Archive | July, 2009

One More Reason Pharma Needs Product Reviews

A few weeks back, I wrote a post about why pharma and healthcare companies need to consider adding product reviews to their sites. For those of you who didn’t read that article and thus are completely up in arms that I would suggest this, please take a look at my original article before you decide. You’ll see that I’m readily acknowledging that adding ratings and reviews to a brand site wouldn’t be simple and isn’t without its regulatory risks, but I am trying to argue that the benefits just might outweigh the risks.

Here was the main reason from this earlier post why I think product reviews are important for pharma (if you already read the post, you can skip this):

So, how is adding product reviews going to help you sell more of your product? One of the first things they teach you in sales and marketing is that a customer saying “no” to your sales pitch isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The reason why is because, with some questions, you can figure out why they aren’t interested, and deal with these issues. But going through all of this effort is very expensive. Just look at the budgets pharma companies allocate for field sales teams if you don’t agree. When it comes to pharma, or any industry, keeping your current customers is always cheaper than finding new ones. The people writing reviews on iGuard, for example, are already on your product. You’ve spent money on DTC TV, iMedia, the sales team, print ads, and a thousand other tactics, but now you’re about to lose them. Unless you don’t.

When comments are on a 3rd party site like iGuard instead of your own, you can’t be involved in the conversation. Imagine instead that they were on your site. This would allow you to do two things. Since you would require people to register to leave a comment (and you would), they also would provide their contact information. You can ask them if they’d like someone to contact them about their issue when they sign up. In this case, when someone posts a review saying they are having a certain side effect, you can do something to keep them on your product. Chances are that if this patient doesn’t get an answer, they’ll stop your treatment. So, you can have a nurse or other professional call and talk about the person’s issue. You can even go so far as to contact with the person’s doctor (with his or her permission) and explain the problem. The doctor can then follow up with appropriate actions like dosage adjustments, side effect management, or, where necessary, switching the patient to something different.

Think for a minute how this would be perceived by the medical community and patients. Wouldn’t doctors like to know when their patients are having a problem with their medication?

So if that’s not a compelling enough reason, let me give you one more. Search engine optimization. Before you go ahead and say that search isn’t important for healthcare or that it’s currently being done well in this industry, think again. Read my article about the state of search optimization for the five biggest selling pharma brands. The quick and dirty summary is that for major keywords, most pharma sites don’t make it to the first handful of pages on Google search results, this means that virtually no one is finding their sites through search…a big missed opportunity.

One of the big reasons for this is because of the language that us healthcare marketers (myself included) like to use. We say “treatment” instead of “remedy,” for example, but “remedy” is searched far more often because that’s how our customers talk. It’s actually searched for twice as often when it comes to heartburn (for example) according to Google’s data.

remedy versus treatment Google

Because we say “treatment” we also write our website pages using “treatment.” This means that we never use the word “remedy” so Google never puts our sites in search results for the word “remedy.” But that’s how our customer’s are searching. One more reason that knowing these types of terms is important is because oftentimes the websites that “own” these “remedy” search results aren’t perhaps the best source of medical information. Let’s use the heartburn example again. When I search for “heartburn treatment” on Google, the number one result is a page on USA Today’s website. Not exactly the American College of Gastroenterology, but still reputable. However, when I search for “heartburn remedy” on Google, it’s a different story. I get a website that could at best be called a homemade site. Here’s a quick preview of the site:

homemade heartburn

I’m not knocking homemade sites, nor am I concerned about the look of this site, but rather the content. The first heartburn “remedy” you see on the page is this:

“Sherbert[sic] . any sherbert [sic] dip will do. Ive tried everything over the counter medication and nuthing [sic] works, maybe gives relief for a couple of hours but thats [sic] it. ONLY SHERBERT ITS [sic] Excellent TRY IT!”

Wow. I know that this recommended heartburn remedy is having the opposite effect on a product manager somewhere, but know that this is what your customers are seeing when they search for “heartburn remedy.” PS: the word is SHERBET, not SERBERT. You can do this same experiment with ANY disease and you’ll get the same result.

So what does this have to do with ratings and reviews? I’ve already said that those of us in healthcare marketing including our medical teams, speak in, well, medical language. That’s why we say “treatment” instead of “remedy.” It’s hard for us to think of it any differently, so it would be hard to write our content using any different language. Yes, we’ve done a really good job of taking our content and making it easy to understand including our inscrutable prescribing information. However, as we simplify, we often don’t use natural language. In this case, natural language means the language and terms that your customers are using to describe their condition and its treatment. It’s difficult to research the precise language that people use in these cases and to incorporate it into the content on your site. But there’s a simple way to fix this. Reviews.

By letting people write reviews that you then include on your site, you automatically generate the natural language and terms that your customers use to conduct searches. That is, they won’t write: “Drug X is the best heartburn treatment I’ve ever tried.” They’ll write: “Drug X is the best heartburn remedy I’ve ever tried.” This is an oversimplified example, of course, but you get the idea. Over time, your site will become optimized for the natural language searches that your customers are using. And the best part? You didn’t have to pay a dime for an agency to come up with the copy. You didn’t have to spend time researching how customers talk about your product (and pay a fortune). Your customers do it for you.

