Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Thank	  you	  for	  invi.ng	  me	  speak	  at	  the	  Roche	  Digital	  Academy!	  Unfortunately,	  I	  will	  have	  to	 ...
I	  this	  presenta.on,	  I	  will	  show	  you	  some	  pharma	  social	  media	  “milestones”	  or	  “firsts”	  that	  ha...
The	  dic.onary	  defines	  "aficionado"	  as	  a	  “person	  who	  is	  very	  knowledgeable	  and	  enthusias.c	  about	  ...
FDA’s	  famous	  14	  leAers	  alerted	  pharma	  to	  the	  fact	  that	  the	  agency	  is	  now	  looking	  carefully	 ...
The	  14	  leAers	  took	  aim	  squarely	  at	  the	  so-­‐called	  “one-­‐click	  rule”	  which	  was	  not	  a	  rule	 ...
I’d	  like	  to	  believe	  that	  my	  call	  for	  public	  hearings	  back	  in	  April	  2009,	  mo.vated	  the	  FDA	...
Congress	  put	  some	  language	  in	  in	  recent	  legisla.on	  that	  requires	  the	  FDA	  to	  issue	  social	  med...
Over	  the	  2011	  Christmas	  holidays,	  while	  most	  of	  us	  were	  s.ll	  on	  vaca.on,	  the	  FDA	  quietly	  i...
As	  soon	  as	  the	  FDA	  issued	  the	  public	  no.ce	  about	  the	  hearings	  and	  posted	  19	  ques.ons	  it	  ...
FDA	  asked	  “Open-­‐Ended”	  ques.ons.	  My	  survey	  asked	  respondents	  to	  vote	  on	  specific	  op.ons	  as	  we...
Another	  survey	  I	  hosted	  asked	  slightly	  different	  ques.ons	  in	  an	  aAempt	  to	  define	  some	  “best	  pr...
Comments	  submiAed	  to	  the	  FDA	  docket	  by	  the	  drug	  industry	  allow	  us	  to	  learn	  more	  about	  what...
Back	  to	  my	  survey.	  How	  pharma	  corrects	  or	  allows	  misinforma.on	  to	  be	  posted	  on	  social	  media	...
One	  important	  3rd-­‐party	  site	  where	  misinforma.on	  about	  drugs	  may	  be	  found	  is	  Wikipedia.	  “If	  ...
According	  to	  my	  survey,	  the	  vast	  majority	  –	  83%	  –	  of	  pharma	  respondents	  think	  it	  is	  imposs...
The	  “iden.fiable	  reporter”	  is	  the	  most	  difficult	  bit	  of	  “required”	  informa.on	  to	  obtain.	  “Many	  pe...
Pharma	  companies	  had	  some	  sugges.ons	  for	  how	  FDA	  could	  help	  the	  industry	  deal	  with	  online	  ad...
Meanwhile,	  some	  companies	  are	  sexng	  the	  “Gold	  Standard”	  for	  managing	  online	  adverse	  event	  report...
The	  Associa.on	  of	  the	  Bri.sh	  Pharmaceu.cal	  Industry	  has	  also	  come	  out	  with	  specific	  guidelines	  ...
Despite	  the	  lack	  of	  FDA	  guidance,	  pharmaceu.cal	  marketers	  have	  come	  a	  long	  way	  in	  integra.ng	 ...
These	  results,	  of	  course,	  are	  based	  on	  a	  very	  small	  number	  of	  responses.	  It	  seems,	  however,	...
Let’s	  look	  at	  more	  detail	  regarding	  how	  pharma	  employees	  rate	  their	  companies’	  readiness	  to	  de...
While	  pharma	  may	  be	  gexng	  more	  comfortable	  engaging	  in	  social	  media	  without	  FDA	  guidance,	  ther...
An	  example	  of	  this	  was	  the	  shutdown	  of	  the	  Psoriasis	  Facebook	  page	  by	  Janssen	  Pharmaceu.cals.	...
There	  were	  examples	  of	  pharma-­‐owned	  or	  sponsored	  open	  discussion	  boards	  even	  before	  Facebook	  b...
Of	  course,	  there	  is	  good	  reason	  why	  pharma	  companies	  fear	  comments	  on	  Facebook	  as	  this	  case	...
