Is It Time For Pharma To Give Up The Social Media Ghost?

see_no_evil

Social media has been a big focus for pharma marketers for a while now. By my count, at least 30-45% of ePharma’s agenda from the 2014 NY conference was focused on the subject, and there is a whole cottage industry of other conferences specifically for social media fin the pharma industry. If you spend any time following pharma folks on Twitter, you can find tons of tweets on the subject and create whole feeds for hashtags like #socpharm, #hcsm, #pharmsm, etc.

I say it’s time to move on.

You read correctly. Before some of you go indiscriminately crazy and lambaste me in the comments for the mere suggestions that social isn’t important, let me offer some points of clarification. As it relates to corporate communications, I think using social media is a no brainer. For J&J, Pfizer, AZ, et. al., using social channels effectively is essential for reputation management, stockholder news, crisis management, etc. It’s the cost of doing business in the digital world we live in. Additionally, using social platforms to seed content is just fine, as long as you’re not expecting huge results. I’m a firm believer in a distributed content strategy, but 99% of the time, pharm brands place content in social platforms with the comments sections (or anything else even remotely ‘social’) disabled.

I believe the whole use of the medium needs to be seriously rethought. Simply put, there are serious challenges for using (and I mean really using) social media for a pharma brand. For instance:

  • Fostering dialogue and conversations isn’t the business that pharma brands are in
  • The marketing teams assigned to those brands aren’t built to sustain the kinds of relationships necessary to succeed
  • PR and marketing rarely coordinate within a given brand
  • The regulatory organizations (FDA or otherwise) will only let you discuss what’s exactly in the product’s label, and
  • Users, by all indications, aren’t interested in pharma infringing on their timelines and feeds

Defining social media
The term “social media” has been hijacked by the pharma industry, and thus, needs to be properly re-defined in order to better comprehend my argument. Social media, as defined by Wikipedia, is “…interaction among people in which they create, share, and/or exchange information and ideas in virtual communities and networks.” If you read this carefully, you begin to understand my point. Pharma does almost none of these things. While the creation of content is part and parcel to the pharma marketing regimen, I would argue that the minute your regulatory team requires you shut off sharing or comments features, the social media aspects of your programs cease to exist. If social media is about the collaboration of ideas and the sharing of communication, is it really a social program any more if the direction of those communications is entirely one-way?

Hey hey, ho ho. The FDA is slow slow slow
In 2009 the FDA held hearings to gather input from industry about what it should consider when eventually releasing guidance on social media marketing. From that moment, I’ve heard the FDA being used as a prop for why brands couldn’t or shouldn’t engage in social channels. The reasoning was that brands wanted to clearly understand what the guidance would be, or the fear of launching something that would eventually be deemed non-compliant thereby incurring a warning letter. I think those and the myriad of other excuses assigned to the FDA were false-flags hiding a deeper issue. If the business case for social utilization were solid, and most would have you believe that it is, then clarification from FDA should open the flood gates for social media programs. But social media just isn’t really understood by brand marketers, and more importantly, the more one examines the business case for it, the less sense it actually makes for pharma products.

Don’t believe me? I can prove it.

The second week of January 2014, the FDA released draft “Guidance for Industry Fulfilling Regulatory Requirements for Postmarketing Submissions of Interactive Promotional Media for Prescription Human and Animal Drugs and Biologics.” Despite being woefully behind schedule in releasing the full social media guidance it promised, this was at least something from the FDA that clarified its position in some small part. Most notable of the guidance was that FDA finally provided clarity about one of the aspects of social media that the industry has been clamoring for the most: working with bloggers and content creators to disseminate branded information.

You would think, given that it’s been more than 90 days later, we’d have seen movement towards these kinds of programs. After all, we were told guidance, any guidance, was necessary so brands could finally move forward with social media without running afoul of the FDA. As of this posting, there has been nothing even remotely “social” being done. As part of running the Social Media Wiki, I have a number of bots and alerts to let me know when a whole host of pharma products get discussed online. I may be slow to output updates to the wiki, but the data coming in is timely. It is possible that I missed something, but I doubt it.

It’s time we had “the talk”
I hate to break the news, but social communications is not the business that pharma is in. If every reply, response, or retweet has to take 24 hours (or more) to run through a legal team before going live, I think we’ve gone well beyond any reasonable concept of conversation or dialogue. I think it’s also reasonable to assume if a patient has a question about a pharma product they don’t want to wait 24-72 hours for a response. But even if the lag time were lesser, would it even matter?

