Social Media Wiki

Pharma Should Forget About Social Media Monitoring

Dose of Digital Mini White Paper

That Sham Wow Guy

<Play along and use your best infomercial voice to read this first paragraph.>

Do you find yourself frustrated that you can’t take action when you see something bad said about your product on Facebook? Do you find yourself secretly logging in at home to see what bloggers are saying about you? Do you fret that bad things are being said about your brand on WebMD, but you can’t go and check? Do you have a passing interest in Twitter, but don’t want to spend hours figuring out how it works? Well, then social media monitoring is NOT for you!

<Okay, you can stop the voice now.>

That’s right, for most pharma and healthcare marketers, you should just forget about social media monitoring. I know, I know. Didn’t I tell everyone that one of the principles of pharma and healthcare social media participation was “Monitor and Get Involved.” I did. I’ve had this in  presentations for a while, but now I’m wondering why. Why is it such a big deal to monitor social media?

I’m certainly not the first to suggest that monitoring is a good first step into social media. It’s included as the first step in so many lists, that I can’t include them all here. I know you’ve all heard it before in many different places, so it’s almost a rule. The first step to getting involved in social media is monitoring. Right?

Are you sure?

Of course, there are a lot of benefits to monitoring and the rationale for doing this as a first step appears pretty sound. While you’re trying to figure out how best to leverage a certain social media channel, say, Twitter, why not start just by seeing what others are saying? You can use this information to get a sense for how your brand is perceived in the market and what people are saying. Is it all good? Are they consistent? Are they actually saying anything or do they not care? Is there one thing that you didn’t know? Does it even really pertain to your brand or is incredibly general (e.g., just took my Lipitor)? You might find some informative information and you’ll get a little sense for what people say about you when they aren’t in a focus group saying what they think you want to hear. Great. At the same time, while your monitoring, you can also learn a bit of the etiquette of the channel. Using Twitter as an example, you’ll see how the @ works and what the # is and how to use it (and how not to).

There you go…two reasons to monitor just like that. So, why would I tell you to forget about monitoring? It’s simple really.

Since we’re talking about pharma and healthcare here, I thought I’d use this healthcare analogy. Doctors and other healthcare professionals have a pretty simple rule when it comes to ordering tests: do the test only if the results are capable of telling me to change my treatment decision. That is, if I’m thinking I should do surgery and I have one more test I could do, would the results of the test, no matter what they were, convince me not to do surgery? If the answer to that question is “no,” then why do the test? You already have done tests and some sort of examination that said surgery was the right choice, so why do another test if it’s not going to change your recommendation?

Social media monitoring in pharma is just like this last test. Is monitoring, namely what you find out, going to change what you do? Is it going to change your marketing approach? Is it going to spring you into action? Are you going to actively respond? The answer is probably “no.” So why subject your patient, I mean you, to an unnecessary (and potentially invasive) test?

“But wait,” you say, “we are going to do something different. This will give us some insights into our products and  it’ll give us a great marketing idea.” Really? Here’s how this could go wrong: you could actually do this this. Change your marketing plan based on something you see via your monitoring efforts. Let’s say for a moment that you notice time and time again that people are something as clear cut as, “I know they say that Drug X works really well, but I was shocked how inexpensive it was.” (I know, a stretch, but stay with me.) You notice this a few times in a few places. At what point do you see it enough to change your marketing message? At what point do you focus on the cost a bit more in your communications? 10 tweets? 100? 1,000? Maybe 50 Facebook updates? 15 blog posts? At what point do you know it’s something real and not some sort of anomaly?

You can’t. At least, you can’t by yourself. In order to actually use monitoring to inform you about marketing decisions such as brand messaging, you need something much more robust than you doing a Twitter search and making a few notes. It’s a big commitment. Still think you can do it alone? Great. Here’s what you need to collect:

  • number of brand mentions and the content of each (make sure to include links from the mentions)
  • the tone and sentiment of EVERY mention (positive, negative, or neutral)
  • context of the mention (you’ve got to filter out everything irrelevant like spam mentions)

Okay, that’s a good start. There are a few more, but let’s go with that. There’s still more to do. Do you like Excel? You’d better. Love statistics? You’ll learn to. Because now you’ve got to take all the information you gathered and start to look for patterns, trends over time, and where changes occurred. You then need to correlate this with market events and your brand communications. I’d use about a year’s worth of data to get started. Go ahead…I’ll wait.

If you chose to actually do this by yourself and now are coming back to read the rest of this post, it’s probably October 2010. Most of what you figured out is probably outdated. Sorry about that.

My point with all of this is to say that without a formal plan of what you’ll do with your monitoring efforts, it might just be a waste of time. There are a lot of companies out there that would be happy to help you with this. Some of these tools are free and some are very expensive. This is definitely a category where you get what you pay for. Most expensive isn’t necessarily best, but expect to pay big to do a robust analysis that is going to give you solutions and not just more mountains of data. You do have a budget for this, right?

