A recent Pharma Marketing Blog post shares some interesting details on Pfizer’s entrance into social media via Facebook. But according to the post, that entrance wasn’t quite graceful:

When I became a Pfizer FB Pfan, Pfizer’s Wall contained a bunch of short “medicine Safety” videos in which patients talked about their medical conditions and medications. I don’t think any mentioned specific products by name.

One video was of a woman with osteoarthritis who expressed concerns about taking any medication at all. I thought this was an interesting video for Pfizer to post to its wall. So I decide to post a comment about it. However, “something went wrong” when I hit the submit button [and I received an error message].

I didn’t really think that Pfizer would allow comments, so this didn’t surprise me. Maybe they are actually “fixing” this “problem.” We’ll see.

But I WAS able to SHARE this video by posting it to MY profile so that all MY FB friends could see it too!

Today, however, those videos are gone and you cannot see the one I tagged on my FB profile page. They were replaced by product photos.

The author of the post, John Mack, gave an update a few weeks later. The Pfizer videos are back up on its fan page, and they are sharable via fans’ Facebook profiles. But users still can’t comment on Pfizer’s fan page.

Could this pharma social media marketing hickup been avoided?

Some may suggest the Pfizer Facebook story was just a bait-and-hook tactic for gaining fans. Others might say laywers stepped in and “caught wind of the FB content, got twitchy and told them to pull the video and replace with safer content,” according to one comment on the blog post.

Either way, a social media savvy marketing agency could have potentially offered sound advice and consulting on how to successfully enter the social media world.

What do you think?

The pharmaceutical industry is slowly venturing into the world of social media. And like with any advance into uncharted territory, there are obstacles to overcome before the ultimate goal is reached.

The Shed blogger Daniel Siddle takes this all into consideration in a recent post discussing the merits of social media in the pharmaceutical industry and the ways in which it can benefit from interaction with customers.

The post initially mentions the obstacles the pharmaceutical industries faces in terms of marketing products:

Cost: Marketing pharmaceuticals is expensive, especially because it can’t be done until after the drug receives New Drug Approval (NDA).

Agency Regulations: Agencies like the Food Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMEA) implement rules on how pharmaceutical companies can interact with the public and how information passes between the two.

Intellectual Property Concerns: While a drug is being developed, the company developing it doesn’t want to say much about it because of the fear of losing a competitive edge.

Siddle suggests that social media has the potential to address two of these concerns for pharmaceutical marketers:

Cost:With social media, companies can reach out to consumers before achieving NDA without the large financial commitment involved with more traditional marketing. Research can be shared and consumers can provide creative input much earlier in the process.

Intellectual Property: Social media enables entire companies to take part in the marketing of a potential product, though time will have to answer the questions of keeping intellectual property and the privacy of employees safe.

Learn more about how social media can provide opportunities for the pharmaceutical industry by reading the full blog post.

But take a closer look, and you’ll notice that the pages don’t allow commenting or even the “like” Facebook feature.

In a recent AdWeek article, Brian Morrissey discusses the pharma marketing conundrum regarding social media. The article shares how one pharma company is using social media in a limited way:

It is a common feature of many pharma-related Web sites that the key social features, like commenting, are turned off. Nexium, a drug from AstraZeneca, has a Facebook page that won’t let visitors post to its wall, comment on its posts or share them. Yet the drugmaker does take a step towards social with a heavily monitored social area. All posts are moderated before they’re posted to the site. The restrictions make the page a mostly one-way communications channel with only a handful of posts from consumers, and several discussion topics without any consumer input at all.

The article also offers several reasons why pharma marketing hasn’t been able to fully leverage the power of social media:

• FDA rules governing pharma marketing and advertising are often murky.
• If a user reported an adverse reaction to a treatment on a company’s social media page, the company would have to report it to the FDA.
• Pharma companies can be held liable for people discussing off-label use of their products on their sites.
• Social media updates can sometimes need approval from a pharma company’s legal department, which adds costs and manpower.

Only time will tell how the adoption of social media by pharma marketers — and FDA regulations — will play out, although adoption may be sped if the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) is able to get its proposal passed. PhRMA is proposing the creation of a universal logo to be placed on social media sites, indicating information that meets FDA guidelines for fair balance.

To learn more, read the full AdWeek article.

These days, it’s common for consumers to discuss drugs and treatments on health care social networks like WebMD, as well as on general social networks like Twitter.

Yet the pharmaceutical industry has thus far been unable to participate in social media — not because they are prohibited by law, but because there is a lack of clear regulatory guidelines for marketing on social networks and other web sites.

Still, in April, the FDA sent warning letters to 14 companies, claiming they violated regulations regarding presentation of fair balance in search engine ads, according to AdvertisingAge.

To help solve this problem, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), which represents the pharmaceutical industry, has proposed creating a universal logo to be placed on social media sites. The logo would indicate the information that meets FDA guidelines for fair balance.