Sanofi	  learned	  from	  its	  mistakes	  and	  even	  spoke	  about	  them	  in	  a	  public	  forum;	  i.e.,	  my	  Phar...
Even	  the	  biggest	  pharma	  company	  in	  the	  world	  can	  be	  humbled	  by	  Facebook	  backlash.	  In	  this	  ...
Although	  Pfizer	  got	  into	  trouble	  with	  comments	  on	  Facebook,	  it	  did	  not	  shrink	  from	  allowing	  c...
In	  the	  U.S.,	  of	  course,	  direct-­‐to-­‐consumer	  branded	  drug	  adver.sing	  is	  permissible,	  but	  is	  it...
Back	  in	  November,	  2011,	  I	  asked	  “Will	  a	  Pharma	  Company	  Ever	  Host	  a	  Chat	  on	  TwiAer?”	  (hAp:/...
It	  is	  one	  thing	  to	  host	  a	  TwiAer	  chat	  where	  you	  can	  control	  what	  is	  being	  posted	  by	  yo...
Having	  social	  media	  principles	  that	  guide	  how	  your	  employees	  use	  social	  media	  and	  interact	  wit...
Roche	  is	  the	  only	  pharmaceu.cal	  company	  that	  has	  publicly	  disclosed	  its	  social	  media	  principles....
In	  closing,	  I	  would	  like	  to	  emphasize	  that	  to	  implement	  a	  strategy	  for	  using	  social	  media	  ...
Overcoming Pharma’s Social Media Challenges
Overcoming Pharma’s Social Media Challenges
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Overcoming Pharma’s Social Media Challenges

4,351

Published on

I this presentation, I present pharma social media “milestones” or “firsts” that have paved the way for others to follow and identify the “Pioneers” who have helped the industry navigate through “uncharted” territory lacking regulatory guidance.

I also review some “mistakes” made by both leaders and followers. Only those who learn from the mistakes of their competitors will move forward. Those who learn from their OWN mistakes will move forward fastest!

Finally, I offer some ideas for “best practices” and “guiding principles” that may help pharma avoid regulatory actions.

Published in: Business, News & Politics
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
4,351
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
49
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
105
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Overcoming Pharma’s Social Media Challenges "

  1. 1. Thank  you  for  invi.ng  me  speak  at  the  Roche  Digital  Academy!  Unfortunately,  I  will  have  to  speak  rapidly  in  English  to  get  through  all  my  slides  in  the  alloAed  .me,  but  I  am  sure  you  will  get  a  copy  of  my  slides  –  including  my  notes  –  to  read  at  your  leisure  aDerward.  
  2. 2. I  this  presenta.on,  I  will  show  you  some  pharma  social  media  “milestones”  or  “firsts”  that  have  paved  the  way  for  others  to  follow.    I  will  iden.fy  the  “Pioneers”  who  have  helped  the  industry  navigate  through  “uncharted”  territory  lacking  regulatory  guidance.  I  will  also  show  you  some  “mistakes”  made  by  both  leaders  and  followers.  Only  those  who  learn  from  thee  mistakes  of  their  compe.tors  will  move  forward.  Those  who  learn  from  their  OWN  mistakes  will  move  forward  fastest!  Finally,  I  will  present  some  ideas  for  “best  prac.ces”  and  “guiding  principles”  that  may  help  you  avoid  regulatory  ac.ons.    
  3. 3. The  dic.onary  defines  "aficionado"  as  a  “person  who  is  very  knowledgeable  and  enthusias.c  about  an  ac.vity,  subject,  or  pas.me.”    I  have  been  around  for  a  quite  some  .me  and  have  first-­‐hand  experience  with  government  regulatory  and  voluntary  industry  codes  of  prac.ce.  Studying  digital  pharma  has  been  my  “pas.me”  for  many  years.  But  I  don’t  just  study  digital  pharma,  I  document  and  try  to  INFLUENCE  it,  as  you  will  see  in  the  following  slides.    
