Comments on: How to Make the Social Media Risk Worthwhile http://www.doseofdigital.com/2009/05/making-the-social-media-risk-worthwhile/ Improving Healthcare Through Digital Technology -- Effectively using digital technology and social media in pharma and healthcare Tue, 24 Jan 2012 00:11:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jonathan Richman http://www.doseofdigital.com/2009/05/making-the-social-media-risk-worthwhile/#comment-327 Jonathan Richman Tue, 05 May 2009 17:10:32 +0000 http://www.doseofdigital.com/?p=794#comment-327 Wendy, Great comment (as usual). You're not dealing with tougher medical/legal/regulatory teams...I think for the most part we're in the same boat. However, there are a few companies that are a bit ahead. We do get to work with one J&J pharma company (Centocor Ortho Biotech) and this is a different experience. J&J has a social media policy and a way for brand teams to go about it and get approval. Just having a process is a big advantage. Perhaps that's why J&J companies have done so many things in the social media space. Thanks for commenting, Josh. I'd tie your comment back to Wendy's and agree that we should try to reframe the question as you recommend: "Move beyond 'Oh no there is risk' to 'What is the benefit, what is the risk, is it worth it, and how will we manage those risks.'" That's really what regulatory teams do with everything else, but for some reason they take a tougher stance with social media. So, perhaps this reframe is one approach to moving regulatory teams forward. (Thanks for the feedback on the wiki, stay tuned for the <a href="http://www.doseofdigital.com/pharma-healthcare-digital-data-bank/" rel="nofollow">Digital Data Bank</a>.) Wendy, Great comment (as usual). You’re not dealing with tougher medical/legal/regulatory teams…I think for the most part we’re in the same boat. However, there are a few companies that are a bit ahead. We do get to work with one J&J pharma company (Centocor Ortho Biotech) and this is a different experience. J&J has a social media policy and a way for brand teams to go about it and get approval. Just having a process is a big advantage. Perhaps that’s why J&J companies have done so many things in the social media space.

Thanks for commenting, Josh. I’d tie your comment back to Wendy’s and agree that we should try to reframe the question as you recommend: “Move beyond ‘Oh no there is risk’ to ‘What is the benefit, what is the risk, is it worth it, and how will we manage those risks.’” That’s really what regulatory teams do with everything else, but for some reason they take a tougher stance with social media. So, perhaps this reframe is one approach to moving regulatory teams forward. (Thanks for the feedback on the wiki, stay tuned for the Digital Data Bank.)

]]> By: Jonathan Richman http://www.doseofdigital.com/2009/05/making-the-social-media-risk-worthwhile/#comment-9079 Jonathan Richman Tue, 05 May 2009 17:10:00 +0000 http://www.doseofdigital.com/?p=794#comment-9079 Wendy, Great comment (as usual). You're not dealing with tougher medical/legal/regulatory teams...I think for the most part we're in the same boat. However, there are a few companies that are a bit ahead. We do get to work with one J&J pharma company (Centocor Ortho Biotech) and this is a different experience. J&J has a social media policy and a way for brand teams to go about it and get approval. Just having a process is a big advantage. Perhaps that's why J&J companies have done so many things in the social media space. Thanks for commenting, Josh. I'd tie your comment back to Wendy's and agree that we should try to reframe the question as you recommend: "Move beyond 'Oh no there is risk' to 'What is the benefit, what is the risk, is it worth it, and how will we manage those risks.'" That's really what regulatory teams do with everything else, but for some reason they take a tougher stance with social media. So, perhaps this reframe is one approach to moving regulatory teams forward. (Thanks for the feedback on the wiki, stay tuned for the <a href="http://www.doseofdigital.com/pharma-healthcare-digital-data-bank/" rel="nofollow">Digital Data Bank</a>.) Wendy, Great comment (as usual). You’re not dealing with tougher medical/legal/regulatory teams…I think for the most part we’re in the same boat. However, there are a few companies that are a bit ahead. We do get to work with one J&J pharma company (Centocor Ortho Biotech) and this is a different experience. J&J has a social media policy and a way for brand teams to go about it and get approval. Just having a process is a big advantage. Perhaps that’s why J&J companies have done so many things in the social media space.

Thanks for commenting, Josh. I’d tie your comment back to Wendy’s and agree that we should try to reframe the question as you recommend: “Move beyond ‘Oh no there is risk’ to ‘What is the benefit, what is the risk, is it worth it, and how will we manage those risks.’” That’s really what regulatory teams do with everything else, but for some reason they take a tougher stance with social media. So, perhaps this reframe is one approach to moving regulatory teams forward. (Thanks for the feedback on the wiki, stay tuned for the Digital Data Bank.)

