Say what you will about the effectiveness of conferences in the marketing mix--there are still a lot of shows that companies feel they have to attend in order to see and be seen. In the case of Schwartz client BioImagene, that conference is the annual meeting of the U.S. & Canadian Academy of Pathology (USCAP).
BioImagene is one of the companies that dominate USCAP and their PR team is working overtime to support the show presence. So it was nice for everyone to see a blog entry, "BioImagene PR Doing It The Apple Way," from New York-based pathology resident Karl Robstad, M.D.
Dr. Robstad offers, "In an industry that, at least in my opinion, lacks some of the excitement in spreading the word about their newest and best products/services, BioImagene is a real stand-out taking a page out of Apple’s handbook, by creating mystique and hype around product releases, and then following the hype up with grand spectacle unveilings."
He continues, "You can look at stuff like this and call them 'PR stunts' or whatever, but I think there is a certain amount of merit behind a good PR campaign."
We'd agree, Dr. Robstad, and thank you for noticing. It's all about generating the sort of visibility that makes the BioImagene sales team happy and that underscores how a company that was founded a few years ago is altering a century-old industry.
The BioImagene booth was hopping at USCAP last year. Here's to an even more successful 2010 event later this month.
This photo from euthman is covered by a Creative Commons license.
Yesterday the Boston Business Journal ran an overview, "Biotechs proceed with social-media caution," of the state of affairs in drug companies' use of Web 2.0 platforms like Facebook, Twitter and blogs.
As you'd expect, this is an issue tracked carefully by every PR firm in Boston, San Francisco and other areas where the drug and medical device industries are concentrated.
As we all know, companies that market therapies and medical devices in the U.S. have to be prudent in their use of social media. Lacking FDA guidance, they generally believe that they need to steer clear of anything that might be deemed promotional. (John Moore of Chilmark Research boils it down for readers in the Boston Business Journal article: "How do you have clear disclaimers in 140 characters?") And what if patients make claims that aren't supported by FDA labeling? Or report side effects that the drug or device company can't verify?
Yet, as the article points out, people are talking anyway--patients and their families will continue to search online for information about conditions and treatments--and biotech and medical device companies increasingly feel that they have to at least listen to those conversations.
I've heard some ask, "Why would I listen when I can't respond?" That mindset strikes me as too tactically focused and short-sighted. A response to that post or that tweet may be out of the question, but any effective external communications program has to be based on a reasonably comprehensive understanding of how your product is perceived.
Beyond that, as the article and other discussions of pharmaceutical marketing have pointed out, companies can still make some use of social media as a channel to reach target audiences. They might be hamstrung at this moment in time in not being free to engage in every two-way conversation, but pharmaceutical and medical device companies should be able to get creative in their use of social media to disseminate some types of information, such as facts about a particular medical condition and tips on its management that have nothing to do with a drug or device.
Jim Weinrebe from Schwartz attended the November 2009 FDA hearings on social media and opined, at the time, that "active listening and monitoring" of social media by drug and device companies would gradually become seen as "safe" and would not go hand in hand with a requirement to "police."
Pharma and device companies are listening to what's being said online and some are beginning to go a bit beyond. None of these firms are giving consumer brands a run for their money in use of social media, but it's clear that they should at least begin to listen. Perceiving social media use as "all or nothing" isn't in line with industry leaders' current thinking.
When you convene a group of leading healthcare journalists, in front of a room full of healthcare PR professionals, sometimes there's no telling what you might hear. Journalists and PR folk, especially healthcare PR agency specialists, have a bit of a love hate relationship. We both need each other, for different reasons of course, and in light of the different media world we live in today, it's more critical than ever that we best understand how we can help each other. As a PR practitioner, I'm most concerned with finding creative and impactful ways for my medical device, biotech and biopharmaceutical clients to get their message out to their key target audiences. The game has changed and in fact continues to change on what often seems like a minute-to-minute basis. OK, maybe I'm exaggerating but you get the point.
