Report a policy violation” page defines “abuse” as being spam, containing illegal content, or advocating hate or violence.
• The Sidewiki requires users to sign in via their Google accounts, relinquishing the ability to post abusive comments anonymously
• The Google Sidewiki must be downloaded in order to view comments

The way I see it, pharma has a few options for how to respond. I can hear the discussions echoing in Big Pharma's hallways now:

1. "Take down all Web sites. Immediately. We just can't have them anymore. This internet stuff is just too risky."
2. "Post a disclaimer on all Web sites. That will help protect us."
3. "Wow all this social media technology is super cool. Let's just give up and embrace it - in fact, shouldn't we be encouraging commentary?" (not likely)
4. "We need to get some monitoring in place. Pronto. Complain to Google that they need to take down any comments that are overly good, overly bad, or an adverse event." (also not likely)
5. "Meh. Let's just ignore the fact that sidewiki exists. It's time we realize that we just can't control everything, nor can FDA expect us to. Let's focus on what we CAN control." (most likely)

Steve Woodruff over at Impactiviti Daily had it right in this post and in a Twitter comment where he also said "It's not the adoption %, it's the principle." Fellow blogger Phil Baumann also has some salient points worth reading in his post "Google SideWiki: How to Brace Yourself for a Communications Bitch Slap."

No matter who or how many people use sidewiki, it poses a whole new dilemma for pharma marketers, and especially regulators. Time will tell just what level of response - if any - there will be.

Time for Me to Eat Crow: FDA is Holding a Hearing on Social Media After All

First, congratulations are in order.

No doubt due to the groundswell of calls by the industry for social media directives, if you haven't heard by now, FDA has announced a hearing on the "Promotion of Food and Drug Administration-Regulated Medical Products Using the Internet and Social Media Tools." See the official notice from FDA here, dated Sept. 21.

Fellow pharma blogger John Mack first broke the news (a fact of which he is understandably proud!) on his blog Sept. 19. The announcement follows a long line of calls from the industry for a hearing on the subject.

FDA has said it’s going to listen to us. Whether they do anything with our suggestions is another matter. And I must admit I never thought it would happen. I’m eating crow, because I’d once tweeted the following, as quoted on the eyeforpharma blog:

FDA will never address this ... they've never addressed online channel at all except to say same rules apply

At least when I am wrong, I admit it. Heck, I even call attention to it. But surely I'm not the only one that was surprised? Weren't you?

Anyway ... it's time to get prepared.

To comment, submit your opinions, or request to attend or even speak at the event, visit http://www.regulations.gov/ and search by the document type "Notices" and document number fr21se09-58. Last time I was on the site, this one was showing up as a "hot" item in the list at the bottom, which will save you some search time. (A warning: this is a gov't site obviously built by the lowest bidder and is difficult to navigate. Interestingly, a poll on the site asked me what social media functionality I’d like to see there in the future! But I digress ...)

From there, you will "Submit a Comment" which is for any of these three actions:

1. Submit your comments, opinions, and ideas for consideration in connection with the topic (they may become public record so it's definitely not the place for your random rant)
2. Request to attend the event - be sure to include your contact information since they don't actually supply a form for that info.
3. Request to speak at the event - Again, be sure to include your contact information.

I wasn't sure the above direction was correct, so I actually called the regulations.gov Help Desk. They were very helpful! Once your comment/request is submitted, you will receive a confirmation number.

Note these key dates:

• Oct. 9 - Deadline for registration to attend and/or to participate in the meeting; accepted on a first-come, first-served basis.
• Nov. 12 - 13: Public Hearing in D.C.
• February 28, 2010: All comments due, which can be submitted via snail mail or the above mentioned Web site.

The hearing is not far away. 49 days to be exact, but who's counting?

Again, FDA has asked what we think. It’s our turn to tell them … in a thoughtful, reasonable, realistic manner, of course, and with data to back it up.

