As you may have noticed, I’m fascinated with where new Web-enabled communication tools are taking us in the world of medicine in healthcare. I’m also a huge admirer of the work of the outspoken and sage John Mack, publisher of Pharma Marketing News and author of the Pharma Marketing Blog. I was therefore delighted when John agreed to make a guest appearance here.
{Note: I referenced John extensively in my own recent post on Pharma Using Twitter, in advance of last week’s Diabetes Social Media Summit.}
A Guest Post by John Mack, Pharma Marketing Guru
Amy suggested the title of this post, but what I really want to talk about is “What Diabetes Patients WANT from the New Era of Pharma Marketing”…
First, despite all the chatter, the “new era of pharma marketing” is not yet upon us. That is, not if you’re talking about pharma marketers using social media in an effective and meaningful way. I have written about this extensively elsewhere at the Pharma Marketing Blog (see, for example, “Can Pharma Use Social Media to Provide Patient Support?”) and in Pharma Marketing News (see, for example, “Pharma Marketers Dive Deeper Into Social Media: The Good, the Bad, & the Ugly Case Studies”; use discount code ‘86wtit’ to get if free), so I won’t bother you with the details here.
Suffice it to say that pharma marketers do not yet understand what diabetes patients have known for a long time: online support via social networks is one of the greatest resources that patients have. And patients welcome many points of view from all stakeholders as long as there is transparency and an honest attempt to convey useful information via genuine dialogue.
An example of what patients do NOT want from pharmaceutical marketers was Novo Nordisk’s first Levemir-branded Tweet or, as I like to call it, the “Tweet heard round the pharma world.” Here’s the Tweet, which was made via Novo’s “Race with Insulin” Twitter account (@racewithinsulin) featuring race car driver/diabetes patient Charlie Kimball:
“Headed for Iowa Speedway. Just took Levemir® (insulin detemir [rDNA origin] injection) prescribing info: http://is.gd/15ull”
Nevermind if I got the tiny URL above wrong; it only leads to the technical version of the Levemir package insert, which I’m sure you’d love to read end-to-end. How much better would it have been, however, if the Tweet linked to some interesting portion of the product Web site, where you could perhaps find some useful information?
Some called this first-ever branded pharma Tweet “historic”; I called it “Sleazy Twitter Spam,” which got me a lot of flack. But I’m sticking to my story (see here for details).
Of course, we all know that no “real” person would ever write something like this, especially if they were trying to provide inspiration to people with diabetes. But some marketers claimed that diabetes patients often mention drugs they are taking and products they are using by brand name. Yeah, sure. I’m willing to bet you’re not including ® and the generic name when you do and probably not linking to the official FDA-approved labeling information either.
Of course, what Charlie says on this branded site must be reviewed by Novo Nordisk. I bet, however, that Novo marketers actually write most of this kind of drivel and just for the sake of getting the brand name out there. I don’t have diabetes, but I am sure that’s not what people with diabetes want.
Social media use by patients is a major factor making pharma marketing communications very complex these days. That’s because patients – especially diabetes patients – are now one of the major influencers of physician prescribing, which is the
holy grail of pharma marketers. Marketers must learn how to influence the influencers! But that’s not going to happen using sleazy branded Tweets!
TNS Healthcare – a company that helps pharma marketers understand how to market to physicians and their influencers – studied several factors influencing physician prescribing and created an index to measure the influence, positive and negative. This was done via a brief survey of primary care physicians in the US and other countries. The chart below shows results pertaining to influencers of diabetes drug prescribing by US physicians. [Note: TNS is an advertising client of mine but they did not pay me to write this. Amy didn’t pay me either 
But I’m not complaining!]
What I find interesting is that “Social networks” are among the “negative” influencers, most of which are related to the cost of the product. I suspect that physicians who read patient stories on social networks see a lot of negative chatter about (prices of?) these products. But, let’s be fair. There’s also a lot of good that these products do and pharma marketers must get their stories on these networks also. But to do so will take a community. and marketers must learn how to be good citizens of that community. Be open and honest in your feedback on their attempts, and do what you can to help them!