  4. 4. FDA’s  famous  14  leAers  alerted  pharma  to  the  fact  that  the  agency  is  now  looking  carefully  at  how  the  industry  promotes  its  products  via  the  Internet.    I  pushed  this  issue  in  December  2006  when  I  blogged  that  “FDA  should  be  taking  a  closer  look  at  drug  promo.on  via  the  Internet.”    And  the  .ming  of  my  2009  April  Fools’  joke  was  perfect  –  many  pharma  people  were  primed  to  believe  the  FDA  actually  came  out  with  digital  guidance  and  several  were  angry  at  me  for  playing  such  a  cruel  joke!  
  5. 5. The  14  leAers  took  aim  squarely  at  the  so-­‐called  “one-­‐click  rule”  which  was  not  a  rule  at  all  –  it  was  just  what  pharma  people  wanted  to  believe  and  were  lead  to  believe  by  FDA’s  inac.on  prior  to  the  14  leAers.  In  fact,  I  warned  the  industry  about  the  invalidity  of  this  “rule”  or  “received  wisdom”  as  far  back  as  November,  2006,  when  I  debated  it  at  an  industry  conference.  Alas,  only  someone  outside  the  industry  could  see  that  the  Emperor  had  no  clothes!  
  6. 6. I’d  like  to  believe  that  my  call  for  public  hearings  back  in  April  2009,  mo.vated  the  FDA  to  act.  Unfortunately,  however,  the  hearings  were  has.ly  organized  and  as  a  result,  they  did  not  include  ALL  stakeholders  as  I  urged.  Consumer  advocates  were  missing  and  agencies  and  industry  service  providers  dominated  the  speaker  roster.  Rela.ve  to  the  1996  hearing,  few  pharma  companies  made  presenta.ons  at  the  2009  hearing.  This  shirt  appeared  in  my  presenta.on  to  the  FDA  at  the  November  hearings!  It  was  my  way  of  predic.ng  the  outcome.    
  7. 7. Congress  put  some  language  in  in  recent  legisla.on  that  requires  the  FDA  to  issue  social  media  guidance  by  July  2014.    Does  that  mean  the  FDA  will  deliver?  If  not,  it  wouldnt  be  the  first  .me  that  a  government  agency  missed  deadlines  imposed  by  Congress.  I  call  this  FDAs  "Social  Media  Guidance  Cliff.”  FDA  Safety  and  Innova.on  Act  (FDASIA)-­‐TRACK  must  include  the  deliverables  with  statutory  dates,  as  well  as  other  tasks  required  to  implement  the  law.  To  date,  no  “other  tasks”  for  SM  guidance  have  been  entered  in  the  database.    Why  the  delay?  Perhaps  the  industry  wants  legally  binding  regula.ons,  not  guidance.  Pfizer,  for  example,  contends  that  FDA’s  proposed  social  media  guidance  “raises  First  Amendment  concerns.”  Guidance,  said  Pfizer,  is  too  vague  and  engenders  “extensive  [First  Amendment]  li.ga.on.”        
  8. 8. Over  the  2011  Christmas  holidays,  while  most  of  us  were  s.ll  on  vaca.on,  the  FDA  quietly  issued  without  fanfare  "Guidance  for  Industry  Responding  to  Unsolicited  Requests  for  Off-­‐Label  Informa.on  About  Prescrip.on  Drugs  and  Medical  Devices."    Sec.on  VI.  of  this  guidance  addresses  responding  to  unsolicited  requests  on  public  forums  such  as  the  Internet.  While  this  may  not  be  the  "social  media"  guidance  many  people  were  expec.ng,  it  does  include  guidelines  for  responding  to  unsolicited  requests  for  off-­‐label  informa.on  encountered  through  "emerging  electronic  media.”  The  primary  take-­‐away  is  that  such  requests  NOT  be  handled  by  sales  or  marke.ng  people  and  that  responses  should  be  via  private  channels  not  via  open  forums  such  as  on  Youtube,  blogs,  and  TwiAer.      
  9. 9. As  soon  as  the  FDA  issued  the  public  no.ce  about  the  hearings  and  posted  19  ques.ons  it  was  seeking  to  answer,  I  hosted  a  survey  that  asked  my  readers  to  respond  to  those  same  19  ques.ons.  FDA  asked  “Open-­‐Ended”  ques.ons.  My  survey  asked  respondents  to  vote  on  specific  op.ons  as  well  as  including  comment  boxes.    I  submiAed  the  complete  survey  results  to  the  FDA  docket  and  summarized  the  results  in  my  presenta.ons  at  the  hearing.  The  following  slides  also  summarize  some  results  from  that  survey  as  well  as  comments  submiAed  to  the  docket  by  major  pharma  companies.  
