Social Media Wiki

How Marketing with Meaning Can Save Pharma — Part 1

You know that I love hyperbole-sounding titles for my posts and today’s certainly appears to be no exception. But it is an exception. This isn’t an exaggeration.

There’s no question that pharma is in trouble. There seems to be a scandal a minute (whether real or created). Billion dollar fines seem to be the norm instead of billion dollar products. Sales growth has stalled for many and workforce cuts seem to come everyday.

That’s all pretty bad, but it doesn’t even capture the number one problem and it won’t come as a surprise to anyone: public opinion of pharma is terrible. Not just bad, terrible.

As a regular user of Twitter, I use Tweetdeck and one of my columns shows every tweet with the word “pharma” in it. Today, I noticed this tweet:

pharmatweet

I thought it was maybe just one anti-pharma zealot. Then I saw it again. And again. And again. In fact, after searching, I realized there were hundreds of this exact same tweet (see for yourself). Hundreds of tweets all with the same message: a pharma conspiracy. Pharma conspiracy theories aren’t new, but this one stood out for me.

For those not familiar with the story, Natalie Morton was a 14 year-old in the UK who received a government-mandated injection of the cervical cancer vaccine and died hours after receiving it. In the UK, it’s mandatory for all teenage girls to receive the vaccination. For good reason too, it prevents a leading form of cancer, cervical cancer. A vaccine to prevent cancer. Imagine that. Back when Nixon declared a “War on Cancer” in 1971, how thrilled would be to know we had a vaccine to prevent one form of cancer? Instead today, it’s not seen that way at all. It’s just another pharma conspiracy to get more profits.

Back to Natalie’s sad story. Immediately after Natalie’s death, several news organizations jumped on the story. Here’s what Huffington Post ran. It appeared to every anti-pharma person that they’d finally been vindicated. Here was big pharma’s vaccine killing a perfectly healthy girl. Of course, none of them mentioned that 1.8 million girls had already received the vaccine without a single death similar to Natalie’s reported. Of course, the anti-pharma outrage should have stopped today, when an autopsy was performed and found that Natalie died from complications of an undiagnosed tumor. The medical examiner reported the following: “The heart was heavily infiltrated by a tumor which extended to the left lung. It was so severe death could have arisen at any time. The role of the immunization appeared to be minimal.”

End of story, right? Wrong. That’s when the tweets started. Rather than concede that the vaccination didn’t cause this girl’s death, she was used to infuse a little emotion into the anti-pharma zealots’ rhetoric. Yes, it’s really easy to fake a massive chest tumor during an autopsy.

Why is it like this?

Instead of praising pharma companies for potentially eliminating the approximately 11,000 incidences of cervical cancer each year and preventing about 4,000 deaths in the United States alone, “big pharma” gets beaten up. Why?

No doubt there are countless reasons, some of which the industry has brought upon itself with some questionable marketing tactics and scandals followed by massive government fines. But this isn’t the only reason. People are very passionate about the cost of the medications (but not very passionate about the costs of the other aspects of their helathcare). Since most people don’t know what an MRI costs and many don’t pay for a dime of the cost of one, they don’t get upset when their insurance company gets the bill. But when you pick up your prescription at CVS and have to shell out your cash, it’s a different story. That makes people mad.

Clearly, I’m not going to be the one to solve that problem. I’m not going to tell you I know how to completely fix all the PR issues pharma has. But I think we can make a dent.

So, let’s look at three major pharma problems:

  1. Horrible PR and public perception from  marketing tactics perceived as questionable
  2. No public belief in the cost to value equation for pharma products (i.e., people don’t think they should cost so much, which means they think the products aren’t worth it)
  3. Falling sales and profits

Question: Can Marketing with Meaning improve all three of these?

Answer: Not overnight, but yes, it can.

Question: Does pharma really need this now with all of its other challenges to worry about like patent issues, healthcare reform, and increased government scrutiny?

Answer: Because of these challenges, there’s no better time.

Interested?

In part 2 of this post, I’ll tell you all about how Marketing with Meaning can do all this. In the meantime, you should read up on what Marketing with Meaning is all about. You can also register yourself for the upcoming E-Patient Connections conference where I’ll be presenting this concept (in 6 minutes and 40 seconds). If you do register, use promo code jr500 to get $500 off. Finally, a perk from this blog.

If You Charged for Your Content, Would Anyone Pay?