To that end, we prepared a special report with our takeaways from this session, thoughts on how the media environment is altering communications strategies and ideas on how healthcare companies can capture the right mix of influential mindshare. Is it shocking that healthcare journalists are busy (no), have fewer resources (no) and have less time to pursue feature-based stories (no)? How about the fact that several of the reporters we heard from have yet to jump on the social media bandwagon? Probably not shocking, but interesting, yes especially when the media organizations they write for are knee deep in trying to drive eyeballs to their respective Web sites via the multitude of social media tools and channels available. Check out the report and read on to uncover the good, bad and the ugly of what to expect in 2010. Feel free to opine on our blog with your thoughts and observations, we would love to hear from you.
Jim Weinrebe presented his perspective on the role social media is playing in crisis communications management for biotech, life science and pharmaceutical companies at the Publicity Club of New England's "Crisis Communications Preparedness" program held at Schwartz Communications.
Jim, along with his fellow panelists, weighed in on the need to plan, plan, and then plan some more as it's still at the root of any good crisis communications or reputation management plan for healthcare PR. Simply put, you can't be too careful, or too prepared in today's digital media age. It's not so much that many of the fundamentals have changed but that the SPEED, unbiquity of communication and new product applications in social media, with Google Sidewiki offered as just one recent example, have the potential to outpace the planning capabilities of some of even the most seasoned practitioners.
What's very different today in healthcare, according to Jim, is diminished ability of healthcare prescription product manufacturers to control, manage or even respond to messages that are swirling around them in the social media universe. With the prolific growth in use of Twitter, blogs, Facebook, YouTube, Flickr and other channels, social media content is not only broadly influencing people online, but also becoming a feeding ground for resource-constrained traditional media outlets that are constantly seeking audience generated content to embellish their reporting. The news vetting bar has never been set so low for provocative content that can get instantly posted and then picked up by influential traditional broadcast and print outlets in the blink of an eye.
While one of the fundamental rules for participation in social media is to actively listen, Jim also noted that even this basic aspect of social media etiquette poses difficult challenges for healthcare prescription product manufacturers, who could be accountable to the FDA for reporting instances of adverse events that have been identified through social media monitoring. It was noted that the industry is seeking clarity from the FDA on these and other issues related to social media, which could be at least partially forthcoming in pending public hearings on this topic in mid-November. Until such guidance is established, Weinrebe noted, prescription healthcare product manufacturer participation in social media will be very modest, and for the most part resembling more of a web 1.0 than a web 2.0 format. Meanwhile, Weinrebe said that social media has more potential to create or accelerate crisis for healthcare prescription product manufacturers. Exceptions in healthcare cited by Weinrebe were organizations like the Centers for Disease Control and American Red Cross, and even individual hospitals, who have employed sophisticated uses of social media to help effectively manage and communicate messages during public health emergencies and crises.
Jim noted that in regulated industries, such as healthcare and finance, there is still a lot of work to be done in educating senior management about the need to apply authenticity in tone to social media communications, even if the communications are nothing more than stand-by statements or simple acknowledgment that a problem has occurred. Jim counseled attendees to consider social media monitoring tools as a core part of an effective public relations strategy, while at the same noting that many healthcare product manufacturers need more guidance on adverse events reporting before even that approach can be robustly implemented.
While the healthcare industry waits with suspense for the outcomes of the FDA hearings on social media, Jim noted that clarity will not be achieved in the short term, that the deliberations will continue well into 2010 and that even by that point and beyond, a certain degree of ambiguity may still be desired by regulatory agencies as a means for cultivating preemptive manufacturer caution.
Jim Weinrebe, executive vice president and leader in our healthcare public relations practice, will join several panelists on Monday, October 26 at Schwartz Communications for a Publicity Club of New England panel program to talk about crisis communications preparedness.
As much as we try to avoid them, crises are inevitable and usually strike at the most inopportune times. The emergence of social media alone has exponentially increased the urgency and need for being prepared. When the pressure is on, it is important to get the facts in order as quickly as possible before any public communication is disseminated and determine the key target audiences that need to be addressed. The pre-determined crisis communications team should be prepared to deliver relevant information in a timely and appropriate manner to minimize the rumor mill and restore order and/or confidence. It's absolutely critical to have a crisis communications team and protocol in place before an emergency or potentially controversial situation strikes.