When you actually ask patients if they find pharma’s participation in social to be effective, the answer is a resounding “no.” According to a Deloitte study in 2012, despite almost 65% of respondents saying that they use the internet for health information, only 5% said that social networking sites from pharma were trustworthy and credible. 5%. Even if pharma were able to engage in anything close to real time, patients just simply won’t believe the information being provided. Perhaps even more damaging, according to Manhattan Research (ePharma consumer 2013) when asked how they’d like to engage with a pharma brand, only 10% indicated they’d watch a YouTube video and 11% said they’d ‘Like’ a Facebook page. (Other channels, like Twitter ranked even lower) Given those abysmal numbers, should pharma even bother?

Not every brand can grow up to be Zappos. That’s ok. There are plenty of non-pharma resources out there for patients that provide beneficial real-time interactions. In all likelihood, patients will get the info they need from message boards, online resources from their insurance provider, or increasingly, their physician via email or text. The real-time interactions that would benefit patients are more closely aligned with the roles played by the physician, pharmacists or insurance providers are playing online. Those industries are getting better and better at using social channels to help patients while pharma falls further and further behind. So instead, perhaps it’s time to more properly focus on what maximizing the value that pharma CAN provide.

Software As A Service: The Real “Pill +”
At its essence, pharma provides medicines that patients utilize to combat illness. The business is one of product development, engineering, distribution, and use. I don’t care what pill, injectable, brand, or biologic you’re marketing, your #1 problem is usually compliance. Almost every pharma product except Viagra or contraception has a compliance drop off curve that plummets somewhere around the 90 day mark. (There are of course variances, but this is pretty typical). According to a report by Harris Interactive, roughly half of all prescriptions for drugs to be taken on an ongoing basis are either not completed or are never filled in the first place.

The information on how to take a medication is widely available. Patients receive a package insert with their medication detailing the information about what they’ve been prescribed and how to take it. Their doctor probably spent some time walking them through what they need to know as well. For its part, pharma has been very successful educating patients about these topics. Say what you will about the brand.com for pharma (and I have), they still do the yeoman’s work of providing information to patients, detailing information about what a product does, how to take it, and what side effects it may cause. If a patient does have a question about a product, chances are the information, (or rather, the information pharma is allowed to share), is detailed rather well on its website.

So if compliance is the problem, software services (like mobile tools) not social media, are the most likely solutions. Compared to the abysmal numbers for social media, according to Kantar Health study, 90% of patients would like an app or online service to help them manage their condition or track taking their medications, provided it was recommended by their physician. Pharma is very good at developing and distributing the molecules and biologics to help patients, but has an enormous opportunity to develop technologies and services in a parallel path that assist the patient when taking their medicine. At its core, the pharma industry is rooted in science and technology, developing the software and services to accentuate a product isn’t that far outside of it’s cultural wheelhouse.

Perhaps, given the desire by patients for services, not social conversations, pharma should refocus its efforts on creating the technologies and tools that give patients what they need to manage their conditions, and leave the chatting to someone else.

In my next post, I’ll take a look at the most promising areas for pharma to focus it’s efforts in software and services. In the mean time, drop me a comment and tell me what you think.

26 Responses to “Is It Time For Pharma To Give Up The Social Media Ghost?”

  1. jaskeller March 30, 2014 at 12:03 pm #

    I think you make some really good points about social media engagement (or the lack thereof) and how this clearly isn’t a business need of Pharma. However, it is worth mentioning the content marketing capabilities of social channels in their use of driving traffic to the SaaS tools you highlight as an opportunity.

    Social is just one of many tools in the marketing tool belt; when it is used as part of the mix, its real value is illuminated. That also helps understand why it polled so lowly on its own in the stat you provided; in a silo it is indeed not worth the effort.

    • Bill Evans April 2, 2014 at 4:34 pm #

      I think using social channels for seeding content is fine, but people shouldn’t be fooled into thinking this is a “social” program. As a means of driving exposure to content, it’s fine, but that doesn’t mean the channel (like YouTube) is being activated ‘socially’ when brands have no opportunity or willingness to keep comments on. Nor do I think they should as the resources required would provide little to no brand value for their overall cost.