Nike+ Running

As you look through nearly any brand website, you’ll see all sort of content related to the brand. Of course, there’s information about the product including all of the brand messages and, of course, in the case of healthcare, a bunch of fair balance. Most every site in every industry goes beyond this and offers some information about their category whether it be information about LCD versus plasma TVs or, in healthcare, information about the diseases their products treat. That’s all standard.

A few go beyond this, they offer something of a service in the form of an ongoing newsletter to share new content with their customers every so often. It’s a part of many company’s relationship marketing efforts, and these vary dramatically in their value to customers. Some may offer a coupon or special offers only available to members of the program. Of course, the vast majority of these are free to the subscribers. Pharma is no exception, as each of the top selling drugs offer some type of program (whether they’re working as well as they could or not is another story).

And, of course, some companies go even further and offer applications and services at no charge. Some of these are incredibly valuable and others are pretty questionable in their utility. Now it seems like everyone has a free iPhone app for their brand. This includes companies like USA Today, Nationwide, even Chipotle. Healthcare has dabbled in this area as well and have started to offer some iPhone applications. It’s not just iPhone apps either. Other on-site tools offer utility as well from disease trackers to product selectors and even games.

So, everyone is giving more than just brand information on their websites. It makes sense, right? When it comes to healthcare, you need to include information about the disease your product treats, right? You have to include things like diet suggestions, exercise tips, or even relaxation suggestions. Or do you? In many cases, we include this type of information because we think we have to. Our competitors do, so in order for our site to be as “good” as theirs, we do it also.

But think about it for a minute. The non-brand information we provide on our brand sites in healthcare is fairly generic in nature and available from a variety of sources. That is, you can get this type of information from a bunch of different sources; sources that consumers see as more objective than brand sites. Places like WebMD provide countless disease-related articles and tips related to healthcare. Even for specific disease information, third party sites almost always go far deeper than what you’ll find on any brand site. It’s what they do.

Despite this fact, healthcare companies continue to spend a lot of money to create content that can already be found elsewhere. Often, they create applications that don’t offer much value or have limited utility. I’m not picking on healthcare companies. This is common in every industry. We don’t use what’s out there already, we want to create our own version. We don’t link to other resources or syndicate content onto our sites. We want to make our own. But how many exercise tips do we need for people with hypertension?

It’s an ultra-competitive marketplace out there and companies believe they need to “capture” as many people as possible. They want them to stay on their sites and not go elsewhere. So, what better way to do this than try to put everything a person might need on your website? Okay, but here’s the problem with this. If you’re going to make an attempt, people now expect everything they see to be of outstanding quality. You have to remember that they aren’t comparing you to your category competitor anymore, they’re comparing you to everything else they’ve seen online. If your content isn’t of high quality with a lot of in depth information, people will be disappointed. If your application doesn’t work right or is boring, they’re going to be unhappy. Disappointed or unhappy people are not the kind of customers you want.

If you’re going to create your own content, whether it be articles or an application, it had better be good. It’s what people expect. They aren’t happy simply because you made an effort. They don’t need to get it from you, there are plenty other sources. And, that’s where they’ll go if you let them down.

So, the question you have to ask is simple. Is my content seen as valuable to my customers? If it’s not, you need to ask why you’re doing it? Of course, figuring out if your content is useful or not can be tough. It requires complete objectivity and that’s not easy for anyone. I’m going to make it easy for you.

When it comes to the best content and applications, we often pay for them. We pay for them happily because we get so much value from them. So, here’s your question, if you decided to charge for your content or applications, would anyone pay for them? It doesn’t need to be a lot, say, a dollar for your application. Okay, how about fifty-cents? Two bits? Anything? If your answer is no, then your content could possibly be doing more harm than good. People might find your content and get frustrated by its lack of details, limited utility, or because your application didn’t work right.

Here’s the good news, you don’t have to set up a complex payment system on your site. You don’t actually have to charge people for your content or applications. Just use it as a test to see if what you have is good enough.

Much of the content that was once something you paid for is now moving to free. Chris Anderson famously proposed this in his Wired magazine article, Free! Why $0.00 Is the Future of Business. But many of these free things, we would pay for if they suddenly required us to pay. A few examples: if Google suddenly decided to charge for Gmail, would you pay for it? I would. If Nike decided to charge for Nike+, would you pay for that? I would and I bet that I most people that use it would do the same.

“But,” you say, “we’re not Nike. We’re not Google. We’re talking healthcare. I don’t have to worry about these types of companies. I’m worried about my competitors.” Well, they are your competitors. Everything online is you competitor. Everything is competing for your customers’ time, so they’re you competitors. Here’s the thing to remember, people ARE paying for your content. They pay for it with their time, which is both very valuable and finite. When they waste their time, they waste their money.