Jim will be joined by several leading industry executives to discuss effective crisis communications protocol and offer insight into real world case study examples. More specifically, Jim will provide insight into managing a crisis in healthcare PR. Participants will walk away with an understanding of what works, and what doesn't, when under the gun and how to best prepare an effective crisis communications plan in a time of turmoil. To register for the program, please visit www.pubclub.org. Space is limited so please reserve your spot!
We spoke with Bjarte Reve, CEO of Oslo Cancer Cluster. The Norwegian cluster is a collaboration between pharma, biotech, research institutions and hospitals, patient groups and other organizations committed to making a difference for cancer patients.
Check out what Bjarte had to say about their initiative.
Lauren Arnold, Joe Pacheco, Jim Weinrebe, Jayme Maniatis and Kristina Ebenius at the Biotechnology Industry Association (BIO) annual conference in Atlanta. Welcome to booth 4715!
Attendance is down at this year’s international BIO conference and many of the clinical stage attendees are in a frantic race against their respective burn rates, but this event once again distinguishes itself as a forum where many of the industry’s best and brightest convene to be passionate about their science and its life changing potential, despite the formidable odds faced by so many. And while Big Pharma stalks the aisles and presentations looking for the next hidden gem that will restore luster to their aging portfolios, it is, once again, the little guys who really shine as the sources of innovation.
What has changed are the business models and pipeline strategies. They are far more practical in outlook and expectations than ever before. Projects of real scientific merit but commercially less within reach are being shelved in favor of more focused business strategies. With sharper focus on fewer projects, but ones with nearer term potential, these companies are operating with far more operating savvy that will help them weather the storm.
Big Pharma would be wise not to approach this as a buyer’s market. Even a biotech on the brink of running out of cash may have the cure that ails their portfolio. This is a more sober, more realistic partner match making environment where it is advisable to tread carefully.
Yesterday’s Xconomy Forum “Tomorrow’s Biotech: Innovators and Innovations” featured a first-rate slate of speakers and case studies. If you didn’t attend, Luke Timmerman’s Xconomy post provides a nice recap.
The afternoon concluded with an engaging “fireside chat” keynote between biotech founding fathers Walter Gilbert and George Church moderated by Boston University Biomedical Engineering Professor Jim Collins. One of many issues discussed during the conversation was the pressure on early stage biotechs to quickly demonstrate proof of concept—particularly given the challenges of securing funding in today’s market.
Church made two points I thought particularly instructive to anyone managing a communications program for a biotech company.
The first is simple yet incredibly prudent advice: build and communicate value. Sounds obvious, but in today’s environment cash-strapped startups can fall into the trap of setting their sights on a short term milestone to demonstrate proof of concept for a technology that will not provide real value in the long run.
This is often where business and development strategy and intersects with communications strategy. Are you communicating something of value to your key constituents or are you generating hype merely to get the attention of potential and existing investors?
The second point that resonated with me: biotech businesses have a tremendous opportunity to educate. Whether it is clinicians or consumers, the biotech industry has a responsibility to inform people who use their products about how they work and about the diseases they treat. This will be increasingly important in the realm of personalized medicine when a growing number of diagnostics will be targeted directly to the consumer. (Church practices what he preaches--check out the Personal Genome Project he's leading to help make personal genome sequencing more affordable, accessible and useful).
Often an effective communications program has nothing to do with promoting a product, a company or a technology and everything to do with conditioning or educating the market.
At the recent Massachusetts Biotechnology Counsel annual meeting, there was a lot of talk about what it will take for the industry to “Make it in Massachusetts”—a nod to a famous gubernatorial campaign slogan during the era of the state’s massive technology boom. Today, the Boston walls once plastered with “Make it in Massachusetts” bumper stickers are covered up by Shepard Fairey graffiti and similarly, the DNA of the state’s economy has changed.