In a recent post on the Groundswell Blog, Josh Bernoff stresses the need for such a measure and voices his support for the PhRMA proposal:

In one case in my research, a pharma company employee begged me to take down a reference to a site her company had sponsored – the logo was right there on the site – even though the company had provided an unrestricted grant and did not influence content in any way.

[The proposal to create a universal logo] is an ideal way out of the current state. The logo should be prominent. Furthermore, I think pharma companies should moderate and appropriately respond to social activity, including blocking off-label suggestions and following up on adverse effects. This works now for GSK’s alli community, which exists only because alli is an over-the-counter drug and therefore is not subjected to the same level of scrutiny by the FDA.

Sure it’s expensive to do this moderation, but alli shows it can be done, and effectively. Pharma companies are enthusiastic about social media but terrified by the lack of FDA rules, which means they never know if they’ll be cited for inappropriate behavior. It’s time for the FDA to indicate what behavior is appropriate, including moderation and the logo linking to fair-balance information. Then people who need information about medications will be able to benefit from peer content. It’s a lot better idea than leaving all that peer content on unregulated sites, and allowing pharma only with ads with pages of small print disclaimers. How 20^th century!

Read the full Groundswell blog post on pharma social media.

Indeed, only a handful of life sciences companies have decided to take the social media plunge, claims Jonathan Richman, director of business development at Bridge Worldwide Inc. and author of the popular “Dose of Digital” blog, which tracks social media usage by life sciences and healthcare companies.

According to Richman, there are only a handful of drug companies on Facebook (the largest social networking website, which recently surpassed 350 million registered users) and the popular video sharing site YouTube, which is owned by Google. Likewise, only a small number of companies have created accounts on Twitter — the highly touted microblogging platform that is expected to surpass 18 million registered users by year’s end. Finally, only a smattering of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, including Johnson and Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, and GE Healthcare, run and maintain blogs — one of the earliest forms of social media. This is remarkable considering that Technorati, a company that tracks blog creation and blogging habits, determined that in 2008 there were over 25 million blogs in the United States, which were visited by more than 77 million viewers!

The industry’s reluctance to engage in social media puzzles John Mack, a veteran pharmaceutical consultant, blogger, and social media enthusiast who publishes the influential Pharma Marketing News newsletter and the Pharma Marketing blog. “Social media has drastically changed the way people communicate over the Internet. It is a two-way dialog that makes discussions and the exchange of information available to masses of people who previously may not have had access,” he said. The industry needs to better understand its benefits and get into the game, Mack added. Analtech’s Grant asserts that life sciences companies have to come to terms with the fact that conversations about them are already taking place online whether or not they are aware of them. “Companies should understand that they must monitor social media channels to better understand what their customers and stakeholders are saying and what they need or want,” he said.

The Life Science Leader article highlights a few reasons why life sciences and pharma companies may be hesitant to develop a social media presence:

• In recent years, the FDA’s Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications (DDMAC), which regulates marketing and advertising practices of pharmaceutical, biotechnology and devices companies, has penalized an increasing number of companies for misleading promotional activities. It’s possible that drug and device manufacturers worry that social media activities with no official guidelines in place could lead to additional penalties.
• Companies are required by law to report all adverse events and side effects of marketed drugs and devices to the FDA. Some may fear that social media would allow disgruntled consumers to post false claims to the web, which could lead to a host of FDA investigations.
• Because of recent drug recalls, product safety issues and layoffs, many may fear that the American public’s confidence and trust in the health care and pharma industry is at historical lows.

To learn more, read the entire Life Science Leader article.

That’s a question Pharma 2.0 bloggers Bunny Ellerin and Eileen O’Brien ask in a recent post:

Tweeting is fast becoming a must-do vs. a what-are-you-doing for business generally and CEO’s in particular. Just last week Twitter published Twitter 101, a guide to help businesses leverage the service. Last month, BusinessWeek ran an article about business leaders who use Twitter and profiled 50 CEO’s from a range of industries. There was definitely an over-representation of tech CEO’s, but BW also talked to those from advertising/pr, construction, research, media, retail. But none in healthcare.

Where are all the healthcare CEO’s on Twitter?

The bloggers do point out several strong examples of healthcare executives using Twitter: @paulflevy, Paul Levy of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and @livestrongCEO, Doug Ullman of Lance Armstrong Foundation.

The post provides a few tangible tips to help healthcare executives get started on Twitter and other social media channels:

• To engage followers, provide a combination of business-related information and personal anecdotes. Also include links to useful articles and Retweet good posts.
• Make an effort to interact with followers. Search for relevant questions on Twitter that you could answer.
• Be authentic. If possible, write your own posts. And before starting the conversation, listen first to get a sense of the community.
• Have an opinion. Comment on timely topics such as the healthcare bill. Twitter is a great tool to communicate to the public your organization’s stance on important issues.