I know I’m getting my thoughts organized, how about you?
______________________________________

P.S. - I was traveling 9/21 when the news was all over Twitter, so I missed the #FDAsm TwitterFrenzy. But I've now had a chance to not only review the notice but also read what other bloggers and media had to say; below are a few worth reading:

• John Mack’s original post and his survey on the subject
• Five myths surrounding FDA & media - a good reality check for us all
• Advertising Age article and comments – Because it’s always interesting to see non-pharma advertisers weigh in on pharma-centric issues.
• John Mack’s Official FDA Hearing T-shirt – have you ordered yours yet?

5 Reflections from Alaska

The state of Alaska might seem an odd place to reflect on pharma marketing truths and tenets. But after a recent 2-week trip to the Land of the Midnight Sun, I was inspired by both the wildlife and humans that inhabit that strange land. Below are some of those reflections …

1. Eat what you can when you can. One arm of our trip was at the amazing Brooks Camp bear refuge in Katmai National Park. There, coastal grizzly bears fed incessantly on salmon and other fish, fattening up for the winter hibernation. But further north in Denali National Park, the grizzly bears were much smaller in stature. That’s because their bear buffet consisted mostly of wild berries, with not a salmon in sight. But still, they survive and even thrive. The lesson? Sometimes you have to just take what you can get. Maybe your regulatory team won’t let you launch that Twitter page yet. But will they at least let you monitor social media, in order to listen to the conversations that are inevitably happening with or without you? Listening is the first step to starting that dialogue. Maybe they’ll come around … don’t give up.
   
2. Adapt or die. In Denali National Park, we were lucky enough to spot three specific, unique animals - the snowshoe hair, arctic ground squirrel, and willow ptarmigan - that all change color with the season. When the severe and snow-covered blanket of winter falls upon the Alaskan Range, these animals adapt their camouflage by turning white.
   
   Marketers - especially pharma marketers - need to be able to adapt as well. If you're still sticking to your traditional advertising approach, those days are over. Across the board, budgets have been shifting to digital marketing for a reason. Though big pharma's big wheels are infamous for turning slowly, it's exciting to see many pharmaceutical companies beginning to embrace new opportunities in online marketing and social media. Are you in marketing but aren’t comfortable or knowledgeable about digital yet? Know a little about digital but need to deep-dive into specialty areas such as analytics, search marketing, email, usability, or media? It’s time to get smart. Hire a knowledgeable agency and let them help you get where you need to be.
   
3. Be passionate about what you do. We saw a demonstration of the amazing sled dogs that carry the Denali park rangers on three-week patrols during Denali’s harsh winters. The dogs got so excited when the sled was brought out for harnessing that the handlers had to lift the dogs up on their back two legs so they could control them. Say what you will about the perceived inhumanity of sled dog races like the Iditarod, but the dogs we saw in Denali absolutely LOVE pulling that sled. They live for it.
   
   I’ve heard more than one client-side pharma marketer be completely exasperated about their world lately; some are even looking to get out of the industry altogether. I understand. Between warning letters, regulatory restrictions, conservative mindsets, and banging our heads against the social media wall, these are tough times to be a pharma marketer. But hang in there! This industry needs your passion – now more than ever – to get us out of the funk and get some creative, innovative, and effective pharma marketing out there. The pendulum is always swinging back and forth … this, too, shall pass.
   
4. Take advantage of what you have when you have it, and make the best of what you have when you don't. When we were in Alaska in August, the sun was setting at about 10:30 p.m. each night, but they were losing 7 minutes of daylight a day. One Homer, AK local explained that in the summer, locals make it a habit to make the most of the daylight. They work hard, play hard, get a lot less sleep, and take full advantage of the long days and sunlight. In the winter, they hunker down. They tend to work less hours and sleep a lot more. Makes sense, right? Kind of like the bears hibernating.
   