The technology companies that fueled the Massachusetts Miracle have been superseded by burgeoning biotechs like Biogen, EMD Serono and Genzyme. With its elite universities, leading research hospitals and strong venture community, the state’s biotechnology cluster has been an engine of growth, but like all industries, it faces considerable challenges in the face of recession. There are lessons to be learned here in our back yard that can be applied across the industry.
According to the Massachusetts Biotechnology Counsel 2015 Strategic Report, almost 50 percent of public biotech companies in the state risk running out of cash by the end of the year while one-half to one-third of private biotechs in Massachusetts will look to raise funds this year. A precarious position—particularly for early stage companies just bringing new innovations from the bench to industry.
I’m not smart enough to develop novel antibodies that could change the way we treat cancer like some of my clients, but I do have some thoughts on where biotechs—particularly clinical stage companies—can concentrate their communications efforts in this difficult environment. In this economy, securing financing, attracting partners and continuing R&D is more difficult yet more critical than ever. Whether your company is based in Massachusetts, Montreal or Munich, determining where to dedicate your communications resources in this environment can be daunting. Here are a few ideas:
Leverage your thought leaders—What do your internal and external key opinion leaders have to say about industry trends? Look for ways to strategically package their expertise to select media for thoughtful commentary.
Pick your PR battles—When you have constrained resources or budgets, it’s often better to maximize a specific event, like the release of data in a peer reviewed publication—than to spread your program too thin. Core audiences like media, analysts and potential partners would rather hear about one substantial piece of news than three pieces of fluff.
Don’t wait to communicate until you have a major announcement—Are your news and publication pipelines thin? Think about what issues your audiences care most about then focus your efforts there. It may be months before you have data or hard news to release, but don’t be afraid to capitalize on other industry milestones. Do you have a unique perspective about a newly released study or trend that is getting lots of attention? Let people know about it.
Maximize your exposure—Don’t stop communicating when you’ve captured the headlines. Are you distributing positive media coverage to investors and partners? If you have a company blog, are bloggers linking to media coverage of your company in the context of their posts? In today’s on-line, on-demand media world, stories still have value (some may argue more) after the paper or magazine hits the recycling bin.
The road ahead is challenging, to be sure, but those who communicate effectively during the down market will reap the benefits of being top of mind when recovery strikes.
Yesterday was the 20th BayBio event held in South San Francisco. In an era of declining interest in tradeshows, there were more than 700 attendees representing 400 companies. There is undeniable momentum in research as personalized medicine continues to show remarkable progress in fighting disease.
Naturally the economy’s impact to R&D and venture funding dominated the discussion. Buoyed by the news of BiPar’s $500M acquisition by Sanofi-Aventis earlier in the week, it remains clear that great technology along with superb management teams can equal great business outcomes.
The other buzz on the event floor, will the promise of a more “streamlined FDA” be a reality in an Obama White House? With new HHS and FDA heads, can something be done to ensure medications and treatments make it to patients faster? The notion that speeding the process puts patients at risk was not shared by the attendees. One CEO quipped: “There are airplanes flying today with hundreds of passengers on them which were designed completely on computers and deemed safe by the FAA. After all the necessary testing demonstrated airworthiness, the airlines now have more fuel efficient and safer aircraft which were delivered years earlier than expected.”
Schwartz attended the event and captured video from the BayBio booth. Hope you enjoy some of the highlights.
This year’s Massachusetts Biotechnology Council Annual Meeting provided a sober look at the state of the Massachusetts biotech industry and what the cluster must do to succeed in the years to come. Our world-class teaching hospitals and academic institutions, our talented scientists, physicians and researchers coupled with a vibrant VC community has resulted in Massachusetts being a world leader in the industry, but according to the council, other states and even countries are fast on our heals of potentially claiming the “super cluster” position. While Massachusetts has enjoyed being the launch pad for exciting companies like Genyzme and Biogen, today’s “rising stars” and even companies that are not yet formed but are a glimmer of hope in a scientist’s eye based on a patent or piece of IP, now face new, bigger challenges due to today’s economic conditions. The key theme of the day’s presentations was the importance of greater collaboration among industry, academia and venture capitalists. In order for the Commonwealth to not only survive today’s economic landscape but more importantly, prosper and maintain our leadership position, it will be key for these organizations to work together.
