Social Media Wiki

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?

Subscribe to the Dose of Digital RSS Feed


Join
Dose of Digital on Facebook for exclusive content and sneak previews.



Ready to hire the folks behind Dose of Digital? Contact us.

Possibly related posts (auto-generated):

  1. Why Pharma Needs Product Reviews
  2. Ten Digital Marketing Ideas Pharma Companies Will Never Try (But Should)
  3. What Pharma Can Learn from the Pizza Guy


Print This Post Print This Post

  • Ben
    Certainly the link I presented is an extreme case of being misleading. But one of the main problems with the digital industry is we focus too much on clicks and not on conversions. If someone was searching for home remedies and ended up on the Nexium site, they would feel misled. The point I was trying to make is that search engines exist to give us relevant information based on what we searched for. But I think I got too caught up on the semantics. (And a little bit off of your main topic.) Clearly, having product reviews would help with search engine optimization. The main issue you will have in the pharmaceutical industry is accountability. Let's say someone posted a review about Nexium on a website that was hosted by AstraZeneca. In this review they claim that they took Nexium, and woke up in the hospital. Turns out they tried to commit suicide while on Nexium. Nexium would then be required to report this to the FDA, even if the story makes no sense and has no relevance to the side effects of their product. Nexium would risk damaging their brand. Is that a risk they are willing to take?
  • Ben, No question the regulatory issues is what's stopping pharma companies from doing product reviews. They would be extremely hard to do the right way, but they may be worth the effort. Product reviews drive additional conversions in every other industry. Could they have the same effect in pharma? I don't know the answer for sure, of course. Moderating the reviews would be critical, but it would need to be transparent enough to ensure that negative reviews aren't patently deleted, allowing only the positive to be posted. I think you could easily (if transparent about it) delete reviews that clearly have nothing to do with the product like in your example. Perhaps having a third party company manage this for you would be a way to do this in a transparent, unbiased way.

    Regarding the idea that people would feel mislead, I agree IF I somehow said that Nexium was a home remedy or I didn't mention the product and only said, "Click here for a home remedy for heartburn." (say, for example, in a paid search ad). I'm not recommending that. Let's say Nexium does optimize its site for "heartburn remedy." When Google provides the search results, the title of the website (Discover NEXIUM (esomeprazole magnesium)— The Purple Pill™ that offers 24-hour heartburn relief) would appear and also a bit of the meta description. So before someone clicks, they know it's Nexium. That's not misleading. On the other hand if I did an unbranded page that was about home remedies and then when you click on it, you find it's all about Nexium, that's misleading.

    Let's also remember that "home remedy for heartburn" and "heartburn remedy" are completely different things. You're assuming that when people say "remedy" they mean an at-home, non-pharma treatment. That might be true or might not. The definition of "remedy" in regards to health is this: "a medicine or therapy that cures disease or relieve pain." That doesn't say "at-home" or "natural." But maybe it means "at-home" or "natural" to patients. If it does, to your point, then I would just get a click because they wouldn't be interested in my Rx treatment. I'm also more interested in conversions, so if I knew this (and I don't for sure) then I would ignore this term and look for something different.
  • Ben
    People who are looking for remedies are looking for home remedies, people who are looking for drugs are looking for treatment. Why would you try to mislead them? Google didn't take that person to a Pharma site because they weren't looking for a Pharma site. What you are referring to isn't search engine optimization, it's search engine spoofing. Frankly, I don't see how it's any different than this: http://americancopywriter.typepad.com/blog/2009...
  • Ben,

    Fair point. I happen to disagree that this would be "spoofing", but I see what you're getting at. First, I don't think this is remotely like the example in your link. That's clearly misleading baiting. That's not what the intention is in my example. "Remedies" happens to be "natural language" for consumers. No one says "treatment" except for healthcare marketers. So, if we talk in our own language, we're not relating to our customers really well. As marketers, we need to learn and use their language. I don't think there's anything wrong with that for two reasons. First off, let's be clear, we're not going to show up in the search results as something like "Featuring a natural, at home remedy" and then redirect people to, say, the Nexium brand site. That's spoofing. It's clearly going to say in the title and description that shows up in the results that this is a pharma drug site. Choose to come and see or not. Second, we are only going to use the language that people use when they are looking for a drug treatment (or remedy). I don't want to waste resources on someone who is never going to ever try a prescription or non-"natural" treatment. I can call it whatever I like and they won't use it. I want people who are open to the option, in this case, of a prescription treatment. In order to do that, and this is the fair challenge of your argument, I need to find out whether people mean "treatment," particularly a prescription "treatment" when they say "remedy" or if they really mean "at home remedy."

    So, to your point, if someone is really looking for an at home, "natural" remedy for their heartburn when they use the term "heartburn remedy" in search, I wouldn't go after that term. They don't want to hear from me and I don't want to waste resources on them. Maybe remedy isn't the right word. But I know that "treatment" isn't the right word. This is the beauty of putting consumer product reviews on your website, consumers search optimize the site with their natural language for you. I don't have to guess or pick the wrong terms and be accused of spoofing. I let them describe the condition and use their language for how they describe the treatment. Check out my post on this idea: http://www.doseofdigital.com/2009/07/reason-pha...

    "Remedy" was just an example. It could be a thousand other things, but I want to find the terms that are going to draw the right people to my site. That term may or may not be the right one. Point is that most companies don't invest the time in figuring out what the potential options are.

    Thanks for the comment.
  • ZElliott
    Sure, valuable, and that Celebrex example is very interesting, however not really sure that everyone is getting their comments/questions addressed by qualified individuals. And an awful lot of unprofessional speculation going on - could negatively influence compliance, which in turn could make the patient less successful in their course of therapy. Very much two sides to this issue...
  • Totally agree. No one is getting their question answered because that's not how iGuard works. However, if this was part of a pharma site, you could have one of your medical team members (or a neutral third party physician) answering these questions and following up one on one if necessary. Reviews for the sake of reviews in healthcare isn't enough, but rather there should be some action taken when someone says they are having a problem. That's a key part of it. Agree that there is some rampant in accurate speculation that you would have to control a bit with an appropriate moderation policy, but it could be done. Keep in mind that this isn't for Celebrex only. That was just the first thing I clicked on. This exists already for every product, but now it's the Wild West on sites like iGuard where there is no voice of reason and no one who can respond that has some medical credentials. That's an issue, but one that could be fixed if pharma owned this instead. Not easy to do by any stretch and would require a lot of work, but it would also be game-changing.
  • ZElliott
    Jon, I really think that medicine is too personalized a product to benefit from "reviews" - in this case, its not a matter of taste, as if it were a movie, but rather of safety and efficacy.
  • Zoe, Yes, medicine is highly personalized, but it's interesting how people still tend to give feedback around the same few things. Take a look at these reviews for Celebrex on iGuard.org: http://iguard.org/medication/Celebrex.html#comm.... They are all a little unique (as you'd expect), but they also have very common themes. In many ways the usage of many products, not just medicine, is highly personalized, which would lead to personalized reviews, but again, I think they tend to bunch around common themes. Knowing what others experienced with a drug and how they dealt with it would be extremely valuable information in my opinion.
blog comments powered by Disqus