   The pharma industry is at a crossroads. Blockbusters are going the way of smaller niche drugs. With digital marketing and social media upon us, the marketing world is changing dramatically. Healthcare reform may have serious implications for the way pharmaceutical companies operate. We must make the best of what we have today, because we never know – good or bad –what tomorrow may bring.
   
5. It's okay - and often wise - to challenge conventional wisdom. As long as you have the data to back it up. One American naturalist, Adolph Murie, made an important mark on how the National Parks Service handled wolves. Wolves had long been observed killing prey such as caribou and Dall sheep, and their predatory habits were considered bad for the parks’ ecosystem. After spending years as the first scientist to study the wolves’ behavior in the wild, Murie actually went against conventional thinking that wolves were a nuisance. In fact, Murie’s research showed the opposite – that the wolves weeded out the sick and meek prey, leaving the stronger and healthier animals to survive and reproduce. His research led directly to the termination of predator eradication programs in Yellowstone and Mt. McKinley/Denali national parks. Considered a rebel and a rogue at the time, today Murie is revered and remembered with memorials, national landmarks, and awards in his honor.
   
   The moral of Murie’s story? Don’t be afraid to go against the status quo. You just might change the world in the process.

Special thanks to hubby @BlackburnPhoto for the great wolf photo. Love wildlife? See more amazing pics from our trip on his Flickr page here.

Swine: A Chance for Pharma to Shine

As reported by the Washington Times, four of the five companies licensed to produce vaccines in the U.S. had their swine flu vaccines approved by the FDA yesterday. That's great news for Americans fearing an epidemic on proportions that many current generations have never seen.

It's worthwhile to note that the headline of the article actually stated:
... but then goes on to admit that the effort "is looking successful so far ..."

So let me get this straight. There is a flurry of activity - yes - but so far no true signs of "struggle?" They got the vaccines approved, they're producing them, they are preparing to distribute them. Then why the sensational headline?

I also found it interesting that this particular article doesn't even give those drugmakers credit by name. For the record, they include Sanofi-Aventis, Novartis, CSL, and AstraZeneca.

The article is just another example of three things:

• There is a strong media bias against Big Pharma
• When pressed, the FDA can move pretty fast after all
• Pharma has some major reputation-building to do

IMO, I think it's amazing that, in this day and age, these companies can respond as quickly as they have. Keep in mind H1N1 influenza was only discovered just five months ago, FDA just approved the vaccine yesterday, and they're expecting to be ready to distribute within four weeks. Anyone involved in drug discovery, clinical research, or the pharma industry as a whole will recognize this is light speed by pharma standards.

What a great opportunity to tell the story of how pharmaceutical companies work hard to save lives! When the world cried out for a way to stop the spread of swine flu, pharma answered. This isn't sensational - these are the facts. But you can bet pharma will get little or no credit for it. And I am sure they will have to be very careful with pricing, or there will be scuttlebutt over that, too.

I've certainly found myself defending pharma before. But I hope someone - at the pharma companies' corporate offices or at PhRMA or even FDA - is thinking about a communications strategy around this. As opportunistic as the media and public are about looking for ways to pick on Big Pharma, would it be so wrong to make sure people know about Pharma's Herculean efforts to battle H1N1? With the new digital dynamic and the social world we live in, a simple idea like that could spread like wildfire. Well, maybe it's not all that simple. But we have to start somewhere.

So, go ahead, give Big Pharma a little credit for helping the world out with their swine flu epidemic. Just sayin'.

Pharma Struggles to Meet
H1N1 Vaccine Orders

How FDA Chooses to Use Twitter

Did you know the FDA has a drug information Twitter page?

The page stays true to it's dry mission of tweeting on "the latest drug information from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration."

