It seems like everywhere you turn, you’re hearing about it. Every channel, radio program, and news site has had a story about it. Month after month, someone discovers something new about it. Even the government wants to get in on it. And some of us, quite frankly, wish it would just go away.
Obviously, “it” is big pharma’s credibility. And right now, it’s somewhere between the oil industries after the Exxon Valdez and banks after the implosion of the financial markets in 2008: in the toilet. But all is not lost. According to a recent Harris Interactive Poll, the pharmaceutical industry managed to beat out the auto and tobacco industries as a less hated industry by Americans.
After a year of scandals, misinformation, and what many perceived as an exaggerated pandemic for commercial gain. Whether exaggerated or not, that thought alone demonstrates how far we have to go
to restore credibility and trust. So what is the answer? Part of the answer could be the elephant in the room that we all know and love: social media.
Social media and pharma have been like oil and water lately. Many feel both could benefit from the other, but because of the highly regulated structure of pharma marketing, few companies are ready to take the leap. But, if there ever were a time for big pharma to engage with the public, it’s now. All it would take is a few social baby steps to get pharma to break down the wall of mistrust and get back on the road to credibility.
Where can pharma start?
- Corporate communications and PR: Give a face to your company and allow patients and physicians to engage with you.
- Knowledge centers: Make important information easy to obtain. Pharmacovigilance, adverse events reporting, new studies, new products, crisis management, and basically all non-marketing information could be reported and distributed through interactive platforms.
- Customer service: Permit physicians and patients to have their questions answered by qualified personnel.
These are just a few of the many early steps pharmaceutical companies can take on the road to engaging the physician and patient consumer in social media. Nevertheless, someone must take the leap, dip their marketing or educational toe in, and boldly go where….you get the point. You see, by not engaging, pharma may be strengthening consumer mistrust. Why won’t pharma talk to me? What are they trying to hide? I see all these conversations already occurring, where is a knowledgeable representative I can trust? Well, where are you, pharma?
- Ayubu Azizi, Copy Supervisor, S+R Medical Communications
Could the deafening silence be due in part to the circumstances of such a vast opportunity for liability which regulations impose? Just wondering.
Hi Kelly,
You are right. But, more so than the actual regulations, there is an inherent fear of the unkwnown when it comes to the pharmaceutical industry and the new social world online. The legal and regulatory concerns are understandable. But there are many ways to get involved, that pharma has not yet embraced. If you are not ready to “engage” key customers(physicians and patients), that is one thing, but everyone should have their ears firmly planted in the groundswell and that is not the case right now. Once the idea of listening is embraced by the industry, it’s just a matter of time before the real value of engagement and networking springs forward. Thank you for your comment.
Sincerely,
Hunter Young
(Program Manager, S+R Medical Communications)
The ‘road back to credibility’ will not necessairly be solved by Social Media so long as serving shareholders wins out over serving patients. Pharma constantly go on about how they can show how ‘responsible’ they will be in the new Social Media universe. As a patient advocate I say – well let’s judge you by your behaviour up to now which leaves ALOT to be desired. Supposing that Social Media is the panacea and supposing Pharma is willing to become the prodigal son then let’s imagine that Big-Pharma can rise above it’s Tobacco and Defence neighbours…
1. Allow patients to engage with you
This actually presupposes that patients want to engage with you..do they? If so why? Maybe it’s because the information out there is so poor that engagement is better than nothing and therefore not a reflection of the quality of information provided by pharma but of a situation which pharma could be seen to be exploiting. Firstly it might be worth finding out the terms on which patients wish to engage with you if at all. Don’t be lured into the notion that creating your own branded interactive platform is the best way to create patient focus – it can be a major turn off.
2. Knowledge centers
Who is to say that the information that comes out of Pharma is fully authoritative & transparent. You say that this is a good space for ‘all non-marking information’ but if pharma is the main driver behind the interactive platform with little or no checks and balances who is to say when information steps over the line and becomes promotion. After all it is particularly here where Pharma has the worst rep of all regarding downplaying information, Crisis management etc. The same goes for disease awareness campaigns that make no mention of the sponsor. What ever happenned to working with public health authorities and patient groups to validate information and get rid of the ‘snake-skin’ seller flogging his goods vibe from so many of these supposed information campaigns.
3. Customer Service
The only valid place for patients to have their questions answered in this context is by a qualified individual is with their doctor or medical professional. Pharma has no place in this space.
Josh,
You raise a lot of good points, many of which fall along a similar spectrum of the issues at hand: Trust, transparency, and negative societal sentiment.
You’re right, the long road back to credibility will not be completely solved by social media. There is no question that the past decade has left a poor taste in the mouth of pharma’s most important customers, the patients and physicians. There will be many companies who frankly cannot subscribe to the philosophy and rebuilding efforts we are describing here. However, there will be a few who can.
I agree – let’s determine at what level the patient wishes to engage with pharma. The doctor’s time is fleeting, and patients are often misinforming other patients with numerous conditions online about treatment options, so the way things are currently done online is not sufficient. Let’s start by establishing a system of checks and balances. That’s the beauty of social media – it’s the ultimate checker and balancer. If answers are visible and transparent to doctors/patients/shareholders/dogs/cats/etcetera, how can they not be validated?
There is no doubt that many pharma companies will cater messages towards their product and unfortunately sometimes beyond their niche. Be them branded, non-branded, disease-based, there are hints of deception across many forums. So, again, why not open up the engagement to “check” and “balance” the data, the messaging, the product positioning. Every person who ever speaks directly to you is controlling a message in a way. What you take from it and say back to them is engagement.
As for a service, physicians do need pharma to answer their questions. At the heart of the industry, there is significant research and development and there is not way around getting physician input. I believe patient questions directed at pharma should only be answered if they are the simplest of questions: dosing, insurance, etc. Other treatment questions should always be referred to qualified physician.
The bottom line is trust restoration and transparency has to start somewhere. There is much more thinking that must go in to the approach to take across social mediums, but it’s a resource that could help restore some of the missing credibility if done correctly.
Thank you for your comment.
- Hunter Young, Program Manager, S+R Medical Communications
Ludwik Fleck’s proposed theory that researchers were incapable of finding scientific truth because they were always prone to see what they wanted to see in the results of their studies is basically a criteria that you will find in all people around the world. People in general will see what they want to see.
Great Article!