One other reason why monitoring might not be for you…you’re not allowed. Your company may restrict the sites you can access at work and chances are these include some (if not all) social media sites. Why? I’m not sure, but two possible  reasons. First, they think that you’re going to waste your time all day playing with Facebook. They do this despite the fact that at least one study has shown an INCREASE in productivity when these sites aren’t blocked. Second, they don’t want to know. If you go out and look what other people are saying about your brand and uncover someone talking about an adverse event, you’ve got to report it to the FDA. If it’s not reported directly to you, then you’re not responsible for reporting it. That is, if someone posts an adverse event on WebMD, then you don’t have to regularly go through WebMD and report all of these. But if you see it, then that counts the same as if it were reported directly to you. I’m not implying that pharma companies are trying to sweep this information under the rug, but there’s a reason why more pharma companies aren’t using social media. Dealing with all these reports could be a major pain. For those adverse event mentions that don’t have all the criteria required for submission, you’ve got to try to find the other criteria. When you do have all the criteria, you’ve got to catalog, eliminate duplicates, prepare a submission, send it to the FDA, and prepare to answer their follow up questions (if they have any). There are processes already in place at companies to do this, but they’re not capable of handling this on a giant scale.

If your company doesn’t want you monitoring, then that’s a good indication that you shouldn’t. I’ve heard that a lot of pharma marketers simply log onto these sites at home where they have access to take a look. Of course, as an agent of the company, whether at home or not, they still have to report what they find. How much they’ll actually find is a matter of debate, but you’d should be prepared. Most adverse event mentions won’t have all four criteria (actually only 1 in 500 will), but each company has a different policy about whether they try to find the other two by attempting to contact the person who reported it or if they just gather it all and try to submit it as is. Either way, before you jump in, make sure you’re ready to handle what’s out there.

Just so you don’t feel alone, few companies actually permit social media monitoring according to a poll Len Starnes put together. The poll found that 29% of respondents said there was no internal policy. 7% said monitoring was strictly prohibited no matter what. The rest were shades of “yes” including “yes, but.” See the entire poll here.

The final reason why you shouldn’t monitor is because you might do more harm than good. You start a company Twitter account with the idea that you’re just going to see what people are saying, but you figured you may as well have an account too. Great. Now what happens when someone contacts you? They send you a DM or an @ and want an answer. Do you answer them? Are you allowed? What if you’re on WebMD looking through the forums and see a post that says something like: “If someone doesn’t tell me a way to get this drug for less, I can’t refill my prescription next month.” Now, you know from looking at the rest of the post that this person would be an ideal candidate for your assistance program and would probably get their drug for free. Do you say something? What if you do it anonymously?

If these are hard questions to answer, then you shouldn’t even be looking. When people discover that you’re online and available (and they will), they’re going to come to you looking for answers. If you ignore them, then you’ll do more harm than good, as people will only be annoyed with you.

Okay, so have I talked you out of monitoring yet? No? You’re still going forward. <Gulp> In that case, let’s set a few ground rules. You’ll have to agree to each of these in order to be allowed to monitor social media (on the honor system):

  • I will develop a plan of what to do with what I find BEFORE I monitor.
  • I won’t make any marketing decisions based on my own “analysis.” I’ll find an outside partner who will do this for me.
  • I’ll figure out if my company has a social media participation policy. If so, I’ll follow it, so I don’t get fired and blame this blog. If not, I’ll see if we have any rules about adverse events I may uncover and I’ll help fight to get some formal rules set up.
  • When I do participate, I’ll actually participate. I won’t just be a “lurker” on the sidelines, ignoring everyone that wants to talk with me.

Agree? Okay, good. Now go forth and monitor. Try the two below to get started…and be careful. There’s a lot you’ll find out there that will surprise, bewilder, delight, confuse, frustrate, and annoy you. That’s normal. No need for me to order another test. You’re just monitoring social media.

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.

About The Author


Jonathan Richman

Jonathan Richman

Jonathan Richman is the creator of Dose of Digital. You can find him on Twitter and here's his official Google+ profile.


Print This Post Print This Post

  • http://www.marcaconfiable.com Pedro L. Gonzalez

    Well, good point and excellent analysis, but at the end is all about the aim a pharma company has for participating through social media. If you have a clear vision, the you have a strategy and you keep in mind all dos and don’ts. I mean, social media is no another sales channel (or ti shouldn’t) it is a service channel for health consumers. A question of trust at the end
    .-= Pedro L. Gonzalez´s last blog ..Creer para confiar, para creer, para confiar… =-.

  • http://www.marcaconfiable.com/ Pedro L. Gonzalez

    Well, good point and excellent analysis, but at the end is all about the aim a pharma company has for participating through social media. If you have a clear vision, the you have a strategy and you keep in mind all dos and don’ts. I mean, social media is no another sales channel (or ti shouldn’t) it is a service channel for health consumers. A question of trust at the end
    .-= Pedro L. Gonzalez´s last blog ..Creer para confiar, para creer, para confiar… =-.