]]> By: Josh Bernoff http://www.doseofdigital.com/2009/05/making-the-social-media-risk-worthwhile/#comment-325 Josh Bernoff Tue, 05 May 2009 14:18:44 +0000 http://www.doseofdigital.com/?p=794#comment-325 Thanks for your analysis, Jonathan. In the context of Chris P's comment, I think companies need to move beyond "Oh no there is risk" to "What is the benefit, what is the risk, is it worth it, and how will we manage those risks." AE reporting is a good example. Your 1 in 500 number is going to be different for a drug that's been out a while vs. a new one -- the former will have less risk. Hope to hear more from social application providers and pharma companies. P.S. thanks for maintaining the wiki, what a great resource. <abbr><em>Josh Bernoff’s last blog post..<a href="http://blogs.forrester.com/groundswell/2009/04/what-should-nbc-and-subway-do-about-the-save-chuck-campaign.html" rel="nofollow">What should NBC and Subway do about the "Save Chuck" campaign?</a></abbr></em> Thanks for your analysis, Jonathan. In the context of Chris P’s comment, I think companies need to move beyond “Oh no there is risk” to “What is the benefit, what is the risk, is it worth it, and how will we manage those risks.”

AE reporting is a good example. Your 1 in 500 number is going to be different for a drug that’s been out a while vs. a new one — the former will have less risk.

Hope to hear more from social application providers and pharma companies.

P.S. thanks for maintaining the wiki, what a great resource.

Josh Bernoff’s last blog post..What should NBC and Subway do about the “Save Chuck” campaign?

]]> By: Josh Bernoff http://www.doseofdigital.com/2009/05/making-the-social-media-risk-worthwhile/#comment-9078 Josh Bernoff Tue, 05 May 2009 14:18:00 +0000 http://www.doseofdigital.com/?p=794#comment-9078 Thanks for your analysis, Jonathan. In the context of Chris P's comment, I think companies need to move beyond "Oh no there is risk" to "What is the benefit, what is the risk, is it worth it, and how will we manage those risks." AE reporting is a good example. Your 1 in 500 number is going to be different for a drug that's been out a while vs. a new one -- the former will have less risk. Hope to hear more from social application providers and pharma companies. P.S. thanks for maintaining the wiki, what a great resource. <abbr><em>Josh Bernoff’s last blog post..<a href="http://blogs.forrester.com/groundswell/2009/04/what-should-nbc-and-subway-do-about-the-save-chuck-campaign.html" rel="nofollow">What should NBC and Subway do about the "Save Chuck" campaign?</a></em></abbr> Thanks for your analysis, Jonathan. In the context of Chris P’s comment, I think companies need to move beyond “Oh no there is risk” to “What is the benefit, what is the risk, is it worth it, and how will we manage those risks.”

AE reporting is a good example. Your 1 in 500 number is going to be different for a drug that’s been out a while vs. a new one — the former will have less risk.

Hope to hear more from social application providers and pharma companies.

P.S. thanks for maintaining the wiki, what a great resource.

Josh Bernoff’s last blog post..What should NBC and Subway do about the “Save Chuck” campaign?

]]> By: WendyB http://www.doseofdigital.com/2009/05/making-the-social-media-risk-worthwhile/#comment-323 WendyB Tue, 05 May 2009 13:32:26 +0000 http://www.doseofdigital.com/?p=794#comment-323 A good post and good discussion Jonathan. We've talked a lot about which disease states and products are social-ready and which aren't. It's absolutely a critical discussion when planning a brands' digital strategy. Maybe I'm dealing with tougher medical/legal/regulatory teams, but in my experience, you can talk about patient benefit to those teams until blue in the face ... and they rarely care. Sadly, the regulators (FDA included) seem to care less about what you are doing for patients' benefit and instead focus more on that what you're doing won't harm or mislead them. There is a subtle difference there. A good example is the recent rash of search warning letters [see http://tinyurl.com/cbpqbq]. By issuing these letters, DDMAC is further restricting pharma from branded search advertising ... leaving the fake Viagras and dangerous herbal remedies to have free reign over those search results. Is that what's best for consumers? Even if you create a great patient community for the "right disease," there is still unfortunatly a great amount of risk that consumers will post unapproved claims - good or bad. What FDA hasn't been able to answer is, is that company still liable for those claims? Until they (publicly) say "no," pharma regulatory reviewers assume the answer is "yes." And therefore they're pretty sure they're still going to get fired for it. <abbr><em>WendyB’s last blog post..<a href="http://intouchsolutionsdigital.blogspot.com/2009/04/working-with-agencies-whats-right.html" rel="nofollow">Working with Agencies: What’s the Right Approach?</a></abbr></em> A good post and good discussion Jonathan. We’ve talked a lot about which disease states and products are social-ready and which aren’t. It’s absolutely a critical discussion when planning a brands’ digital strategy. Maybe I’m dealing with tougher medical/legal/regulatory teams, but in my experience, you can talk about patient benefit to those teams until blue in the face … and they rarely care. Sadly, the regulators (FDA included) seem to care less about what you are doing for patients’ benefit and instead focus more on that what you’re doing won’t harm or mislead them. There is a subtle difference there. A good example is the recent rash of search warning letters [see http://tinyurl.com/cbpqbq. By issuing these letters, DDMAC is further restricting pharma from branded search advertising … leaving the fake Viagras and dangerous herbal remedies to have free reign over those search results. Is that what’s best for consumers?