Is you content wasting people’s money? If so, what are you going to do to improve it today?

Is Pharma Ready for the New iPhone (or any iPhone)?

Dose of Digital Mini White Paper

In case you missed it (and welcome back to Earth if you did), Apple is releasing yet another version of the iPhone: the 3GS. In today’s post, I’m not going to tell you why this upgrade is going to dramatically change the way pharma markets its products using digital. Because it won’t.

However, one other announcement from Apple came out at the same time  and went largely unnoticed. This little detail will change the way pharma markets its products in digital. While explaining all the cool features and enhanced speed of the new iPhone 3GS, Apple also told us that the current top of the line model, the 3G, will be reduced in price to $99. $99 dollars versus a current cost of $199 or $299 (depending on memory) is a big difference. $99 is one of the those magical buying points where something starts to look really affordable to people. In fact, in a recent study done by Neilsen prior to the announcement, they noted, “…the second most important factor-noted by 20% of respondents-as to why people did not pick the iPhone was its price.” It doesn’t take a lot of calculations to figure out that there’s going to be a huge increase in iPhone sales because of this decrease.

So, how does this affect you as a pharma marketer?

With more iPhones (and any other smartphone with a browser), more people can instantly get quality information no matter where they are. For you, this means in their doctor’s office, a pharmacy, a hospital. It essentially allows patients to immediately double-check their doctor’s recommendations. Picture someone who was just prescribed Lipitor walking out of their doctor’s office. Let’s say they have an iPhone. What’s the first thing they do when they leave that office? If it’s me, I check out Lipitor on my iPhone and see what it’s all about. This is going to become more and more the norm as these types of phones become the standard instead of just another high-tech gadget.

So, when your patient checks out your site on their iPhone, what do they see? Let’s consider our friend who was just prescribed Lipitor. If he checked out the Lipitor site at home. This is what he’d see:

Lipitor Web Version

Not a bad looking site. Front and center patient stories. Clear navigation. Good.

What about on the iPhone? The iPhone browser has one big limitation; it doesn’t recognize Flash. Flash, as you know, is what’s responsible for much of the animation you see on the Web today. Chances are that if you see something moving around on a webpage, it uses Flash. As far as the iPhone is concerned, Flash doesn’t exist. So, your very expensive to develop Flash piece (the patient stories) on the Lipitor site looks like this on the iPhone:

Lipitor iPhone

No more patient stories. Everything else still works, but you’re missing your big feature and there’s an ugly blank spot on your page that makes it look like it’s broken somehow.

Who else has the problem? I looked through the sites of some of the top-sellers out there and found a few more plus one that does it right (almost).

One that I found that goes on the “needs improvement” list is Actos. Here’s their website:

Actos Web Version

Here’s the iPhone version:

Actos iPhone

So long strange, talking, bacon-man (and the sound as well because he does talk in the Web version, but not on an iPhone).

One other site that I actually wrote about very positively in a recent post about addressing caregiver needs, looks great on a full browser, but not so much on the iPhone. It’s Exelon Patch.

Full Web version:

Exelon Web Version

It includes the engaging visuals that really speak to someone caring for someone suffering from Alzheimer’s. However, when you look at it on the iPhone…

Exelon Patch iPhone

All the visuals are gone and you’ve got a page filled with tiny words.

So, is there a way to fix this? Absolutely. What’s more, it isn’t very difficult to do. Correcting the way your site displays content is critical so that users of smartphones (including the iPhone) can view it properly, but there’s one other even more important reason you need to ensure that you have an alternative to Flash on your site. It’s called Google. Perhaps you’ve heard of it. Turns out that Google doesn’t like Flash all that much either (at least Google’s spiders don’t). Google cannot read Flash. It basically doesn’t exist. This oversimplifies the issue a bit, as Google can see some elements of the “behind the scenes” parts of Flash, but for the most part it can’t. Here’s a good article explaining some of the details if you’re interested. So what if Google can’t see it? If it can’t see it, it can’t index it, which means it can’t consider it in the rankings for search. Bad news.

So, here’s the deal. You’re beautiful website…

Iams Website

…looks like this to a search spider:

Iams Website Spider Version

Not pretty, but that’s okay. Google doesn’t rank on pretty. However, it’s not okay if all your important keywords aren’t showing up here. If they are buried in the Flash, Google doesn’t see them. In this case, much of the content of the Iams site is contained in Flash and isn’t seen by Google. Interested in seeing how your site looks to Google? Here’s a great tool.