This apparently includes new drug approvals, safety concerns, label changes, recalls, and the like. Here's a sample list of tweets:

New Drug Approval with REMS: Onsolis (fentanyl buccal soluble film) for breakthough pain. http://tinyurl.com/n55nf211:38 AM Jul 16th from web

FDA Approves Plan B One-Step for Single Dose Emergency Contraception and Lowers Age for Nonprescription Plan B. http://tinyurl.com/nt4xop12:13 PM Jul 15th from web

Information for Healthcare Professionals: FDA Requires Labeling Changes for Immunosuppressant Drugs. http://tinyurl.com/nnhmjy11:20 AM Jul 14th from web

New Drug Approval: Effient (prasugrel) to reduce the risk of blood clots in patients who undergo angioplasty. http://tinyurl.com/kk628p3:36 PM Jul 10th from web

New Generic Drug Information: Facts and Myths about Generic Drugs. http://tinyurl.com/kvtaad9:39 AM Jul 10th from web

New Regulatory Action: FDA takes action on Darvon and other medications containing propoxyphene. http://tinyurl.com/l3x6pa5:55 PM Jul 7th from web

New Drug Approval: Alimta (pemetrexed) for maintenance therapy of advanced or metastatic lung cancer. http://tinyurl.com/lv8ec810:43 AM Jul 7th from web

The page seems to have been around since July and has issued about 40 tweets in total, but I first heard about it from fellow pharma blogger Mark Senak over at EyeOnFDA. Mark pointed out that on September 11, the FDA announced the Twitter presence on its Web site.

It can also be noted that FDA already has another Twitter page at FDARecalls, which many people (including myself) had followed and then subsequently unfollowed because, who knew there were so many food recalls? But with 12,000 followers, there are plenty of people who follow that news. (This just in today ... massive recall of Gimbob Fish Cake!!)

Anyway ... we'll all be watching the FDA_Drug_Info Twitter page closely. At the time of this writing they had over 1500 followers but were only following 6 people. They also don't RT anything and don't seem to respond to anyone either.

Hmmm ... only following 6. Does that mean they don't know how to engage with Twitter, that they don't want to, or that they consider "following" an endorsement?

They seem to be taking the approach that many have criticized pharma for doing ... using Twitter as a one-way "push" mechanism to get their own word out, but not engaging in any kind of conversation. Not surprising I suppose.

And they've tweeted with brand names but no fair balance and no link to PI. [Example tweet from 9/11: FDA has approved NDA Vibativ (telavancin) for injection for complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSI).] I guess if it's coming from FDA, it's not considered promotion. Then again, one would like to think they'd follow their own rules.

These are all issues that our clients' regulatory reviewers have been considering closely.

This will be an interesting one to watch indeed.

"Real" People vs. Celebrity Spokespeople

I read with interest this Forbes story today about how major global organizations such as Marriott, Dell, and American Express have decided to use "real" people in their ad campaigns.

The headline reads:

In These Ads, Customers Are The Celebrities

Real people make effective pitchfolk at a time when big businesses aren't trusted.

And I had to smile. Because using "real" people (as opposed to actors, celebrities, or professional sports figures) in campaigns is something we've been counseling our clients to do for years.

Certainly pharma has had its share of celebrity spokespeople, with mixed results. The Rock, Jack Mackenroth, , LeAnn Rimes, Wynonna Judd, Ty Pennington, Tim Gunn, and Michael Welch are just a few of the most recent pharma spokespeople that come to mind. And if Pfizer’s Dr. Jarvis qualifies as a celebrity – well -we all know how that ended up.

There will always be people (media especially) that would rather glom onto a story about a celebrity than the “boring consumer-next-door” John Doe. And celebrity spokespeople will probably always have a place in pharmaceutical marketing, especially cause-related marketing.

But most people would rather hear from people like them, and market research reinforces that time and again.

Also from the Forbes article:

These apparently aren't the times for slick models or celebrity pitch-people.

It’s a little ironic that major corporations with trust issues are – dare we say – taking a cue from pharma marketing . But it’s also a nice reinforcement that pharma is doing something right.