  10. 10. FDA  asked  “Open-­‐Ended”  ques.ons.  My  survey  asked  respondents  to  vote  on  specific  op.ons  as  well  as  including  open-­‐comment  boxes.    Regarding  accountability,  the  survey  wanted  to  compare  situa.ons  where  pharma  paid  for  content,  provided  grants  for  independent  content,  or  sponsored  branded  ads  that  targeted  specific  3rd-­‐party  content.    
  11. 11. Another  survey  I  hosted  asked  slightly  different  ques.ons  in  an  aAempt  to  define  some  “best  prac.ces”  regarding  disclosures  and  accountability.  One  “best  prac.ce”  that  I’d  like  to  see  more  companies  prac.ce  is  a  Public  Social  Media  Policy  that  includes  a  no.ce  of  its  transparency/disclosure  and  other  policies  rela.ng  to  social  media.  About  two-­‐thirds  of  survey  respondents  agree  with  me!  I  know  of  only  one  company  that  has  a  public  social  media  policy.  That  company  is  Roche.  
  12. 12. Comments  submiAed  to  the  FDA  docket  by  the  drug  industry  allow  us  to  learn  more  about  what  the  industry  considers  to  be  best  social  media  prac.ces  and  where  it  believes  the  regulatory  boundaries  are.  Not  all  pharma  companies,  however,  agree  on  defini.ons  or  where  to  draw  the  boundaries.  
  13. 13. Back  to  my  survey.  How  pharma  corrects  or  allows  misinforma.on  to  be  posted  on  social  media  sites  it  controls  is  an  important  part  of  its  social  media  policy  that  should  be  revealed  to  visitors  of  such  sites.  Nearly  a  majority  of  pharma  respondents  would  not  like  to  see  FDA  mandate  that  they  correct  misinforma.on  about  products  on  3rd-­‐party  sites,  although  about  one-­‐fiDh  think  misinforma.on  of  real  and  imminent  danger  to  the  public  health  (to  be  determined  by  company)  should  be  corrected.  
  14. 14. One  important  3rd-­‐party  site  where  misinforma.on  about  drugs  may  be  found  is  Wikipedia.  “If  you  want  your  customers  to  access  informa.on  about  your  products  from  the  quality  perspec.ve  and  in  the  simplest  way,  you  have  to  deal  with  using  Wikipedia,”  said  Dr.  Bertalan  Meskó  (@Berci).  Berci,  however,  did  not  mean  that  pharma  companies  should  secretly  and  selec.vely  alter  informa.on  as  in  this  example:    In  July  of  2007,  employees  of  AbboA  Laboratories  altered  entries  to  Wikipedia  to  eliminate  informa.on  about  a  Mayo  Clinic  study  that  revealed  that  pa.ents  taking  the  arthri.s  drug  Humira  faced  triple  the  risk  of  developing  certain  kinds  of  cancers  and  twice  the  risk  of  developing  serious  infec.ons.  I  hosted  another  survey  asking  respondents  under  what  circumstances  should  pharma  edit  drug  ar.cles  on  Wikipedia.  Based  on  this.  The  best  prac.ce  is  to  appoint  an  “official”  Wikipedia  editor  as  recommended  by  Berci  and  ensure  that  editors  reveal  .es  to  companies.    Although  a  substan.al  minority  of  respondents  feel  that  FDA  should  regulate  pharma  edits  to  Wikipedia  drug  ar.cles,  in  comments  submiAed  to  the  FDA  docket,  PhRMA  suggested  that  manufacturers  would  welcome  correc.ng  misinforma.on  about  their  products  posted  to  3rd-­‐party  sites  such  as    14
  15. 15. According  to  my  survey,  the  vast  majority  –  83%  –  of  pharma  respondents  think  it  is  impossible  to  adequately  handle  AEs  from  social  media  sources.  “Its  remarkable  how  very  liAle  we  see  that  meets  the  criteria  of  an  adverse  event,”  said  one  pharma  respondent.  The  criteria  referred  to  are  these:  an  iden.fiable  pa.ent,  a  specific  medica.on,  an  iden.fiable  reporter  and  a  reac.on.  