It turns out that there’s a great compromise that is a really simple programming fix and one that you should be requiring your digital developers to do. Essentially, you create two versions of your website. Relax, it’s not twice the cost. All you are going to do is create second version using some programming techniques that ensures all of your content that was included in your Flash piece is visible to search spiders. You can direct which page is seen through a really simple programming technique that allows you to check either browser type or other parameters that ensure the right visitor sees the right page. So, you can show search spiders one thing and regular people another. You can also show an iPhone version to iPhone users. You don’t need to understand the technicalities of how to do this, but if you really want to, contact me and I’ll get you in touch with one of our developers (no charge of course).

Let’s just see what it looks like. Someone in pharma has done it ALMOST perfectly. This is the normal Web version of the Seroquel website (note that I cut the page off a bit):

Seroquel Web Version

There’s a big Flash piece right in the middle of the page that feature some patient stories. It’s nicely done and looks great, but as we now know, the iPhone (and Google) isn’t going to like it very much. But, AZ (makers of Seroquel) handled this the right way. Here’s the iPhone version:

Seroquel iPhone

What you see is that the site explains that it’s optimized for Flash and gives you directions on how to install Flash if you don’t already have it. You still lose the stories, but at least you don’t have a big blank area on the page that leaves people wondering why your site looks broken.

For those paying close attention, you noticed that I said they did this “ALMOST perfectly.” Here’s the problem with this approach. All of the great content that is in the Flash piece is gone. If you use the simulator like I did for the Iams site, none of the patient stories are seen by search spiders. The stories are even narrated and have some good content, but Google doesn’t know about it. However, it’s possible to take that content out of the Flash file and display it essentially in transcript form only for search spiders. You have the transcripts already (because your regulatory team demanded them), so adding this to your site isn’t a big deal. It won’t mess up the look of the site because you can program it so that only search spiders can see the text. It’s a simple fix, but one that is overlooked pretty regularly. With all the competition out there for important keywords in Google’s rankings, you need all the help you can get. Why leave out big chuncks of content when you don’t have to?

In addition, you could invest a little more and make a non-Flash version of the patients stories that is going to be viewable on an iPhone. That was the point of this post after…optimizing for an iPhone. So simply saying, “Sorry, you’re out of luck because you don’t have Flash,” how about offering an alternative using static images or some other technologies that mimic Flash, but without some of the issues?

The big takeaway…make sure that people who are using smartphones can see your website the way you want it seen. Do a little experiment and find out what your site looks like to iPhone users. If you’re not happy with it, contact your developers and figure out how to improve it. Don’t leave your site with a gaping hole in the middle of it. This doesn’t instill confidence among visitors. At the same time, make sure that you are truly optimizing for search. The two really go hand in hand. If you have an issue with how your site displays on the iPhone then you probably have an issue with how Google sees it too.

So, go out and wait on line for a new iPhone 3GS today (or just ask to borrow a friend’s if you’re not quite that gung-ho).

Bringing Digital to Pfizer’s Drug Giveaway

First, I would like to applaud the folks at Pfizer for their new MAINTAIN (Medicines Assistance for Those Who Are In Need) program. Yes, it’s a little bit of stretch to get to the acronym, but pharma’s got to have them. For those not familiar with the program, basically, it provides one year of free drugs if you’re unemployed at no cost. A couple of important caveats: you have to have been on the Pfizer drug for three months prior to losing your job and  have no other healthcare coverage for drugs. Essentially, this is the Hyundai Assurance program for pharmaceutical products. 

As we all know, big pharma could always use a bit of good PR and this is some of the best it’s had in a while. Some cynics might mention the limitations of the program or that it’s tied to losing your job instead but does not include those with jobs who still can’t pay for their medications. You could also note that higher cost (and higher profit) oncology products aren’t included in the program according to Ad Age’s review of the program. However, the cynics seem to not be making a big splash this time around as most of the buzz is positive. 

Overall, this has got to be a positive PR coup for Pfizer. At the same time, I’m going to guess that they’ll actually not have that many people who fit the requirements for the program. You need to be on branded Pfizer products for three months and then lose your job. Yes, many people have lost their jobs recently, but the employment rate is still (historically-speaking) relatively low and job losses seem to have slowed. The other piece that limits the number of people who might qualify is that patients have to have been on treatment for three months. Assuming people tell the truth, with adherence rates dropping dramatically in the first three months, most patients never make it to month three. My point? This program might not cost Pfizer that much at all. Compare that to the PR value that they are getting (and could never have bought) and overall it seems like  pretty smart move. 