  • http://www.verticportals.com/ Dan Bevan

    There are a few things it can help a brand team with that isn’t setting up their own twitter account. 1 is to improve a search marketing / adword campaign by speaking the target’s language, 2. is to find optimal sites for display advertising, 3. is to refine a global campaign for local market nuances Others are:

    • Survey the current level of brand / competitor awareness among patients / prescribers
    • Locate dissatisfied patients / carers and record reasons for dissatisfaction
    • Define phraseology used by patients / prescribers
    • Uncover advocates of brand / competitors within online communities
    • Illustrate the user path to convey how the patient / prescriber searches
    • Yield competitor insight and locate and guage their promotional activities
    • Pinpoint optimal techniques for prospective online promotion campaigns
    • Track the effectiveness of the suggested and implemented online services via follow-up insight wave

    There are more… :@)

    /Dan

    • http://www.doseofdigital.com/ Jonathan Richman

      All of these are great, Dan. Thanks for sharing. However, I’m thinking you agree with me that in order to get to these bullet points, you need a concerted and planned approach. Just looking around isn’t enough. You need a very formal and robust plan to be able to come up with this level of insight. I don’t feel most pharma companies have that yet, but there are agencies (apparently, like yours) that can bring it for them. Thanks for adding.

  • http://www.verticportals.com Dan Bevan

    There are a few things it can help a brand team with that isn’t setting up their own twitter account. 1 is to improve a search marketing / adword campaign by speaking the target’s language, 2. is to find optimal sites for display advertising, 3. is to refine a global campaign for local market nuances Others are:

    • Survey the current level of brand / competitor awareness among patients / prescribers
    • Locate dissatisfied patients / carers and record reasons for dissatisfaction
    • Define phraseology used by patients / prescribers
    • Uncover advocates of brand / competitors within online communities
    • Illustrate the user path to convey how the patient / prescriber searches
    • Yield competitor insight and locate and guage their promotional activities
    • Pinpoint optimal techniques for prospective online promotion campaigns
    • Track the effectiveness of the suggested and implemented online services via follow-up insight wave

    There are more… :@)

    /Dan

    • Jonathan Richman

      All of these are great, Dan. Thanks for sharing. However, I’m thinking you agree with me that in order to get to these bullet points, you need a concerted and planned approach. Just looking around isn’t enough. You need a very formal and robust plan to be able to come up with this level of insight. I don’t feel most pharma companies have that yet, but there are agencies (apparently, like yours) that can bring it for them. Thanks for adding.

  • http://imetbrad.com/ Brad at Pharm

    Nice bait and switch there, sir :)

    Had me concerned there for just a little bit… well, as long as it took to read the title… then all became right with the world… phew…

    #iwork@novartis

    • http://www.doseofdigital.com/ Jonathan Richman

      Sorry, Brad. Couldn’t resist the title.

  • http://imetbrad.com Brad at Pharm

    Nice bait and switch there, sir :)

    Had me concerned there for just a little bit… well, as long as it took to read the title… then all became right with the world… phew…

    #iwork@novartis

    • Jonathan Richman

      Sorry, Brad. Couldn’t resist the title.

  • David Reim

    Jon, for kicks, I’ll argue the other side. First, monitoring social media is nothing more than a very poorly constructed form of market research. I’ll ignore the fact that many of your observations also apply to the $billion investment that pharma makes in traditional market research. As you know, qual interviews with 20 docs have determined the marketing messages for many brands (as long as it agrees with what the brand team thinks!) So my argument is that social media monitoring is the cheapest form of market research that a brand will ever do. If you realize that it is not representative, nor projectable, nor controlled, then you can take it for what it is – another input into they mythical “voice of the customer”. Social media monitoring is an arrow in the quiver of any attempt to understand what the customer is thinking. If you don’t do anything with it, it doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t have it (or seek it). All cynicism aside, ANY voice of the customer is better than an isolated conversation exclusively within the halls of our clients.

    • http://www.doseofdigital.com/ Jonathan Richman

      David, Great points. Some is better than none and it’s always better than trying to figure it out amongst a brand team. The brand teams at any company, in any industry, is almost never made up of people who are similar to the customers they are selling to. That’s all right as long as they realize that and look outside their halls when it comes time to make some decisions. My point with this whole things was to encourage people to do monitoring the right way (my provocative title aside) and not to think that they could simply look at a few tweets and know everything. However, your analogy is pretty interesting. Don’t we do this already with traditional market research? That is, rely on the opinions of very few to formulate our plans. Hadn’t thought of that. Not that this is a good thing, but it is reality in many cases.

  • David Reim

    Jon, for kicks, I’ll argue the other side. First, monitoring social media is nothing more than a very poorly constructed form of market research. I’ll ignore the fact that many of your observations also apply to the $billion investment that pharma makes in traditional market research. As you know, qual interviews with 20 docs have determined the marketing messages for many brands (as long as it agrees with what the brand team thinks!) So my argument is that social media monitoring is the cheapest form of market research that a brand will ever do. If you realize that it is not representative, nor projectable, nor controlled, then you can take it for what it is – another input into they mythical “voice of the customer”. Social media monitoring is an arrow in the quiver of any attempt to understand what the customer is thinking. If you don’t do anything with it, it doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t have it (or seek it). All cynicism aside, ANY voice of the customer is better than an isolated conversation exclusively within the halls of our clients.

    • Jonathan Richman

      David, Great points. Some is better than none and it’s always better than trying to figure it out amongst a brand team. The brand teams at any company, in any industry, is almost never made up of people who are similar to the customers they are selling to. That’s all right as long as they realize that and look outside their halls when it comes time to make some decisions. My point with this whole things was to encourage people to do monitoring the right way (my provocative title aside) and not to think that they could simply look at a few tweets and know everything. However, your analogy is pretty interesting. Don’t we do this already with traditional market research? That is, rely on the opinions of very few to formulate our plans. Hadn’t thought of that. Not that this is a good thing, but it is reality in many cases.

  • http://www.cccapr.com SydRubin

    Agree with David’s comments — and the actual point of your provocative post — but want to add that the beauty of monitoring is that you aren’t just getting another input into the mythical “voice of the customer” but of all types of customers — physicians on Sermo, patients in disease communities, investors on Allbourne Village. And finding yourself surprised, bewildered, delighted, confused, frustrated, and, sometimes, annoyed is a good description of learning.

  • http://www.cccapr.com/ SydRubin

    Agree with David’s comments — and the actual point of your provocative post — but want to add that the beauty of monitoring is that you aren’t just getting another input into the mythical “voice of the customer” but of all types of customers — physicians on Sermo, patients in disease communities, investors on Allbourne Village. And finding yourself surprised, bewildered, delighted, confused, frustrated, and, sometimes, annoyed is a good description of learning.

  • Pingback: Impactiviti Daily 091609 « Impactiviti blog

  • http://www.verticportals.com/ Dan Bevan

    Completely in agreement with Jon that to get to the stage of my previous post there needs to be a seismic shift in many a brand team’s mentality.

    Here’s a thought… could it be that brand teams are thinking it is too much like hard work to go further than just monitoring twitter and have a solid monitoring plan with a set idea of what business objectives to glean from the results? Or what if the original brand plan based on generic disease specific research with perhaps a slight layer of a fresh (but small) point in time, qualitative study and actioned, say, 2 years ago, and slightly tweaked along the lifecycle is proven to be ultimately flawed when the robust social media monitoring programme is delivered? Perhaps the Pharmaco traditionalists are hiding behind the veil of ‘not getting’ or ‘not believing in’ or ‘announcing risk’ of social media research because they are fearful of being held accountable for a stoic brand plan or losing the power that they harvest from preaching that paper and pen interviews in the ‘real world’ is the most solid foundation for a brand plan.

    http://twitter.com/vppharma

  • http://www.verticportals.com Dan Bevan

    Completely in agreement with Jon that to get to the stage of my previous post there needs to be a seismic shift in many a brand team’s mentality.

    Here’s a thought… could it be that brand teams are thinking it is too much like hard work to go further than just monitoring twitter and have a solid monitoring plan with a set idea of what business objectives to glean from the results? Or what if the original brand plan based on generic disease specific research with perhaps a slight layer of a fresh (but small) point in time, qualitative study and actioned, say, 2 years ago, and slightly tweaked along the lifecycle is proven to be ultimately flawed when the robust social media monitoring programme is delivered? Perhaps the Pharmaco traditionalists are hiding behind the veil of ‘not getting’ or ‘not believing in’ or ‘announcing risk’ of social media research because they are fearful of being held accountable for a stoic brand plan or losing the power that they harvest from preaching that paper and pen interviews in the ‘real world’ is the most solid foundation for a brand plan.

    http://twitter.com/vppharma

  • http://jsykdm.blogspot.com/ Meredith Gould

    You’re my new hero. LOVE this post!!

  • http://jsykdm.blogspot.com Meredith Gould

    You’re my new hero. LOVE this post!!

  • http://www.radian6.com/ Lauren Vargas

    This is one of the best posts I have read about social media monitoring in a LONG time. Great and realistic insight. You are correct that monitoring success goes beyond the tool. I do agree you need to have a plan, but what goes into that plan? One of the reasons monitoring may prove to be a waste of time is because it is not mapped to objectives with measurable and relevant outcomes and/or relates to the company as a whole…not buried in a marketing strategic silo.

    Lauren Vargas
    Community Manager at Radian6
    @VargasL
    .-= Lauren Vargas´s last blog ..March of Dimes® Selects Radian6 for Social Media Monitoring =-.

  • http://www.radian6.com/ Lauren Vargas

    This is one of the best posts I have read about social media monitoring in a LONG time. Great and realistic insight. You are correct that monitoring success goes beyond the tool. I do agree you need to have a plan, but what goes into that plan? One of the reasons monitoring may prove to be a waste of time is because it is not mapped to objectives with measurable and relevant outcomes and/or relates to the company as a whole…not buried in a marketing strategic silo.

    Lauren Vargas
    Community Manager at Radian6
    @VargasL
    .-= Lauren Vargas´s last blog ..March of Dimes® Selects Radian6 for Social Media Monitoring =-.

  • http://www.twitter.com/healtheddigital Jeff Greene

    Nice rant Jon, thanks for taking the time to look at the issue with a skeptical eye. But David Reim wins the day. Pharma shouldn’t monitor social media for the opportunity to respond – but for the rich patient insights we can use for all campaigns, online and off. As long as brands are spending $$$$$ for focus groups and staged interviews …

    -Jeff
    .-= Jeff Greene´s last blog ..healtheddigital: Welcome @FDA_Drug_Info to Twitter … looking forward to learning from you. =-.