  16. 16. The  “iden.fiable  reporter”  is  the  most  difficult  bit  of  “required”  informa.on  to  obtain.  “Many  people  use  the  Internet  to  share  informa.on  and  remain  anonymous  when  doing  so,  even  if  an  email  address  or  other  personal  (excluding  a  name)  is  provided,”  noted  PhRMA  in  its  comments  to  the  FDA.  “Unless  people  opt-­‐in  to  say  they  want  their  informa.on  to  be  shared  with  pharmaceu.cal  (or  other)  companies,  these  companies  should  not  pursue  contac.ng  a  person  if  an  AE  is  reported.  While  not  everyone  understands  that  AEs  can  be  reported  directly  to  the  FDA  or  a  company,  there  needs  to  be  more  emphasis  to  consumers  about  how  they  should/can  report  AEs  so  that  companies  are  not  liable  for  what  they  "happen"  to  find  online.”  In  light  of  all  the  emphasis  US  pharma  companies  place  on  “iden.fiable  reporter,”  it  is    interes.ng  that  ABPI  (UK)  advised  its  members  that  “AEs  should  be  collected  and  documented,  regardless  of  seriousness  of  event  and  whether  or  not  there  is  an  iden.fiable  reporter”  (see  SLIDE  #  X).  
  17. 17. Pharma  companies  had  some  sugges.ons  for  how  FDA  could  help  the  industry  deal  with  online  adverse  event  reports.  
  18. 18. Meanwhile,  some  companies  are  sexng  the  “Gold  Standard”  for  managing  online  adverse  event  reports  and  deploying  the  necessary  resources  to  make  it  possible.  
  19. 19. The  Associa.on  of  the  Bri.sh  Pharmaceu.cal  Industry  has  also  come  out  with  specific  guidelines  for  managing  adverse  events  on  pharma  owned  or  sponsored  Web  sites.  Interes.ngly,  the  guidelines  ignore  the  “iden.fiable  reporter”  condi.on  required  by  the  FDA  for  an  AE  to  be  “reportable.”  The  Brits  have  also  issued  some  guidance  for  using  TwiAer  to  communicate  with  physicians,  making  correc.ons  to  Wikipedia  –  an  issue  discussed  in  a  previous  slide  –  and  appropriate  use  of  metadata.    You  can  find  details  by  following  the  links  given.  
  20. 20. Despite  the  lack  of  FDA  guidance,  pharmaceu.cal  marketers  have  come  a  long  way  in  integra.ng  social  media  into  their  overall  marke.ng  strategy.  These  are  data  from  the  Social  Media  Readiness  survey  tool  I  have  been  running  since  December,  2007.  Over  300  marketers  working  for  drug  or  device  companies  have  taken  the  survey.  The  survey  asks  ques.ons  to  evaluate  readiness  in  three  categories:  regulatory  (e.g.,  aversion  of  risk),  culture  (e.g.,  sensi.vity  to  cri.cism),  and  personal  experience.  Scores  are  calculated.  This  compares  scores  prior  to  July,  2009,  with  scores  aDerward.  Not  every  pharma  company,  however,  is  at  the  same  point  in  the  adop.on  curve.  Some  are  more  willing  to  take  "risks,"  some  are  more  savvy  about  applicable  FDA  regula.ons,  and  some  are  more  knowledgeable  about  social  media  in  general.    Let’s  see  how  Roche  did.  20
  21. 21. These  results,  of  course,  are  based  on  a  very  small  number  of  responses.  It  seems,  however,  that  Roche  employees  feel  that  the  company  is  savvy  regarding  the  regulatory  issues  rela.ng  to  social  media  but  lacks  the  type  of  culture  required  to  be  comfortable  with  making  social  media  mistakes.  If  you  have  not  taken  the  survey,  please  do.  I  can  report  back  updated  results  aDerward.    21