Let’s also remember, Pfizer has a lot to gain from this program. People who lose their job may cut back on medical treatments along with everything else. Those on Lipitor may ask their doctor for something that’s almost as good but much cheaper and they end up on generic Zocor. Pfizer gets nothing. However, when the patient gets his job back, he’ll probably continue with what was working. Pfizer would rather make sure that their drug is the one the patient is taking when they get insurance coverage once again. So, instead of losing them forever, Pfizer basically loaned them some money until they can get back on their feet and start paying once again.

As an aside, Ad Age included this in their article: “A former high-ranking pharmaceutical company executive said the cost to Pfizer for this new push may not be as high as people think. ‘Most of the money [drug companies spend] is in [research and development],’ said the former executive, who asked not to be identified. ‘It doesn’t cost a lot to manufacture the pills or package them.’”

Perhaps this comment explains why he/she is a “former” executive. If this were the pharma business model, then they could be selling every pill for 3 cents. Technically, I guess they’d have to sell the first pill for $800 million and then the next one could be 3 cents. The point of the higher prices is to re-coup the investment in development throughout the life of the product. Giving them away doesn’t have a high costs of goods sold, but it has a tremendous opportunity cost (or sacrificed revenue “cost”). So, seriously with this quote? But, I digress…

The point of this post isn’t supposed to be a Pfizer-lovefest, so I’ll get to it. My challenge to Pfizer is how they could have (can?) bring digital (and relationship marketing) into this program to make it even more valuable and actually turn a profit on it later on. It’s pretty clear that this program isn’t going to be advertised (which also keeps the number enrolling down) and I’m not suggesting that Pfizer advertise it. There also are some rules around offering enticements for getting someone to use your products and free samples (which is what this basically is) can fit in that category in some cases. So, I know that they have to be careful with how they tie this program to current and future sales and marketing.

That said, there’s an opportunity here. On the application form, Pfizer asks for the patient’s email address. I would guess that people would readily turn over this piece of personal information because they feel that they are getting some value in return (my take on this value exchange). But the question is: what can/should Pfizer do with these email addresses? Again, keep in mind that they’ve offered something very valuable in return for information and have people who are likely to be willing to accept some offers in exchange for these free drugs. So, is Pfizer asking each of the people in the program to opt into one of their product-specific CRM programs? For example, an applicant who is taking Lipitor should be offered the chance to enroll in My HeartWise, the product’s CRM program. If Pfizer believes in the value of these programs, then why not try to get more people enrolled?

Since those who get accepted for program are likely to have a very positive attitude towards Pfizer (and rightfully so), why not leverage this while you can? Perhaps they’ll agree to share their story for use on your website. Maybe they’ll write a blog post about you (or send a tweet). Maybe they’ll tell their friends about how great of a company you are. You can help them do all of this by providing them with simple talking points about the program and the company. Let them be your ambassadors while they’re willing and have a great opinion about your company. 

Maybe now’s the time to start collecting product reviews for inclusion on your site later on (when you can sell it to your regulatory team). Surely, these people would be more likely to give you a positive review (or any review at all). All of this is very common in other industries where they do a much better job at finding, energizing, and supporting their biggest brand advocates. They look for the right people through a variety of channels (social media being the big one now). They get them excited about what they can do and the difference they can make. Finally, they give patients simple ways to spread the word to others. It’s not a quid pro quo, as you’re not making their participation in the program contingent on their agreeing to help. Pfizer can follow this same model: find, energize, and support. 

How? The find part is really easy. They’ve got the names, street addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses of those that should be the biggest advocates for the company (i.e., those that were accepted into the program). Energizing is hard regardless of the industry, but it can be done here for sure. Let those in the program know the value of what they are getting, how the drugs are going to help them (i.e., they made the right choice to find a way to stay on treatment), and how many other people could benefit, but aren’t. Yes, a little bit of a guilt-trip, but I think fair. Support is the final part of the model and that could be as complex as mailing a PR kit to every member of the program who is interested or as simple as adding a ShareThis button to every product site. Either way, you have to make it very easy for people to share your story otherwise they won’t.

So, hats off to Pfizer for taking on this ambitious program, it’s a 7.5 out of 10. My challenge to you is for you to figure out how you can make this even better and bring it to a 10 out of 10.

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »