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.
Last week, I had the opportunity to speak at a panel discussion at NortheasternUniversity, "It's Time To Brand Yourself" sponsored by the Boston Alumni Networking Exchange, the College of Professional Studies and the Communications Alumni Network. The discussion, moderated by Dr. Carl Zangerl, College of Professional Studies, Northeastern University, focused on a topic that's near and dear to all communications professionals - personal brand building.
I was joined by Michael Armini, vice president of marketing and communications at Northeastern University, Ted Chaloner, president of Chaloner Associates and Lauren Libitz, president of the Yankee Chapter of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC). It was a fantastic line-up and each panelist brought a unique and interesting perspective to the more than 70 attendees who showed up for the program. With terrific questions and comments from the studio audience, my fellow panelists and I opined on the current job outlook for communications and public relations professionals, the concept of personal branding, the importance of networking and the different social media tools available including Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook, to create and promote a personal brand.
Whether you are currently employed or on the hunt, establishing a personal brand is important and something that bears relevance and utility to both an employee and a job seeker. The whole idea of a personal brand certainly isn't new but with the advent and popularity of social media tools it's quickly become a key buzz word in a challenging economic environment. I think building a personal brand is very similar to building a brand, and a strategy, for a company. The same rules apply. All the tools in the world won't do you any good unless you have a clear, consistent and differentiating vision to communicate. Further, coming up with the vision is just the first part of the challenge, the second part is figuring out which social media tools to employ. There are so many out there and it's challenging to know which ones to dabble with but my recommendation is to try a few at a time. Start slow, get recommendations relevant to your industry and observe others before jumping in head first. And, just remember, keep your personal and professional brand separate !
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!
Perhaps no single item in recent memory has generated as much curiosity and interest from healthcare PR Pros and marketers than has the growing phenomenon broadly titled "Social Media". Social Media can be broadly defined as a whole group of new communications channels that enable a more direct and conversational dialogue between medical device, pharmaceutical and biopharma companies and their key constituencies--including patients and clinicians.
The interest in Social Media is being driven by a confluence of two factors. First--dramatic changes in the more traditional media channels typically used by healthcare companies. Print. Broadcast. Radio. The economic downturn has reduced both the number of outlets that healthcare companies have used to reach key audiences as well as the sheer time allocated to healthcare stories. Second is the advent of rapidly emerging technologies that enable a shift from the "one-way" nature of traditional media to a more conversational or cocktail party approach to engaging audiences.
Together, these two factors are stimulating whole new areas of opportunity for the healthcare or medical public relations professional and the companies they work for. But there are challenges as well.
Recently Schwartz Communications held a Webinar that provided an overview of the types of Social media programs available for medical device companies, but it is applicable to all types of healthcare companies as well.
Over the weekend, I saw a Tweet (http://tinyurl.com/ljjwla) that the Heart and Diabetes Center NRW in Bad Oeynhausen, Germany, performed the 800th implant of the SynCardia CardioWest™ temporary Total Artificial Heart (TAH‑t). Congratulations SynCardia! Back in October 2004, in my capacity as PR counsel to Syncardia, I was at the FDA Panel Meeting when it approved SynCardia’s CardioWest temporary Total Artificial Heart as a bridge-to-transplantation in cardiac transplant-eligible candidates at risk of imminent death from non-reversible biventricular failure. What an exciting time for not only the company who spent years and years working on and perfecting the device but also for physicians and patients whose lives were greatly changed—and saved—by this amazing device. I spoke with numerous patients including a cyclist who is an award winning member of the Transplant Olympic teams who had a second chance of life after being implanted with the CardioWest device. I am thrilled that more than 800 patients have since benefited from this device.
While this was the pre-Twitter, Facebook era, SynCardia made headlines news—from cover stories in its local Tucson papers to the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal to the Associated Press. This was one of the most exciting, heartwarming (excuse the pun) launches I ever worked on and will stay with me forever.
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.
