Pharmaceutical Marketing

Biotech, Pharmaceutical Companies Listen to Social Media

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.

Posted by Laura Kempke on February 23, 2010 at 4:10 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

The Changing Media Landscape: What it Means for Healthcare Companies

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.

 

Posted by Risa Goldman Burgess on January 26, 2010 at 8:58 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Politics, Stem Cells and the FDA

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.

Posted by Lloyd Benson on February 5, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)