Lasica identifies the top 10 social media efforts and patient community micro-sites in the pharmaceutical and health care industry:

1. Johnson & Johnson
2. Glaxo-Smith-Kline
3. Bayer
4. Sanofi-Aventis
5. Novartis
6. AstraZenecaUS
7. Bristol-Myers Squibb
8. Roche
9. Pfizer
10. Boehringer Ingelheim

In a slideshow presentation, “Top 10 Pharma Efforts in Social Media,” Lasica offers details of each social media effort, as well as grades each company on their Twitter activity.

Johnson & Johnson, for example, has been blogging since 2007, when it launched the JNJ BTW & Kilmer house blogs, which receive hundreds of reader comments. In 2008, J&J purchased the Children with Diabetes online community, which promotes awareness of juvenile diabetes, as well as provides care and treatment information for families affected by the disease. On Facebook, J&J division Ortho-McNeil-Janssen started an ADHD Moms group. “Mom-bassadors” are selected to share their experiences in supporting their children with ADHD.

German pharmaceutical company Boehringer Ingelheim received an A- Twitter grade from Lasica–the highest of all 10 companies. The company uses Twitter not only to post company information, but to offer health-related articles and information. John Pugh, who is behind Boehringer Ingelheim’s Twitter activity, says that 70% of his daily tasks involve social media.

Dose of Digital
This healthcare and pharmaceutical e-marketing blog offers news and thoughts on how the heathcare industry can leverage the digital technologies available. The blog offers information on how patients and doctors find out about products and determine if they are right for them, as well as how digital technologies can make this all simpler for everyone involved.

Med 2.0
The Med 2.0 blog explores the emerging technologies and new media trends in science, medicine and pharma. The goal of the site is to combine the founder’s background in academia, agency and industry with his interest in emerging technologies and social media to drive innovation in science and medicine.

Pharma Marketing Blog
The goal of this blog is to help pharmaceutical marketers advance their careers through networking, sharing resources and continuing professional education. It provides thoughts on the issues facing pharma marketers, including regulations, research and events.

Pharma Strategy Blog
This blog offers resources to help pharmaceutical companies market new products. It includes information on recent events, case studies, regulations and healthcare IT advances, among other topics.

WhyDotPharma
The WhyDotPharma Blog provides examples of how patients and other stakeholders in the healthcare system use social media to improve patient care. The blog also discusses how pharmaceutical companies can drive awareness, access and adherence to their treatments through social media tools.

What are some of your favorite healthcare blogs?

Most of us are aware of our own limitations. At the same time, most of us know the rules and are forced to live under them. However, many times we don’t really know the rules or understand them. Worse still is when we think we know the rules, but really don’t. When this happens, we essentially create a set of “ghost rules” that inhibit our thinking and that of our colleagues.

What makes ghost rules especially bad is that they’ve often been around for a long time and no one has ever thought to challenge them. Because these “rules” have often been invented along the way, they are impossible to ever really refute. You can prove that a “ghost” rule is real. Just go look it up. When you see the rule is some FDA guideline, then you’re proved it’s a real rule instead of a “ghost” rule. But how do you prove that a ghost rule isn’t real? If you search for it, you won’t find it anywhere, but because it’s been around for so long, people might assume that you didn’t look in the right place. It has to be a rule because we’ve assumed it was for so long.

Richman offers an interactive exercise and encourages pharma marketers to imagine a world without rules. Sounds great, right? But he gives a few parameters:

1. There may be no laws, but you still have a budget.

2. People will reject or react negatively to misleading advertising.

3. Your competition has the same rules.

If you could do anything you wanted in terms of digital marketing without any regulations, what would you do?

According to a recent report “Pharmaceutical Marketing Online: Stuck in Web 1.5″ from eMarketer, despite significant growth in pharma online ad spending, there’s a bit of a disconnect between how pharmaceutical companies view the internet (information delivery channel) and their customers (interact with one another and with brands).

Having restricted their brand sites to mere online information centers – often pages of text and a slow-to-load TV commercial – pharma marketers are missing big opportunities to engage consumers and boost confidence in their brands, eMarketer said.

(Reported by MarketingCharts)

“Messages must be interactive because consumers are looking for a dialogue, especially when their health is involved,” said Lisa Phillips, senior analyst and author of the report. “Something as simple as offering mobile or internet alerts to prompt patients to take their medicine are opt-in tactics that benefit patients.”

Changes in consumer information discovery, consumption and sharing are not concomitant with how pharma uses the internet for marketing and communication, limiting potential. Regardless, the pharmaceutical category will account for 5% of US online ad spending, or $2.2 billion by 2011.

Read full coverage of the “Pharmaceutical Marketing Online: Stuck in Web 1.5″ report at eMarketer.