  22. 22. Let’s  look  at  more  detail  regarding  how  pharma  employees  rate  their  companies’  readiness  to  deal  with  social  media  readiness  issues.  You  can  see  that  in  the  early  period  prior  to  July  2009,  the  majority  of  respondents  thought  their  companies  had  a  “very  cau.ous”  regulatory  climate  with  only  24%  saying  the  climate  was  “very  aggressive.”  Theses  days,  it  seems  from  these  results,  pharma  companies  are  seen  as  much  less  cau.ous  and  more  aggressive.  I  guess  that  is  due  to  the  lack  of  significant  FDA  “warning”  leAers  being  sent  that  involve  social  media.  In  other  words,  the  “received  wisdom”  is  that  pharma  companies  are  nego.a.ng  the  social  media  regulatory  challenges  without  specific  guidance  from  the  FDA.  Be  careful  though!  The  FDA  hammer  may  fall  again  just  as  it  did  the  day  aDer  April  Fools’  Day  in  2009.  22
  23. 23. While  pharma  may  be  gexng  more  comfortable  engaging  in  social  media  without  FDA  guidance,  there  has  been  some  retrenchment  in  adop.ng  social  media  for  marke.ng.  For  example,  there  are  fewer  pharma  Facebook  pages  today  than  there  were  prior  to  August  15,  2011,  when  Facebook  changed  its  policy  on  comments.  ADer  the  change,  which  did  not  allow  pharma  companies  to  turn  off  comments  to  their  Facebook  pages,  many  companies  just  shut  down  their  pages.  "This  new  policy  will  alter  our  ability  to  consider  the  appropriateness  of  comments  before  they  are  posted  which  is  important  to  us  as  a  company  in  a  highly  regulated  industry,”  said  McNeil  Pediatrics  when  it  shut  down  its  ADHD  Moms  page.    
  24. 24. An  example  of  this  was  the  shutdown  of  the  Psoriasis  Facebook  page  by  Janssen  Pharmaceu.cals.  This  page  –  launched  in  October,  2010  –  was  the  first  pharma  Facebook  page  that  published  comments  BEFORE  reviewing  but  reserved  the  right  to  delete  them  aDerward.  Janssen  cited  its  inability  to  moderate  posts  made  to  the  Psoriasis  360    wall,  one-­‐third  of  which  "men.on[ed]  a  specific  drug  by  name,  or  talk[ed]  about  the  efficacy  of  a  par.cular  treatment  is  (or  its  side  effects)."  In  such  cases,  Janssen  had  to  ask  for  the  post  to  be  removed  or  to  "pull"  it.    Perhaps  this  decision  represents  a  lack  of  commitment  aDer  Alex  Butler,  former  Janssen  Digital  Strategy  and  Social  Media  Manager,  leD  the  company.  Alex  was  the  person  responsible  for  Psoriasis  360.  For  his  efforts,  I  awarded  him  the  first  ever  Pharmaguy  Social  Media  Pioneer  award.  Another  example  was  the  shutdown  of  the  ADHD  Moms  Facebook  page  by  McNeil  Pediatrics.  This  was  the  first  pharma  Facebook  page  –  launched  in  June,  2008.  "This  new  policy  will  alter  our  ability  to  consider  the  appropriateness  of  comments  before  they  are  posted  which  is  important  to  us  as  a  company  in  a  highly  regulated  industry,”  said  McNeil.    
  25. 25. There  were  examples  of  pharma-­‐owned  or  sponsored  open  discussion  boards  even  before  Facebook  became  popular.  GSK’s  Ques.onEverything,  which  was  launched  in  April,  2006,  is  an  example.  It  allowed  comments  from  consumers  and  posted  them  aDer  review  (“pre-­‐modera.on”).  This  site  is  no  longer  available.  Pre-­‐modera.on  –  where  possible  –  may  be  the  best  prac.ce  for  pharma  social  media  sites,  including  YouTube.  However,  these  days,  very  few  pharma  companies  allow  any  comments  at  all,  which  is  a  shame  because    that  is  the  best  way  to  build  community  and  aAract  more  viewers  
  26. 26. Of  course,  there  is  good  reason  why  pharma  companies  fear  comments  on  Facebook  as  this  case  demonstrates.  However,  this  could  have  been  prevented:  •  Problem  #1:  No  one  at  S-­‐A  was  monitoring  this  site  or  seemed  to  be  responsible  for  it.  •  Problem  #2:  There  was  no  policy  in  place  for  what  cons.tutes  acceptable  comments  and  how  comments  would  be  moderated  or  deleted.  •  Problem  #3:  There  was  no  social  media  “crisis  management  plan”  other  than  “remove  all  comments!”    
  27. 27. Sanofi  learned  from  its  mistakes  and  even  spoke  about  them  in  a  public  forum;  i.e.,  my  Pharma  Marke.ng  Talk  show  .tled:  “What  Sanofi-­‐Aven.s  Learned  from  Its  FaceBook  Experience  &  What  the  Experts  Recommend  It  Do  Now.”  In  that  show  I  interviewed    Dennis  Urbaniak,  VP  U.S.  Diabetes.    Listen  to  the  podcast:  hAp://bit.ly/PMT098    The  Sanofi  US  Diabetes  team  won  the  third  (2012)  Pharmagy  Social  Media  Pioneer  Award.    
  28. 28. Even  the  biggest  pharma  company  in  the  world  can  be  humbled  by  Facebook  backlash.  In  this  case,  it  was  Pfizer  and  the  product  is  not  regulated  by  the  FDA.  Nevertheless,  it  illustrates  how  important  it  is  to  pay  aAen.on  to  what’s  going  on  in  the  social  media  spaces  that  you  own  and  to  have  a  “crisis  plan”  in  place.  The  issue  was  this:  Pfizer  selec.vely  deleted  “nega.ve”  comments  in  an  aAempt  to  control  the  discussion.  What’s  the  lesson?  You  are  NOT  in  control  of  the  discussion  on  social  media.  This  is  pharma’s  major  social  media  conundrum:    (1)  pharma  marketers  are  used  to  controlling  the  discussion  (or  not  having  a  discussion  at  all),  and    (2)  pharma  marketers  are  legally  responsible  for  the  content  of  the  discussions  on  sites  they  own.  
  29. 29. Although  Pfizer  got  into  trouble  with  comments  on  Facebook,  it  did  not  shrink  from  allowing  comments  on  other  social  media  sites  like  its  “Get  Old”  community.  On  June  18,  2012,  Pfizer  launched  "Get  Old,"  a  mul.-­‐year  ini.a.ve  supported  by  nearly  a  dozen  advocacy  organiza.ons.    Registered  users  can  post  links,  videos,  photos,  or  stories  (including  comments  up  to  1000  characters)  to  the  site.  You  can  even  submit  comments  to  other  posts  and  "Like,"  tweet,  or  email  comments.  Every  comment  submiAed  is  reviewed  before  being  uploaded  -­‐  a  process  that  is  completed  within  48  hours.  Pfizer  says  it  has  a  social  media  “Playbook,”  according  to  Ray  Kerins,  Pfizer’s  former  Vice  President  of  Worldwide  Communica.ons.  “While  I  dont  want  to  say  its  proprietary,”  said  Kerins,  “I  also  dont  want  to  make  too  big  of  a  deal  about  it  because  we  call  it  common  sense.”  