According to the MBC’s 2015 Strategic Report which was released at the conference, scientific collaboration and innovation is a critical linchpin to the success of the state’s biotech industry. The report discusses the need to better align the academic community with industry to improve collaboration and to address technology transfer processes taking innovation from the bench top to industry. Unlike other biotech powerhouse cities like San Francisco and San Diego, tech transfer doesn’t happen as seamlessly in Massachusetts. One of the calls to action was development of a consortium of academia and industry, so that the gene discovery and validation process that occurs in the academic setting can then be developed by companies with the funds and means to build accurate models and implement clinical trials. Without this technology transfer, we won’t see progress.
While it may seem ironic to say that I found the Economic Outlook session uplifting, it provided some clarity on where the industry is heading and it’s not all bad! Moderated by Xconomy Founder, CEO and Editor-in-Chief Robert Buderi, the session discussed on how the recession actually presents us with a tremendous opportunity. While pharma generally bets the bank on a blockbuster drug, nimble-minded biotech companies should focus on a “niche-buster” and be creative and adaptive in clinical trials. It is these companies who will come out standing—many of whom get their start here in the Bay State.
The MBC continues to host interesting, thought-provoking meetings that provide valuable forums for discussion, networking, collaboration and innovation.
One of the more interesting recent medical stories to hit the mainstream media was the news that for the first time, the FDA has cleared the use of embryonic stem cells in human clinical trials. This particular trial will use a stem cell line developed by Geron, Inc. of Menlo Park, CA and will be implanted in people who have suffered acute spinal cord injury. As somebody who has actually seen the Geron-developed video of the stem cell’s affect on paralyzed mice walking and running after having been implanted with the Geron cells, the raw potential of the therapy is breathtaking. Of course, it will take many years of rigorous scientific testing in people to determine both safety and efficacy. This first small 10-patient trial however is an important first step.
What is curious and thought provoking about this news is its timing. The public debate over embryonic stem cells has been raging for many years now. Embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from embryos. Specifically from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro and then donated for research purposes, with the informed consent of the donors. The debate became a political ‘hot button’ issue when in 2001, the former Bush administration precluded public funding of additional stem cell research beyond 31 specific stem cell lines—ironically of which the Geron cell line was one. The Geron cell line was developed without public funding using instead the private capital markets. The public funding issue was largely perceived as a political gesture toward conservative supporters of President Bush as well as an extension of former President Bush’s own religious beliefs. To which of course, he is certainly entitled as are we all.
During the course of applying to the FDA for clearance of this trial, Geron submitted a 21,000 page Investigational New Drug (IND) application to the FDA, believed to be the largest and most thoroughly documented science that the FDA has reviewed in its history. The company says that the application detailed more than 24 separate animal studies of its product that established both safety and efficacy in animals. A lot of this scientific data had appeared in peer-reviewed publications over the years of development, including a study published seven years ago that showed efficacy in rats. As the FDA laboriously poured over the data during the years of the Bush Administration’s tenure, more people suffered from acute paralysis and investors bounced Geron’s stock up and down.
Then on January 21st, only ONE day after the Obama Administration took office, the FDA, suddenly and without warning, announced clearance of the Geron trial. While much of the news reporting on the clearance focused specifically on the scientific importance of the trial, a few intrepid reporters openly speculated that the change in the White House had immediate impact on FDA policy. This is a topic worthy of discussion. Was the timing simply a coincidence? Or did the Bush administration tacitly impose its own political and/or ethical views on the FDA? The job of the FDA is difficult. It must ensure that the safety of the public is held paramount and at the same time carefully guide new products and technologies through a process that allows new therapies to get to the marketplace after appropriate review. To add a layer of “politicization” to this process does not serve the public or the government. The science of medicine is after all transparent to personal belief or religious conviction—and politics.