  2. Pascale April 1, 2014 at 12:36 am #

    Thanks for this illuminating thoughts about pharma and social media. I totally agree on what you wrote. Pharma industry has so many challenges, they need to set priorities and focus on where they can add value for the patient: not in social media but in developing innovative drugs that can solve problems (and not me too or drugs prolonging life by 2 months…) and in “beyond the pill” solutions as adherence issues are costing a lot of money. Maybe they can go beyond that and also provide tools and services that promote healthy behaviors and wellness (like JNJ proposing the 7-minute workout app for smartphones).
    Thanks again for your thought & wishing you a very good day!

    • Bill Evans April 2, 2014 at 4:36 pm #

      Adherence programs and “beyond the pill” programs don’t have to cost a lot of money, but I’ll admit they often do. Pharma does spend a ton on R&D for new medicines, but I don’t see it as an either / or decision.

  3. Linda O'Neill April 1, 2014 at 2:11 pm #

    I found your perspective interesting but a bit short sighted. Not blasting you here, but there are so many advantages to the end-user whether patient or care giver by pharma participating in social. The nice thing is that in so many cases, communities are built and the communities themselves are finding value in engagement with each other, not just the pharma organizaiton. In other cases, where privacy and regulation are a concern, pharmas are able to respond to the end user in a more timely manner than you depict through private messaging or directing them to resources when needed. Rome wasn’t built in a day so to expect that regulated industry behave a parity with unregulated industry is not realistic, but progress is ongoing. Social media is often the conduit for the advocacy and education conversations people seek out in social media while not all engagement is necessarily value to public consumption. This work by pharmas does makes a difference and is necessary whether its executed for public scrutiny or not. The bottom line is answering individuals’ needs.

    • Bill Evans April 2, 2014 at 4:40 pm #

      I think there are tons of benefits for patients who use social, just not pharma’s involvement in them. While it’s true that the process for getting legal approval for actively engaging in social spaces will get easier, the legal accountability is not going away. Given that a brand can only stick to discussing what is explicitly accounted for in it’s label, the parameters for discussion become increasingly narrow. If the goal is to provide better access to information about it’s products, there’s still tons to be done in the forms of content production and utilization of tools to educate. Social doesn’t need to be activated for that to happen. If the information is relevant, patients will share it on their own. Since the consumer need is being more effectively filled by other sources of information, including physicians and the insurance providers, it seems to behoove pharma to focus on what it’s good at and not try to be something that it’s not.

  4. Craig DeLarge April 1, 2014 at 8:56 pm #

    I feel you Bill and would like to suggest that you are referring more to social media promotion than social media at large. I still think that there are fruitful engagements for pharma in social listening, customer care, and reputation mgmt as you acknowledged. I think that customer care is the great unrealized opportunity we have overlooked in social media. You know how it is. We have to ride the hype curve to the plateau of productivity.

    That said, I agree that your call “beyond the pill” to bolster compliance has legs but…

    Thanks again for these thoughts.

    • Bill Evans April 2, 2014 at 4:43 pm #

      Thanks Craig, yes I am referring to using active social channels for promotion. Everything you mention is spot on, but I still feel like brands (not the corporate brand) but product brands, are not suited for the space, and the resources and expenditures required to be suited for it would have almost no positive revenue impact for a product. Customer care is an area that’s ripe for exploration, and is probably best suited for a pharmacy at the corporate level.

  5. Robert Halper April 6, 2014 at 4:52 pm #

    There are some good points here, especially about lack of engagement and FDA non-response. However, I’ve found some contradictory stats from Manhattan Research and Google (I know, they own YouTube!) that 38% of patients already watch or are interested in watching a Pharm company video on YouTube. Of course that doesn’t address whether they TRUST it or not. I ran the J&J health channel on YouTube and I think one of the most important features was allowing pre-moderated comments and interactions with viewers. Now, granted, not all J&J products are pharmaceutical, but our vision was to prevent patient stories in disease areas in which J&J has products – which are many. However, we very rarely mentioned a specific drug, or even treatment modality. The idea was to provide information that patients could respond to and further research on their own. To that point, another Manhattan Research stat reflects that 63% of patients take action as a result of watching online health video. So I think the context in which Pharma social media is presented is crucial in this discussion, and I appreciate your addressing it.

    • Bill Evans April 7, 2014 at 9:32 am #

      Rob-

      Agree with all your posts, and perhaps I wasn’t succinct enough but just watching a video isn’t a SOCIAL engagement. For brands, producing video content is great, an absolute must if you will. But putting that video, even in YouTube, with comments turned off isn’t social at all. I’m all for distributing content to multiple channels, but lets make sure we’re calling things what they are. No conversation = no social.