    • http://www.doseofdigital.com/ Jonathan Richman

      Jeff, Thanks for the comment. I actually agree with David’s comment including that the value is getting those rich insights. I talked about this throughout my post noting that this is the main reason why companies start the monitoring process, to find out what people are saying about them. My point is that this doesn’t serve much purpose unless you have a plan to do something with the information. I think it should be a meaningful, well-planned analysis. David said that we often decide on campaigns based on 20 people in a focus group, so why do we need something more robust when it comes to social media. A few tweets might be all we need to make decisions. Knowing David though, I think he’d also agree that making marketing decisions on the results of a 20 person focus group alone shouldn’t be the gold standard approach and nor should be a handful of insights a brand manager grabs through a Twitter search and a couple of Google Alerts.

  • http://www.twitter.com/healtheddigital Jeff Greene

    Nice rant Jon, thanks for taking the time to look at the issue with a skeptical eye. But David Reim wins the day. Pharma shouldn’t monitor social media for the opportunity to respond – but for the rich patient insights we can use for all campaigns, online and off. As long as brands are spending $$$$$ for focus groups and staged interviews …

    -Jeff
    .-= Jeff Greene´s last blog ..healtheddigital: Welcome @FDA_Drug_Info to Twitter … looking forward to learning from you. =-.

    • Jonathan Richman

      Jeff, Thanks for the comment. I actually agree with David’s comment including that the value is getting those rich insights. I talked about this throughout my post noting that this is the main reason why companies start the monitoring process, to find out what people are saying about them. My point is that this doesn’t serve much purpose unless you have a plan to do something with the information. I think it should be a meaningful, well-planned analysis. David said that we often decide on campaigns based on 20 people in a focus group, so why do we need something more robust when it comes to social media. A few tweets might be all we need to make decisions. Knowing David though, I think he’d also agree that making marketing decisions on the results of a 20 person focus group alone shouldn’t be the gold standard approach and nor should be a handful of insights a brand manager grabs through a Twitter search and a couple of Google Alerts.

  • David Reim

    Jonathan Richman: “Knowing David though, I think he’d also agree that making marketing decisions on the results of a 20 person focus group alone shouldn’t be the gold standard approach and nor should be a handful of insights a brand manager grabs through a Twitter search and a couple of Google Alerts.”

    I absolutely agree with Jonathan about the “non-optimal” nature of making marketing decisions with what I would consider minimal input but I think Jonathan also agrees with me that this happens all the time.

    In my last role I ran the US division of a major healthcare market research firm and I can’t tell you the number of times over the last several years where brands cancelled the large (and expensive) quant studies because of budget restrictions and said, “Oh well, we’ll just go with what we got from qual.” And I would say that qual is even less robust in some ways than social media.

    When I first read Jon’s post I thought, “This makes perfect sense … if the alternative source of “voice of the customer” is optimal. However, since, in my opinion, tradition market research is not optimal either, this makes social media another one-eyed man in the land of the blind!

    • http://www.doseofdigital.com/ Jonathan Richman

      David, I completely agree with you that this happens all the time and I’ve witnessed the death of many a quant study in my time. I don’t think traditional market research is optimal as well, so social media monitoring to get insights might be just as good. I suppose the point is that they both should be done differently. Social media monitoring should be more robust to be meaningful and to ensure that conclusions are valid and the exact same thing should be said about traditional market research. In a world where they are both done “half-assed” I suppose you could flip a coin between the two. I’d rather we do both of them the right way (and I’m sure David would have had a lot fewer sleepless nights in his past job if this were the case).

  • David Reim

    Jonathan Richman: “Knowing David though, I think he’d also agree that making marketing decisions on the results of a 20 person focus group alone shouldn’t be the gold standard approach and nor should be a handful of insights a brand manager grabs through a Twitter search and a couple of Google Alerts.”

    I absolutely agree with Jonathan about the “non-optimal” nature of making marketing decisions with what I would consider minimal input but I think Jonathan also agrees with me that this happens all the time.

    In my last role I ran the US division of a major healthcare market research firm and I can’t tell you the number of times over the last several years where brands cancelled the large (and expensive) quant studies because of budget restrictions and said, “Oh well, we’ll just go with what we got from qual.” And I would say that qual is even less robust in some ways than social media.

    When I first read Jon’s post I thought, “This makes perfect sense … if the alternative source of “voice of the customer” is optimal. However, since, in my opinion, tradition market research is not optimal either, this makes social media another one-eyed man in the land of the blind!

    • Jonathan Richman

      David, I completely agree with you that this happens all the time and I’ve witnessed the death of many a quant study in my time. I don’t think traditional market research is optimal as well, so social media monitoring to get insights might be just as good. I suppose the point is that they both should be done differently. Social media monitoring should be more robust to be meaningful and to ensure that conclusions are valid and the exact same thing should be said about traditional market research. In a world where they are both done “half-assed” I suppose you could flip a coin between the two. I’d rather we do both of them the right way (and I’m sure David would have had a lot fewer sleepless nights in his past job if this were the case).

  • http://www.flashfree.wordpress.com/ Liz Scherer

    Interesting post Jon. But I think that you are placing monitoring into one big pile without considering that there are reasons for monitoring other than brand mention, e.g. disease states, company mentions, research initiatives, etc. Is a pharma brand manager going to be convinced that these matter as much as say, “x brand is the best thing since sliced bread?” Probably not. But a smart marketing director is the one who realizes that the tools can be harnessed and used in innovative ways that go outside the box of traditional pharma marketing. That’s where it gets exciting, stays within the legal boundaries and serves the community. Just a thought.

  • http://www.flashfree.wordpress.com Liz Scherer

    Interesting post Jon. But I think that you are placing monitoring into one big pile without considering that there are reasons for monitoring other than brand mention, e.g. disease states, company mentions, research initiatives, etc. Is a pharma brand manager going to be convinced that these matter as much as say, “x brand is the best thing since sliced bread?” Probably not. But a smart marketing director is the one who realizes that the tools can be harnessed and used in innovative ways that go outside the box of traditional pharma marketing. That’s where it gets exciting, stays within the legal boundaries and serves the community. Just a thought.

  • http://www.twitter.com/healtheddigital Jeff Greene

    Liz – “smart marketing director,” an oxymoron? Lol. I think what I’ve absorbed since joining pharma not too long ago, is that brand managers and marketing directors really do want to be smart. They are looking to agencies and consultants to bring them tools, services and so on that will increase their knowledge of patients. But it’s going to be new, and that’s going to be challenging .. how long has DTC been around, let alone sentiment analysis? As one of my clients recently said, “I want to do XYZ, but you guys help me sell it.” So a better question is how do we sell social media monitoring and analysis, along with SM implementation at the end of that process?
    .-= Jeff Greene´s last blog ..healtheddigital: Go #Bayer – all it takes is one Jonas brother and some online videos to make a cool #diabetes website http://bit.ly/tZN6m #pharma =-.

  • http://www.twitter.com/healtheddigital Jeff Greene

    Liz – “smart marketing director,” an oxymoron? Lol. I think what I’ve absorbed since joining pharma not too long ago, is that brand managers and marketing directors really do want to be smart. They are looking to agencies and consultants to bring them tools, services and so on that will increase their knowledge of patients. But it’s going to be new, and that’s going to be challenging .. how long has DTC been around, let alone sentiment analysis? As one of my clients recently said, “I want to do XYZ, but you guys help me sell it.” So a better question is how do we sell social media monitoring and analysis, along with SM implementation at the end of that process?
    .-= Jeff Greene´s last blog ..healtheddigital: Go #Bayer – all it takes is one Jonas brother and some online videos to make a cool #diabetes website http://bit.ly/tZN6m #pharma =-.

  • http://www.digitalmarketingideas.blogspot.com/ Nicole Johnson

    Jonathan,

    I’m always grateful for your thought-provoking work. Your most recent post: “Pharma Should Forget About Social Monitoring” made me step back and think about all of the conversations that I’ve had with pharma clients about the value of “monitoring”. Being a past Navy girl, I wondered if my navigation skills were getting rusty!

    Here is my 2 cents around one of your thoughts…

    Ordering Tests Rule
    How do we know that one extra test isn’t going to change a recommendation? A doctor convinced today could be influenced tomorrow by the test results and also by discussions had with peers through social networking. Monitoring the latter provides insights into these behavioral changes. The magnitude of discussions happening related to individual cases today may be small, but will that always be the case? Look at how fast social networks are growing. Are we missing an opportunity by not monitoring and learning? Leadership starts by being a good listener.

    The answer to the question “will monitoring help us actively respond” …depends on the pharma company. I’m willing to bet that today, not many pharma companies know what to do with what they monitor. As they gain more experience in the space, this will change. We’re just getting started, why put on the breaks now? Look at how JNJ responded to the mommy bloggers. They stumbled a bit…but I betcha they’re monitoring right now and would handle their engagement differently today. We need to be a little patient and help pharma do something with what they monitor.

    Keep your marvelous thoughts coming.

    –Nicole
    .-= Nicole Johnson´s last blog ..Who Do You Follow on Twitter? =-.

    • http://www.doseofdigital.com/ Jonathan Richman

      Nicole, Sometimes the one extra test will change things. I’m not talking about those cases. There are plenty of times where the test couldn’t possibly impact the treatment. For instance, maybe you know that you have to do a biopsy on a suspicious lesion because of the findings of a PET. You could do an ultrasound to see if the lesion is, say, cystic or fibrous, but why? You’re going to have to biopsy anyway. Why do the test? If it were the other way around, that might be a different story (i.e., ultrasound first, then PET).

      To be sure, I’m a fan of listening, but my point is why bother listening if you aren’t going to do anything with what you hear? Or, even worse, CAN’T do anything with what you hear. What’s the point? Isn’t it just a waste of resources at that point? For example, if JNJ was monitoring with Motrin Moms, but for some reason weren’t allowed to actually respond, what’s so great about having monitored? In that case, it would have just ruined your weekend for no reason ; ) Joking a bit obviously, but you get the point.

      And, yes, as you said, leadership does start with being a good listeners. But real leadership is doing, that is, actually leading…not just listening.

  • http://www.digitalmarketingideas.blogspot.com Nicole Johnson

    Jonathan,

    I’m always grateful for your thought-provoking work. Your most recent post: “Pharma Should Forget About Social Monitoring” made me step back and think about all of the conversations that I’ve had with pharma clients about the value of “monitoring”. Being a past Navy girl, I wondered if my navigation skills were getting rusty!

    Here is my 2 cents around one of your thoughts…

    Ordering Tests Rule
    How do we know that one extra test isn’t going to change a recommendation? A doctor convinced today could be influenced tomorrow by the test results and also by discussions had with peers through social networking. Monitoring the latter provides insights into these behavioral changes. The magnitude of discussions happening related to individual cases today may be small, but will that always be the case? Look at how fast social networks are growing. Are we missing an opportunity by not monitoring and learning? Leadership starts by being a good listener.

    The answer to the question “will monitoring help us actively respond” …depends on the pharma company. I’m willing to bet that today, not many pharma companies know what to do with what they monitor. As they gain more experience in the space, this will change. We’re just getting started, why put on the breaks now? Look at how JNJ responded to the mommy bloggers. They stumbled a bit…but I betcha they’re monitoring right now and would handle their engagement differently today. We need to be a little patient and help pharma do something with what they monitor.

    Keep your marvelous thoughts coming.

    –Nicole
    .-= Nicole Johnson´s last blog ..Who Do You Follow on Twitter? =-.

    • Jonathan Richman

      Nicole, Sometimes the one extra test will change things. I’m not talking about those cases. There are plenty of times where the test couldn’t possibly impact the treatment. For instance, maybe you know that you have to do a biopsy on a suspicious lesion because of the findings of a PET. You could do an ultrasound to see if the lesion is, say, cystic or fibrous, but why? You’re going to have to biopsy anyway. Why do the test? If it were the other way around, that might be a different story (i.e., ultrasound first, then PET).

      To be sure, I’m a fan of listening, but my point is why bother listening if you aren’t going to do anything with what you hear? Or, even worse, CAN’T do anything with what you hear. What’s the point? Isn’t it just a waste of resources at that point? For example, if JNJ was monitoring with Motrin Moms, but for some reason weren’t allowed to actually respond, what’s so great about having monitored? In that case, it would have just ruined your weekend for no reason ; ) Joking a bit obviously, but you get the point.

      And, yes, as you said, leadership does start with being a good listeners. But real leadership is doing, that is, actually leading…not just listening.

  • http://humanvoice.wordpress.com/ Tom O’brien

    @jonmrich

    Wow, great post and lots of great comments. I might have titled the post “forget about self-directed SM monitoring” but that is because our firm – MotiveQuest is in the SM monitoring and analysis business.

    There are at least three kinds of SM research. First is plain old brand monitoring – who said something about my brand and competitors, where did they say it, is it positive or negative. This I think is mostly useful for PR folks concerned with immediate response and brand reputation. I don’t think Pharma should be in the monitor and respond mode that is appropriate for many other industries.

    Second is trended data over time on number of mentions for brand and competitors, sentiment, sources, topics. These are simply research decks. Can be useful when combined and analyzed with other research inputs.

    Third (the kind we do) is essentially Online Anthropology. We gather all the conversations online in a give category and analyze then to try to understand what it means for our clients.

    We just finished up brand positioning and communications project for a large healthcare system. We started our analysis with 23 million health & healthcare conversations taking place over the last year (yes that is de-duped and de-spammed) online.

    We narrowed this down to how ppl make facility selection decisions, and built a model of what people want from their HC providers. This goes well beyond brand monitoring and is actually research that has aspects of both Quant (huge N) and Qual (deep insight) for making business decisions around branding, communications and product offerings.

    So, I think SM is a GREAT resource for doing marketing research. It is just really hard to do it broadly and well.

    Thanks for prompting the debate.

    Tom O’Brien
    MotiveQuest LLC
    .-= Tom O’brien´s last blog ..Healthcare debate analysis =-.

    • http://www.doseofdigital.com/ Jonathan Richman

      Tom, Thanks for the comment. Next time I’ll have you as a guest writer.

      I think your comments actually sum up a few things really well. There are different kinds of monitoring, each with a different purpose and it’s important that you look at each the right way with the right expectations. I think your suggested title “Pharma should forget about SELF-DIRECTED social media monitoring” is right on. I don’t think there are many companies out there in any industry that could undertake this on their own and do it well. Sometimes you’ve got to bring in the experts.

  • http://humanvoice.wordpress.com Tom O’brien

    @jonmrich

    Wow, great post and lots of great comments. I might have titled the post “forget about self-directed SM monitoring” but that is because our firm – MotiveQuest is in the SM monitoring and analysis business.

    There are at least three kinds of SM research. First is plain old brand monitoring – who said something about my brand and competitors, where did they say it, is it positive or negative. This I think is mostly useful for PR folks concerned with immediate response and brand reputation. I don’t think Pharma should be in the monitor and respond mode that is appropriate for many other industries.

    Second is trended data over time on number of mentions for brand and competitors, sentiment, sources, topics. These are simply research decks. Can be useful when combined and analyzed with other research inputs.

    Third (the kind we do) is essentially Online Anthropology. We gather all the conversations online in a give category and analyze then to try to understand what it means for our clients.

    We just finished up brand positioning and communications project for a large healthcare system. We started our analysis with 23 million health & healthcare conversations taking place over the last year (yes that is de-duped and de-spammed) online.

    We narrowed this down to how ppl make facility selection decisions, and built a model of what people want from their HC providers. This goes well beyond brand monitoring and is actually research that has aspects of both Quant (huge N) and Qual (deep insight) for making business decisions around branding, communications and product offerings.

    So, I think SM is a GREAT resource for doing marketing research. It is just really hard to do it broadly and well.

    Thanks for prompting the debate.