Even if you create a great patient community for the “right disease,” there is still unfortunatly a great amount of risk that consumers will post unapproved claims – good or bad. What FDA hasn’t been able to answer is, is that company still liable for those claims? Until they (publicly) say “no,” pharma regulatory reviewers assume the answer is “yes.” And therefore they’re pretty sure they’re still going to get fired for it.

WendyB’s last blog post..Working with Agencies: What’s the Right Approach?

]]> By: WendyB http://www.doseofdigital.com/2009/05/making-the-social-media-risk-worthwhile/#comment-9077 WendyB Tue, 05 May 2009 13:32:00 +0000 http://www.doseofdigital.com/?p=794#comment-9077 A good post and good discussion Jonathan. We've talked a lot about which disease states and products are social-ready and which aren't. It's absolutely a critical discussion when planning a brands' digital strategy. Maybe I'm dealing with tougher medical/legal/regulatory teams, but in my experience, you can talk about patient benefit to those teams until blue in the face ... and they rarely care. Sadly, the regulators (FDA included) seem to care less about what you are doing for patients' benefit and instead focus more on that what you're doing won't harm or mislead them. There is a subtle difference there. A good example is the recent rash of search warning letters [see http://tinyurl.com/cbpqbq]. By issuing these letters, DDMAC is further restricting pharma from branded search advertising ... leaving the fake Viagras and dangerous herbal remedies to have free reign over those search results. Is that what's best for consumers? Even if you create a great patient community for the "right disease," there is still unfortunatly a great amount of risk that consumers will post unapproved claims - good or bad. What FDA hasn't been able to answer is, is that company still liable for those claims? Until they (publicly) say "no," pharma regulatory reviewers assume the answer is "yes." And therefore they're pretty sure they're still going to get fired for it. <abbr><em>WendyB’s last blog post..<a href="http://intouchsolutionsdigital.blogspot.com/2009/04/working-with-agencies-whats-right.html" rel="nofollow">Working with Agencies: What’s the Right Approach?</a></em></abbr> A good post and good discussion Jonathan. We’ve talked a lot about which disease states and products are social-ready and which aren’t. It’s absolutely a critical discussion when planning a brands’ digital strategy. Maybe I’m dealing with tougher medical/legal/regulatory teams, but in my experience, you can talk about patient benefit to those teams until blue in the face … and they rarely care. Sadly, the regulators (FDA included) seem to care less about what you are doing for patients’ benefit and instead focus more on that what you’re doing won’t harm or mislead them. There is a subtle difference there. A good example is the recent rash of search warning letters [see http://tinyurl.com/cbpqbq. By issuing these letters, DDMAC is further restricting pharma from branded search advertising … leaving the fake Viagras and dangerous herbal remedies to have free reign over those search results. Is that what’s best for consumers?

Even if you create a great patient community for the “right disease,” there is still unfortunatly a great amount of risk that consumers will post unapproved claims – good or bad. What FDA hasn’t been able to answer is, is that company still liable for those claims? Until they (publicly) say “no,” pharma regulatory reviewers assume the answer is “yes.” And therefore they’re pretty sure they’re still going to get fired for it.

WendyB’s last blog post..Working with Agencies: What’s the Right Approach?

]]> By: Jamie Favreau http://www.doseofdigital.com/2009/05/making-the-social-media-risk-worthwhile/#comment-322 Jamie Favreau Tue, 05 May 2009 04:30:00 +0000 http://www.doseofdigital.com/?p=794#comment-322 I like your analysis of the situation. I think with cancer if the patients could have a safe place to have a cancer survivor group. Sort of like what LLS does with their patients just an online version. This virtual support system could help between meetings! When sometimes you hit a rough point and need someone to talk to when your family isn't home or if you need to talk to someone or if you are not ready to commit to your situation. Maybe you're a cancer patient and you are too terrified to speak but you want to remain anonymous. I like your analysis of the situation. I think with cancer if the patients could have a safe place to have a cancer survivor group. Sort of like what LLS does with their patients just an online version. This virtual support system could help between meetings! When sometimes you hit a rough point and need someone to talk to when your family isn’t home or if you need to talk to someone or if you are not ready to commit to your situation. Maybe you’re a cancer patient and you are too terrified to speak but you want to remain anonymous.

]]>