You can find John on Twitter as @PharmaGuy.
 Patients)
[...] out their products Originally posted here: Social Media CRM: What Are the Rules of Engagement? What a New Era of Pharma Marketing Means to (Diabetes) Patients – diabetesmine.com 07/31/2009 As you may have noticed, I’m fascinated with where new Web-enabled [...]
Very interesting and informative. Thank you John!
Thanks for sharing Amy. Although knowing you are ‘cross the pond and I miss ya, I do love your “Summer Readings!”
wv: wees industry”
(giggle)
I am a little confused about this post. As a diabetic patient, I was not the least bit upet about the so-called branded tweet. I have had difficulty finding a diabetic who actually was upset by it. We know Charlie writes his own tweets and that legally they have to follow certain guidelines (such as branding) – so what?
When I add a link to my blog in my tweet or when Amy links to hers (which is how I found this post), are we not marketing ourselves in the same way? There are advertisements on this blog (and on mine), such as one for Apidra. Amy uses it, so do I. I think Apidra is one of the best insulins out there and would recommend anyone try switching. However any link to this blog is an advertisment for Apidra, for which there is some sort of compensation received. What is the difference?
[...] Blog. I was therefore delighted when John agreed to make a guest appearance here Original post: » What a New Era of Pharma Marketing Means to (Diabetes) Patients … :a-huge-admirer, and-author, and-sage, here–, huge-admirer, outspoken, pharma, the-outspoken, [...]
Sara,
There’s a difference between a clearly stated advertisement and something that comes off as being “natural” that has an advertisement inside of it. It would be like if you wrote a post about how much you love Apidra, making it sound like you’re doing because you’re you, but in reality Apidra actually asked you to write something and paid you for it. It’s called pay-for-play and it’s been debated as unethical in many different blog communities (namely mommybloggers, who rarely state when they are writing about something they got for free or found out themselves).
Now, clearly the whole thing is set up as a marketing ploy, which is why most of us aren’t bothered by it because it IS pretty obvious and on a branded Twitter page. But that is actually the problem for some people, and that’s why there is a debate about whether or not Charlie’s Twitter account is all that effective. If we KNOW it’s just a marketing tool, are we more or less inclined to ignore it?
[...] more here: » What a New Era of Pharma Ma… Share and [...]
I think the point of my question was mostly missed. Would Charlie (for example) be using Levemir if Novo Nordisk was not one of the sponsors of his race car? I am guessing so – pretty sure he would keep taking insulin to… um… stay living. Is it likely that he would tweet about how his treatment is affecting his driving? Again, I think so. He knows who is audience is and wants to keep them interested. Perhaps my interest in professional driving (not Indy, but NASCAR) and how expensive it is, and how many sponsors you have to have to keep your car running, gives me a different perspective on this.
Since Twitter is the prime example used here: If you are paid to blog and you link to your blog, it is the same as what Charlie did, IMHO. I am not talking about the pay-for-play of doing reviews. That is a different topic as far as I am concerned. He did not submit a review. He just updated his ‘followers’ on what he was doing, and then legally had to add the link.
Again, I find it interesting that the guest poster here tells us “what patients do NOT want from pharmaceutical marketers”, but he is not one. Specifically, he states “I don’t have diabetes, but I am sure that’s not what people with diabetes want.” How sure is he? Because, I for one disagree and I am willing to bet I am not the only one.
P.S. How did I find out about Apidra? A link on someone’s blog.
Thanks for providing such a great summary of big pharma marketing.
[...] like the American Diabetes Association and people from respected blogs like Six Until Me, Diabetes Mine and others. Patients are already online talking about health conditions – cancer, diabetes, [...]
hello nice article