The document makes the case for pharmaceutical brands to engage with users on Facebook by allowing commenting, sharing, and likes. It addresses common fears around negative feedback and adverse event reporting, finding that engagement increases customer loyalty while the risks are low. The conclusion is that brands should let users interact as expected on Facebook to fulfill their needs and take advantage of opportunities in an increasingly social and connected online environment.

1. There’s no need to be tight-lipped: Making the case for pharmaceutical brands to interact on Facebook Prepared by: Stacy Lukasavitz Social Media Strategist 7.12.10

2. Facebook – what’s the point? “ Giving people the power to share and make the world more open and connected.”

3. Brands get it. They know they should be here.

4. Some brands don’t entirely get it. They don’t allow users to comment on their content. They don’t allow users to share their content. They don’t allow users to “like” their content. Many of these brands are in the OTC pharmaceutical industry. They are afraid. They’re on Facebook, but . . .

5. All about E.V.E. E xpected V isitor E xperience (Not this one)

8. Main fears of allowing comments Some brands have contacted Facebook and had them disable commenting on content all together. Why?

10. Negative feedback If someone is going to say something negative about your brand or product, they’re already saying it elsewhere. “ What if somebody says something bad about my brand/product?”

14. “ Like” button Some brands have disabled Facebook users from clicking the “Like” button on their posted content, including status updates. (The reasons for this are not clear.)

15. “ Like” button Why would you NOT want Facebook fans to like your brand or product, or your posted content? (Unlike “Like,” there is no universal “dislike” button – only an app that nobody uses.)

16. Sharing is the lifeblood of Facebook. “ Giving people the power to share and make the world more open and connected.”

17. Sharing is the lifeblood of Facebook.

18. Web 1.0 Web 1.0 was about one-way consuming of information on the internet.

19. Web 2.0 Web 2.0 is about multidirectional consuming and sharing of information on the internet, the basis of which is connecting with others - a.k.a. “the social web.”

21. Sharing is the lifeblood of Facebook. So what if you DON’T share or allow interaction on your Facebook page?

22. Sharing is the lifeblood of Facebook. People will visit your page once, then never return. They will have no reason to.

23. Sharing is the lifeblood of Facebook. . . . You will be back at Web 1.0. That’s no fun. Without allowing your brand’s information to be shared, the semantic web won’t know you exist.

24. Remember. . . Web 3.0 is just around the corner. Can your brand afford to live in the past? Also, it should be pointed out that . . .

25. There is a HUGE opportunity for backlash.

26. The bottom line: Let people use Facebook the way they are used to using it.

27. The bottom line: Fulfill their expected visitor experience.

28. The bottom line: Let them talk to you. Let them share your content. Let them like you!

29. Appendix Slide 4: “All About E.V.E.” borrowed from Dose of Digital blog http://www.doseofdigital.com/2009/04/healthcare-pharma-social-media-its-all-about-eve/ 1 From FDA’s “Guidance for Industry: Postmarketing Adverse Experience Reporting for Human Drug and Licensed Biological Products: Clarification of What to Report,” issued August 1997; available online at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/1830fn1.pdf 2 From FDA’s Code of Federal Regulations Title 21, available online at http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=314.80 Contact: Stacy Lukasavitz Social Media Strategist [email_address]