Of course, it’s not that simple. Allowing reviews on your site creates some other challenges particularly around adverse event reporting. But the question then becomes, is the value of owning natural language search terms and the increased traffic that comes to your site from people seeking solutions worth it? It’s easy for me to say yes, but can it be easy for you as well? Here’s my take from my previous reviews posting:

Yes, you will have to deal with adverse events if you go with product reviews. With a simple process, you can moderate every comment and deal with it appropriately. It’s ironic that pharma companies always cite this issue of adverse events when it comes to getting feedback from patients particularly when discussions about social media come up. However, at the same time, more and more companies are voluntarily adding links (which I bet will be required soon enough) to the FDA website and a phone number encouraging people to report adverse events directly to the FDA. This tells me that pharma companies aren’t necessarily afraid of what they might hear, but rather that they simply don’t want to deal with the information. That is, they don’t want to create a process to deal with it. But all these companies already have processes in place for adverse event reporting. An electronic version would flow quite simply into this. Also, keep in mind that you aren’t required to post every comment or review on your site. Those that are inappropriate (not just negative, but contain rants or foul language, for example) can be taken out. You simply need to ensure that you are transparent about your policy on how you moderate comments and which you post and which you don’t.

Again, not saying it’s simple or easy, but I am challenging you to ask the question: does the benefit outweigh the risk?

4 Technologies That Are Killing the URL

A few weeks ago I submitted an article to iMedia Connection that I originally wrote for this blog. However, I couldn’t really figure out a solid pharma and/or healthcare angle, so I sent it to them to see if they were interested. They were. As you know, I just started writing a blog for iMedia Connection. I’m including stories there that aren’t really healthcare specific, but I’m also including a link from this blog because I think they are still interesting for most of Dose of Digital’s readers. (PS: Thanks to all of you who read the Twitter article I wrote. It’s still the most popular blog post on iMedia.)

Apparently, the folks at iMedia Connection liked my latest article, as they’ve made it the featured cover story. Check it out:

imediaclipcover

To read the full article, please check it out: 4 Technologies That Are Killing the URL. If you really want to see my mugshot on iMedia Connection’s cover, then go to their homepage: http://www.imediaconnection.com. It’ll only be on there for a few days though. After that, you’ll have to take my word for it.

Here are the article highlights:

Article Highlights:

  • Search engines and browsers elevate solid search marketing strategies over mere URLs
  • URL shortening services negate the branding of your web address
  • QR codes and image recognition technologies represent the URL killers of the future

More pharma/healthcare blog posts later this week, but wanted to share one more non-healthcare post with you.

Greetings from the Business Development Institute Conference

Yesterday, I had the chance to speak at the Business Development Institute’s Social Communications & Healthcare Case Studies and Roundtables Conference. It was a well-done conference with about 350 people in attendance, which is a pretty big number these days. I also got to meet in person some of my Twitter friends, which was great.

Speaking of Twitter, there was quite a bit of participation during the conference and you can run through the entire stream. You can search for #bdi or review it all in real time here.

My talk was called Healthcare & Social Media: Know the Rules. You can listen to my talk using the player below, but first, you can download a PDF version of the presentation so you can follow along (though you’ll have to guess a bit when to flip to the next slide): Healthcare and Social Media...Know the Rules. My talk starts around the 68:08 minute mark if you want to jump to it. For the record, I did not provide this introduction to Steve, the host of the conference. Seriously. [If you're viewing this in an RSS reader or email client, you'll most likely have to click through to the post for the player to work.]

The version you can download above is exactly what I presented in New York. However, you probably noticed that there aren’t many words on the slides (a pet peeve of mine). What this means is that without my “script” these probably don’t make that much sense. So, here’s a PDF of a fully annotated version with more details on the slides, a few slides that I had to cut because of time, and my full speaking notes. Here’s the link: Annotated Version of Healthcare and Social Media...Know the Rules

You also might be interested in the Pharma and Healthcare Social Media Wiki, which I mentioned in my talk. It’s where you can find a bunch of examples of other pharma and healthcare companies have ongoing programs in some social media channel.

A few more things while I’ve got you here…

Don’t forget to subscribe, so you don’t miss anything in the future.

Subscribe to the Dose of Digital RSS Feed

I can also send you an email anytime I publish a new white paper. Interested? Fill in the form below. Rest assured that your email will never be sold, rented, or shared with anyone. I hate spam more than you do. If you’re viewing this in an RSS reader or email client, you’ll have to click through to the post for the form to work.


* indicates required



Lastly, be sure to check out the Mini White Paper Series. These are posts on a general issue that can be re-applied to many other situations. For example, my post on The Myth of Adverse Event Reporting covers how pharma can deal with adverse event reports and how often they really occur online. The information in that post can be used in a number of different situations. So, that’s what it takes to be a “Mini White Paper.” And, yes, they’re long. So, here are all the articles that currently feature the Mini White Paper icon:

Mini White Paper

Diagnosis In: Twitter’s Dying a Slow Death

One more post that’s non-pharma/healthcare specific, so I put it on iMedia Connection.

Please check out my latest post: Diagnosis In: Twitter’s Dying a Slow Death

Here’s a little teaser: “Okay, so Twitter may have more than a few months to live, but it’s not going to be around for much longer the way I see it for one simple reason. It’s not because of all the issues with security that have been all over the digital news lately. It’s not because there’s something better. It’s not even because someone’s going to buy Twitter. Twitter has a terminal disease and nothing really can save it. The disease? Spam.”

imedia connection