The American Heart Association's Annual Scientific Sessions wrapped up in New Orleans last week and for the first time in two years, there was no embargo-gate debate.
Maybe the AHA took a page from the "No Drama Obama" campaign.
What's the fuss all about? For publically-traded healthcare companies, presenting data at a prestigious medical conference like the AHA is mostly a blessing----major stakeholders including clinicians, investors and the media are all focused on news from the conference.
Yet navigating conflicting embargo policies can be a real challenge. For example, consider a Company that has highly-anticipated trial results in hand weeks before it's scheduled to present at a "Late Breaking" session.
One on hand, SEC Reg FD rule encourages companies to announce material news almost immediately. Yet conference organizers have strict policies about releasing data prior to the conference. If the data is being simultaneously published in a medical journal like JAMA or NEJM (as the JUPITER study was this year), add another layer of complexity.
Often times, companies are forced to announce top-line data prior to the conference, without being able to paint the full picture. After weeks of market speculation, the embargo is lifted.
During last year's AHA meeting, this predicament prompted Eli Lilly's CEO to write a WSJ Op-Ed entitled, "The Media on Drugs." He explained "NEJM and AHA asked for promises from Lilly and its partners, and we agreed, not to disclose any of the results prior to Nov. 4. Such guarantees of exclusivity are not only common, but also appropriate, in focusing expert attention on important research." In 2006, the AHA pulled Pfizer from the Scientific Session agenda for pre-releasing data. CNBC Reporter Mike Huckman blogged about an embargo-gate episode at the 2007 ACC conference.
What's a company to do? There is no clear cut answer. The data results, size of company and the anticipated impact of the stock all play factors in deciding the best course of action.
In the next post, we'll outline a few recommendations for a company in this situation.
A colleague and I recently attended the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council event, “Marketing in Turbulent Markets: Creative Strategies for Marketing Challenges”—something that everyone can definitely relate to these days. For anyone who has never attended an MBC event, I highly recommend them—a great way to meet fellow marketing folks, network, catch up on what’s going on in the industry and share best practices.
The lead speaker, Nancy Levy, founder and managing partner of BioHealth Management, LLC, a commercial strategy and business development consulting firm, gave a great overview on how to “Create the Buzz without the Bee.” Levy talked about the evolution of the four P’s of marketing: product, price, place and promotion are being replaced, or, at very least, supplemented with personalization, participation and peer-to-peer.
What this boils down to is knowing who your customer is and tailoring for that audience; involving your customers from around the globe and really listening to what they want, need and their thoughts about your brand; and using social and professional networks to spread a message—advocacy groups, patient groups, research organizations, etc.
Biotech is unlike most industries because the “product” is intangible. Typically, the product is innovation and the ability to do something. This presents inherent marketing challenges that underscore the importance of personalization, participation and peer-to-peer marketing efforts.
This marketing mantra definitely holds true for public relations. We advise our clients to focus messaging on the innovation and benefits, rather than simply features of the products. This is what interests customers and generate sales.
In times of a tumultuous economy, it becomes even more critical to stretch marketing budgets and reach as many potential customers as possible. PR is a marketing avenue that works hand-in-hand with the three Ps. Because PR is cost-effective, strategic and easily adapted to communicate with various audiences, it presents an opportunity to build your brand, communicate with customers, and engage key opinion leaders without breaking the bank.
If you are trying to decide what to put in your marketing mix that will be the most effective, you are putting yourself at a disservice if your PR activities go black. Dollar for dollar, PR is more cost effective than advertising and there are countless studies that underscore this.
For those companies thinking they can’t afford to put marketing dollars to PR, consider this:, it’s a risky approach; if even just one competitor pushes ahead with PR and is the one to get the exposure, when the tides turn, who do you think the public will remember—the company who has been radio silent for the past months or the company that they have been reading about?
All in all, it was an informative, timely meeting and really hammers home the message that smart marketing can help take us through these turbulent times. I am definitely planning to attend upcoming Mass Biotech Council meetings and will report on what I learn.