      B

  6. Pharmaguy April 7, 2014 at 6:49 am #

    Pharma marketers do a heck of a lot UNBRANDED marketing, which is eminently suitable for social media as demonstrated by several pharma companies.

    ome pharma marketers are so focused on figuring out how to promote brands via social media that they are not seeing the plainly obvious unbranded opportunities out there. For more on that, read “Some Pharma Marketers Can’t See the Unbranded SM Forest for the Branded SM Tree.” http://pharmamkting.blogspot.com/2009/09/some-pharma-marketers-cant-see.html

    • Bill Evans April 7, 2014 at 9:30 am #

      John-

      Good points, but again it comes back to focus. If you run a product that has multiple competitors, unbranded promotions make absolutely ZERO business sense. It’s not about what a brand can do, but about what a brand should do to have the most benefit for both it’s product and its customers. Is following a brand on twitter really bringing any value if all it posts is unbranded content that I could otherwise get from 1,000 different sources really worthwhile? Add to that the fact that pharma isn’t in the publishing business, so that content won’t nearly be updated as often. When you really look at the business impact, especially for unbranded promotions, it just doesn’t make sense.

      • Parmaguy April 7, 2014 at 9:45 am #

        Bill,

        First, unbranded promotions DO make business sense. After all, that’s what the rest of the pharma world does outside the U.S. Instead of giving up the social media ghost, pharma might consider giving up the branded DTC ghost! Even in a branded DTC world, unbranded advertising is a good business strategy for the category leader, but it can also help differentiate the others as well. Many of the competing branded ads I see are so similar to one another, they might as well be unbranded because they don’t know how to do branded advertising in any media — even the ones that where FDA guidance is well established (i.e., print and TV).

        Regarding ‘pharma isn’t in the publishing business” I would have to say that you are correct, except it is in the COMMUNICATION business and it must PUBLISH content to be competitive in a world where every Tom, Dick and harry are publishing content about its products on social media. Therefore, I would say that pharma IS in the publishing business and it is losing ground — i.e., share of voice.

  7. Z-thru April 11, 2014 at 6:10 pm #

    Great point Bill, social media has been a big focus for pharma marketers for a while now. Today we explore enhancing our social media experience and social media usage.

  8. facebook kaufen May 7, 2014 at 3:38 pm #

    It’s awesome in favor of me to have a web page, which is good
    in favor of my knowledge. thanks admin

  9. All Girl Massage May 18, 2014 at 9:44 pm #

    We stumbled over here coming from a different web address and thought I should check things out.

    I like what I see so now i’m following you. Look forward to looking over your web page yet again.

  10. TBHO Health Benefits September 4, 2014 at 4:55 am #

    Everything is very open with a very clear description of the challenges.
    It was definitely informative. Your site is very helpful.
    Thanks for sharing!

    My web site; TBHO Health Benefits

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. The Three Things, 75th Edition Spin Sucks - March 30, 2014

    […] Is It Time For Pharma To Give Up The Social Media Ghost? […]

  2. Is It Time For Pharma To Give Up The Social Med... - March 31, 2014

    […] Social media has been a big focus for pharma marketers for a while now. By my count, at least 30-45% of ePharma’s agenda from the 2014 NY conference was focused on the subject, and there is a whole…  […]

  3. Chats not charts: a three step programme for pharmaceutical postmarketing | STweM - April 1, 2014

    […] air of despondency that is descending over the pharmaceutical industry’s use of social media is […]

  4. Chats Not Charts: Three Steps to Pharma Post-Marketing - April 1, 2014

    […] Andrew Spong The air of despondency that is descending over the pharmaceutical industry’s use of social media is perverse. It has […]

  5. Is It Time For Pharma To Give Up The Social Med... - April 2, 2014

    […] Social media has been a big focus for pharma marketers for a while now. By my count, at least 30-45% of ePharma’s agenda from the 2014 NY conference was focused on the subject, and there is a whole cottage industry of other conferences specifically for social media fin the pharma industry. If you spend any time following pharma folks on Twitter, you can find tons of tweets on the subject and create whole feeds for hashtags like #socpharm, #hcsm, #pharmsm, etc.I say it’s time to move on.Read more: http://www.doseofdigital.com/2014/03/time-pharma-give-social-media-ghost/#sthash.qvEV3vXw.dpuf  […]

  6. Is It Time For Pharma To Give Up The Social Med... - April 4, 2014

    […] Social media has been a big focus for pharma marketers for a while now. By my count, at least 30-45% of ePharma’s agenda from the 2014 NY conference was focused on the subject, and there is a whole cottage industry of other conferences specifically for social media fin the pharma industry. If you spend any time following pharma folks on Twitter, you can find tons of tweets on the subject and create whole feeds for hashtags like #socpharm, #hcsm, #pharmsm, etc.I say it’s time to move on.You read correctly. Before some of you go indiscriminately crazy and lambaste me in the comments for the mere suggestions that social isn’t important, let me offer some points of clarification. As it relates to corporate communications, I think using social media is a no brainer. For J&J, Pfizer, AZ, et. al., using social channels effectively is essential for reputation management, stockholder news, crisis management, etc. It’s the cost of doing business in the digital world we live in. Additionally, using social platforms to seed content is just fine, as long as you’re not expecting huge results. I’m a firm believer in a distributed content strategy, but 99% of the time, pharm brands place content in social platforms with the comments sections (or anything else even remotely ‘social’) disabled.I believe the whole use of the medium needs to be seriously rethought. Simply put, there are serious challenges for using (and I mean really using) social media for a pharma brand. For instance:Fostering dialogue and conversations isn’t the business that pharma brands are inThe marketing teams assigned to those brands aren’t built to sustain the kinds of relationships necessary to succeedPR and marketing rarely coordinate within a given brandThe regulatory organizations (FDA or otherwise) will only let you discuss what’s exactly in the product’s label, andUsers, by all indications, aren’t interested in pharma infringing on their timelines and feedsDefining social mediaThe term “social media” has been hijacked by the pharma industry, and thus, needs to be properly re-defined in order to better comprehend my argument. Social media, as defined by Wikipedia, is “…interaction among people in which they create, share, and/or exchange information and ideas in virtual communities and networks.” If you read this carefully, you begin to understand my point. Pharma does almost none of these things. While the creation of content is part and parcel to the pharma marketing regimen, I would argue that the minute your regulatory team requires you shut off sharing or comments features, the social media aspects of your programs cease to exist. If social media is about the collaboration of ideas and the sharing of communication, is it really a social program any more if the direction of those communications is entirely one-way?Hey hey, ho ho. The FDA is slow slow slowIn 2009 the FDA held hearings to gather input from industry about what it should consider when eventually releasing guidance on social media marketing. From that moment, I’ve heard the FDA being used as a prop for why brands couldn’t or shouldn’t engage in social channels. The reasoning was that brands wanted to clearly understand what the guidance would be, or the fear of launching something that would eventually be deemed non-compliant thereby incurring a warning letter. I think those and the myriad of other excuses assigned to the FDA were false-flags hiding a deeper issue. If the business case for social utilization were solid, and most would have you believe that it is, then clarification from FDA should open the flood gates for social media programs. But social media just isn’t really understood by brand marketers, and more importantly, the more one examines the business case for it, the less sense it actually makes for pharma products.Don’t believe me? I can prove it.The second week of January 2014, the FDA released draft “Guidance for Industry Fulfilling Regulatory Requirements for Postmarketing Submissions of Interactive Promotional Media for Prescription Human and Animal Drugs and Biologics.” Despite being woefully behind schedule in releasing the full social media guidance it promised, this was at least something from the FDA that clarified its position in some small part. Most notable of the guidance was that FDA finally provided clarity about one of the aspects of social media that the industry has been clamoring for the most: working with bloggers and content creators to disseminate branded information.You would think, given that it’s been more than 90 days later, we’d have seen movement towards these kinds of programs. After all, we were told guidance, any guidance, was necessary so brands could finally move forward with social media without running afoul of the FDA. As of this posting, there has been nothing even remotely “social” being done. As part of running the Social Media Wiki, I have a number of bots and alerts to let me know when a whole host of pharma products get discussed online. I may be slow to output updates to the wiki, but the data coming in is timely. It is possible that I missed something, but I doubt it.It’s time we had “the talk”I hate to break the news, but social communications is not the business that pharma is in. If every reply, response, or retweet has to take 24 hours (or more) to run through a legal team before going live, I think we’ve gone well beyond any reasonable concept of conversation or dialogue. I think it’s also reasonable to assume if a patient has a question about a pharma product they don’t want to wait 24-72 hours for a response. But even if the lag time were lesser, would it even matter?When you actually ask patients if they find pharma’s participation in social to be effective, the answer is a resounding “no.” According to a Deloitte study in 2012, despite almost 65% of respondents saying that they use the internet for health information, only 5% said that social networking sites from pharma were trustworthy and credible. 5%. Even if pharma were able to engage in anything close to real time, patients just simply won’t believe the information being provided. Perhaps even more damaging, according to Manhattan Research (ePharma consumer 2013) when asked how they’d like to engage with a pharma brand, only 10% indicated they’d watch a YouTube video and 11% said they’d ‘Like’ a Facebook page. (Other channels, like Twitter ranked even lower) Given those abysmal numbers, should pharma even bother?Not every brand can grow up to be Zappos. That’s ok. There are plenty of non-pharma resources out there for patients that provide beneficial real-time interactions. In all likelihood, patients will get the info they need from message boards, online resources from their insurance provider, or increasingly, their physician via email or text. The real-time interactions that would benefit patients are more closely aligned with the roles played by the physician, pharmacists or insurance providers are playing online. Those industries are getting better and better at using social channels to help patients while pharma falls further and further behind. So instead, perhaps it’s time to more properly focus on what maximizing the value that pharma CAN provide.Software As A Service: The Real “Pill +”At its essence, pharma provides medicines that patients utilize to combat illness. The business is one of product development, engineering, distribution, and use. I don’t care what pill, injectable, brand, or biologic you’re marketing, your #1 problem is usually compliance. Almost every pharma product except Viagra or contraception has a compliance drop off curve that plummets somewhere around the 90 day mark. (There are of course variances, but this is pretty typical). According to a report by Harris Interactive, roughly half of all prescriptions for drugs to be taken on an ongoing basis are either not completed or are never filled in the first place.The information on how to take a medication is widely available. Patients receive a package insert with their medication detailing the information about what they’ve been prescribed and how to take it. Their doctor probably spent some time walking them through what they need to know as well. For its part, pharma has been very successful educating patients about these topics. Say what you will about the brand.com for pharma (and I have), they still do the yeoman’s work of providing information to patients, detailing information about what a product does, how to take it, and what side effects it may cause. If a patient does have a question about a product, chances are the information, (or rather, the information pharma is allowed to share), is detailed rather well on its website.So if compliance is the problem, software services (like mobile tools) not social media, are the most likely solutions. Compared to the abysmal numbers for social media, according to Kantar Health study, 90% of patients would like an app or online service to help them manage their condition or track taking their medications, provided it was recommended by their physician. Pharma is very good at developing and distributing the molecules and biologics to help patients, but has an enormous opportunity to develop technologies and services in a parallel path that assist the patient when taking their medicine. At its core, the pharma industry is rooted in science and technology, developing the software and services to accentuate a product isn’t that far outside of it’s cultural wheelhouse.Perhaps, given the desire by patients for services, not social conversations, pharma should refocus its efforts on creating the technologies and tools that give patients what they need to manage their conditions, and leave the chatting to someone else.In my next post, I’ll take a look at the most promising areas for pharma to focus it’s efforts in software and services. In the mean time, drop me a comment and tell me what you think.- See more at: http://www.doseofdigital.com/2014/03/time-pharma-give-social-media-ghost/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DoseOfDigital+(Dose+of+Digital+-+Improving+Healthcare+Through+Digital+Technology)#sthash.6h1y1D3A.dpuf  […]

  7. Responding To The Responders | Dose of Digital - April 11, 2014

    […] recap, my original post wasn’t meant to suggest that pharma should completely abandon social media, but rather that the […]

  8. Pharma Is in the "Publishing" Business. Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Social Media. | inspireareader.com - April 23, 2014

    […] I read Bill Evans/Dose of Digital's post "Is It Time For Pharma To Give Up The Social Media Ghost?," which lead to a brief conversation in which Bill said "pharma isn’t in the publishing […]

  9. Pharma Is in the "Publishing" Business. Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Social Media. | 1kfor1day.com - April 29, 2014

    […] I read Bill Evans/Dose of Digital's post "Is It Time For Pharma To Give Up The Social Media Ghost?," which lead to a brief conversation in which Bill said "pharma isn’t in the publishing […]

Leave a Reply