  30. 30. In  the  U.S.,  of  course,  direct-­‐to-­‐consumer  branded  drug  adver.sing  is  permissible,  but  is  it  always  necessary?  I  cri.cized  this  tweet  as  “sleazy  twiAer  spam”  because  I  did  not  follow  this  account  to  receive  branded  messages  but  to  learn  more  about  how  the  celebrity  racecar  driver  Charlie  Kimball  coped  with  managing  his  diabetes  while  racing.    Although  the  adver.sed  product  is  part  of  the  story,  this  tweet  had  no  educa.onal  value  and  was  merely  a  “product  placement”  or  “reminder”  type  of  ad  that  PhRMA  says  should  not  be  used  –  at  least  on  TV.  But  if  it’s  not  OK  for  TV,  it  should  also  not  be  OK  for  social  media.  Anyway,  Novo  Nordisk  par.cipated  in  open  discussion  about  this  and  learned  –  I  haven’t  seen  any  other  tweets  like  this  since.  Listen  to  this  Pharma  Marke.ng  Talk    podcast:  “Novo  Nordisks  Race  With  Insulin  Campaign:  Its  Not  Just  About  TwiAer”    hAp://bit.ly/PMTalk087    
  31. 31. Back  in  November,  2011,  I  asked  “Will  a  Pharma  Company  Ever  Host  a  Chat  on  TwiAer?”  (hAp://bit.ly/Twchat).  I  answered  my  own  ques.on  with:  “most  pharma  companies  may  never  directly  host  or  moderate  TwiAer  chats  because  they  can  control  neither  the  audience  nor  the  message.”  So,  I  was  surprised  when  Astrazeneca  hosted  the  first  live  TwiAer  chat  session  on  February  16,  2011.    Despite  dire  predic.ons  of  "PR  failure,"  the  chat  was  a  great  success  and  proof  that  a  pharmaceu.cal  company  can  indeed  host  meaningful  TwiAer  chats.  There  were  a  few  aAempts  by  two  or  three  "malcontents"  to  "hijack"  the  conversa.on.  These  people  made  the  most  tweets  that  included  the  #rxsave  hash  tag,  but  despite  their  aAempts  to  ask  "the  tough  ques.ons"  about  off-­‐label  promo.on  of  drugs  and  Seroquel  side  effects,  everyone  completely  ignored  the  hijackers  and  the  conversa.on  con.nued  as  if  these  people  were  not  even  there.  Tony  Jewell  (@tonyjewell),  Senior  Director  of  External  Communica.ons  at  AstraZeneca  US,  received  the  2nd  Pharmaguy  Social  Media  Pioneer  award  for  his  pioneering  use  of  TwiAer.  
  32. 32. It  is  one  thing  to  host  a  TwiAer  chat  where  you  can  control  what  is  being  posted  by  your  representa.ve(s)  as  part  of  that  chat.  But  it  is  quite  another  problem  controlling  unauthorized  tweets  made  by  employees  without  the  knowledge  of  your  MLR  people  as  this  case  illustrates.  A  “Global  Social  Media  Policy”  doesn’t  mean  much  unless  •  It  is  publicly  available  so  the  company  can  be  held  accountable  in  a  transparent  fashion,  and  •  Employees  are  trained  in  the  policy,  which  should  include  sanc.ons  such  as  dismissal  for  viola.on  of  the  policy.  
  33. 33. Having  social  media  principles  that  guide  how  your  employees  use  social  media  and  interact  with  the  public  online  is  a  good  first  step.  But  if  they  are  to  have  any  effect,  employees  must  be  TRAINED  to  understand  how  to  apply  the  principles  in  the  real  world.  And,  as  with  privacy  policies,  the  fact  that  employees  receive  this  training  should  be  stated  in  the  outward-­‐facing  social  media  policy  that  the  company  publishes.  These  are  just  a  few  of  my  “half-­‐baked”  ideas  pertaining  to  a  public  social  media  policy  for  pharmaceu.cal  companies  to  adopt.  
  34. 34. Roche  is  the  only  pharmaceu.cal  company  that  has  publicly  disclosed  its  social  media  principles.  Bravo!    
  35. 35. In  closing,  I  would  like  to  emphasize  that  to  implement  a  strategy  for  using  social  media  as  part  of  your  marke.ng  campaigns,  it  is  important  to  have  a  plan.  But  what  are  the  ac.on  items  for  implemen.ng  your  plan?    This  survey  asked  respondents  to  indicate  how  important  the  following  ac.on  items  are  in  implemen.ng  a  social  media  plan:  •  #1:  Get  everyone  -­‐  including  marke.ng,  regulatory  people,  corporate  communica.ons,  C-­‐level  execs  -­‐  on  board  •  #2:  Become  a  dialogue  company  -­‐  learn  how  to  listen  and  respond,  not  just  push  messages  out  •  #3:  Have  a  sustained  vision/goal  •  #4:  Train  people  who  will  be  interac.ng  directly  with  consumers  •  Create  a  social  media  Tsar  posi.on  to  oversee  all  the  companys  SM  projects  to  assure  compliance  with  guidelines  •  Develop  a  modera.on  strategy  •  Develop  guideposts,  internal  and  external  standard  opera.ng  procedures  •  Marshall  necessary  resources  -­‐  use  the  best  tools  available  •  Unblock  corporate  access  to  social  media  so  employees  can  monitor  and  use  applica.ons  such  as  Facebook  while  at  work  35

×