    Tom O’Brien
    MotiveQuest LLC
    .-= Tom O’brien´s last blog ..Healthcare debate analysis =-.

    • Jonathan Richman

      Tom, Thanks for the comment. Next time I’ll have you as a guest writer.

      I think your comments actually sum up a few things really well. There are different kinds of monitoring, each with a different purpose and it’s important that you look at each the right way with the right expectations. I think your suggested title “Pharma should forget about SELF-DIRECTED social media monitoring” is right on. I don’t think there are many companies out there in any industry that could undertake this on their own and do it well. Sometimes you’ve got to bring in the experts.

  • http://www.listenlogic.com Chris

    Great post on social media monitoring. A topic that will definitely be up for debates is how much do we monitor and what do we do? Sometimes just listening can really give you a lot of great insight and valuable market research if you’re not ready to join the conversation.

    Great article!

    Chris
    http://www.listenlogic.com
    ListenLogic – Social Media Monitoring

    • http://www.doseofdigital.com/ Jonathan Richman

      I’m all for listening if you promise to use the information in some way whether it be as research or to actually respond. My problem with the former is that people often use it as a means to justify the major cost of monitoring in some cases. In reality, they have no market research plan with defined goals, hypotheses, or other measurable endpoints to determine if the “research” actually worked. If you’re going to invest so much in listening in the name of research, then take a little time and have a research plan too.

      Thanks for the comment.

  • http://www.listenlogic.com Chris

    Great post on social media monitoring. A topic that will definitely be up for debates is how much do we monitor and what do we do? Sometimes just listening can really give you a lot of great insight and valuable market research if you’re not ready to join the conversation.

    Great article!

    Chris
    http://www.listenlogic.com
    ListenLogic – Social Media Monitoring

    • http://www.doseofdigital.com Jonathan Richman

      I’m all for listening if you promise to use the information in some way whether it be as research or to actually respond. My problem with the former is that people often use it as a means to justify the major cost of monitoring in some cases. In reality, they have no market research plan with defined goals, hypotheses, or other measurable endpoints to determine if the “research” actually worked. If you’re going to invest so much in listening in the name of research, then take a little time and have a research plan too.

      Thanks for the comment.

  • http://www.pharmageddon2012.com Phrmageddon2012

    Good points and loads of analogies all around. Looks like the current state of mind on Social Media Monitoring (SMM) in the pharmaceutical and healthcare sector is to add a budget line below traditional market research and arrive in generally the same insight vicinity as you would before.

    I’ve seen social media monitoring work in a few ways:

    - Exposed a group of patients who were against a negative PR campaign. Company was able to empower this group to further quell the campaign.
    - Low product awareness is always exposed within a few searches, but feel free to give your client that insight for free, it’s not a major value add for this service
    - Dosing difficulty with a specific demographic was exposed and handled with traditional dosing education vehicles
    - Developed new thought leaders previously unknown by company

    These are just a few nuggets that came from a monitoring process. The same company preempted the social monitoring with a traditional market research setting, but they would tell you SMM was worth the money!

    Hunter Young
    Program Manager, S+R Medical Communications
    (purveyor of Pharmageddon 2012 campaign)

  • http://www.pharmageddon2012.com Phrmageddon2012

    Good points and loads of analogies all around. Looks like the current state of mind on Social Media Monitoring (SMM) in the pharmaceutical and healthcare sector is to add a budget line below traditional market research and arrive in generally the same insight vicinity as you would before.

    I’ve seen social media monitoring work in a few ways:

    - Exposed a group of patients who were against a negative PR campaign. Company was able to empower this group to further quell the campaign.
    - Low product awareness is always exposed within a few searches, but feel free to give your client that insight for free, it’s not a major value add for this service
    - Dosing difficulty with a specific demographic was exposed and handled with traditional dosing education vehicles
    - Developed new thought leaders previously unknown by company

    These are just a few nuggets that came from a monitoring process. The same company preempted the social monitoring with a traditional market research setting, but they would tell you SMM was worth the money!

    Hunter Young
    Program Manager, S+R Medical Communications
    (purveyor of Pharmageddon 2012 campaign)

  • Pingback: eHealth - resources for the social healthcare revolution - happening now | Med7

  • @marksphone

    This is an excellent analysis and discussion. I would agree with Pedro it is all about Pharma’s goals and strategy. In my estimation using SM as a marketing tactic limits its full potential. SM is more powerful as a tool to engage participants in knowledge seeking behavior and learning. Pharma should measure changes in healthcare outcomes by patients using SM and respond with strategies that capitalize on positive results.

  • http://twitter.com/Semantelli Semantelli

    Pharma has finally started to experiment and execute on social media monitoring and engagement through compliant ready platforms that ensure Adverse Event(AE) and REMS policies have been taken care of. We have seen a significant up-tick in deployment of our solutions in the last 3 months. That’s good news for the industry as well as vendors like us.

    http://www.semantelli.com/pharma

  • Anonymous

    There’s the old saying: “Too many cooks spoil the broth” and too many comments can cloud your judgement when it comes t reading what social media say about you.

    Unless its libelous or slanderous (when it comes to the internet I believe either is possible), or likely to seriously affect people’s view of you – forget it. It’s not a school playground!

    Just embrace social media and let it run free!