Why'd they do it? What does it mean? More Facebook Questions Answered

At several industry conferences this spring (DTC National and SM for Pharma and likely others) and all across the blogosphere the pharma marketing industry has been abuzz with rumors about a change Facebook would be making to its pages.

The issue at hand was that Facebook would no longer allow pharma companies to turn "off" the commenting functionality on their Facebook pages. Pharma had found this a convenient option in Facebook as a way to still have a Facebook presence, yet maintain complete control over the conversation in order to avoid perceived regulatory risks.

Facebook made an official announcement this week, setting the record straight:

Facebook will no longer allow admins of new pharma Pages to disable commenting on the content their Page shares with people on Facebook. Pages that currently have commenting disabled will no longer have this entitlement after August 15th. Subject to Facebook's approval, branded Pages solely dedicated to a prescription drug may (continue to) have commenting functionality removed.

It's kind of confusing. It took me a while to understand the key issue was really between the ability to POST and the ability to COMMENT on existing posts. For a more in-depth explanation and helpful visuals, I recommend:

• Jim Dayton's point-of-view document. Jim is our Sr Director, Emerging Media. He has had multiple conversations with Facebook on this and received permission to reprint the original Facebook email sent to key contacts.
• Jonathan Richman's thorough review here at Dose of Digital, titled "Pharma Facebook Commenting Changes: The Final Story." Also with helpful visuals.
• Novartis' Brad Pendergraph also had the cool idea to setup a wiki to aggregate info on the topic, but it needs updating per the new information.

What’s the change mean?
Jim and Jon both outline several options around how pharma can still participate in Facebook. If you have or are planning to have a Facebook page for your pharma brand, franchise, corporate presence, etc. you need to read these because the rules have definitely changed. Animal health, medical device, and other similary regulated healthcare industries should pay attention as well.

What does it not mean?

The change does not mean a huge step backward for pharmaceutical companies to participate in social media.

Somewhere along the way, the words “social” and “Facebook” became synonomous. It's true Facebook is where the masses are – and Facebook is likely the most familiar example of social media to many marketers and legal/medical/regulatory folks. But Facebook is not the be-all, end-all of social opportunities. And its not even right for every – perhaps not even right for most – pharmaceutical products’ social presence. Take a cue from companies like sanofi-aventis (client), Roche, and AstraZeneca to learn about some more integrated approaches to participating in social media in a much broader context.

Why’d they do it?

Honestly, sometimes we have no idea why Facebook does the things they do. And some might interpret the news as anti-pharma and imply that Facebook doesn’t want pharma advertising dollars.

Facebook points out, "Facebook Pages are a free product for organizations, public figures, businesses, and brands to express themselves and have an authentic, engaging, two-way dialog with people on Facebook."

Note the mention of “authentic” several times in their email. Our guess as to why they made the decision is that they want Facebook to be used as Facebook was intended – for true “two-way dialogue.” Facebook wants their users’ experience to be consistent from page to page, and to be interactive. "Dis-allowing" commenting goes away from that vision.

In recent months, Facebook has made a more concerted effort to work with the industry and agencies like us to understand implications and communicate changes in advance. Some may disagree with that statement, but remember Facebook doesn’t owe this industry anything. It's a free service. I imagine they have a lot less ad dollars to lose than Google or Yahoo! did, who tweaked their own ad models to accommodate industry regulatory challenges

Is this the final word from Facebook?

I liked how Jon Richman stayed out of the fray until the official word was out from Facebook, and his analysis is a good one. I also thought it brave for Jon to title his blog post "The Final Story." Because in our experience -- in all things social media and especially with Facebook -- things are in constant flux. They keep us all on our toes. More than once I've seen our Emerging Media team raise their fists in the air, faces red and twisted, emitting their primal, gutteral yell "Zuckerberggggg!" It's actually pretty crazy how often things change with Facebook, especially behind the scenes.

So no, it's likely that this is the final word, but just a chapter in a never-ending novel. And this is just a really good example of why it takes a village to manage a social media presence. Someone always needs to be watching out for these things, analyzing the implications, and troubleshooting solutions.

Perhaps, in the long run, this will be a good thing for pharma: To use social media as social media was intended - for authentic conversations and true two-way dialogue with patients.