Envisioning 2.0

Since early this year, Abbott Laboratories and the PR firm Fleishman Hilliard have been producing a contest designed to encourage young people to enter the clinical laboratory profession.  According to Abbott, the program, Labs Are Vital, was a smashing success.  It reached more than 1.8 million students interested in the sciences.

Students participating in the contests were asked to develop videos, T-shirts and advertisements encouraging people to start a career in laboratory medicine.  A key part of the programs’ success was the fact that Fleishman Hilliard was heavily engaged with the Facebook community surrounding the contest.  With a few exceptions, the contest sponsors were very responsive to community members’ needs and quickly answered questions.

Intimate interaction with community members was critically important, as Abbott changed the program’s various deadlines a few times over the past few months to give students more time to participate in the contest.  These changes confused community members.  In addition, Fleishman did a good job defusing negative commentary about the contest by quickly and honestly addressing criticism about the effort.

This contest illustrates that social networks have the power to “seed and grow” online communities around a common cause.  “Seeding” means providing the community with an online home.  Growth entails giving the community room to evolve at its own pace and constantly making adjustments as its needs change.

To learn more about the contest, click here.  To view the Facebook group, please click here (Facebook account required to view site).

A bit of a buzz has been going around the pharma blogosphere about a new marketing campaign for the over the counter allergy medicine (OTC) Zyrtec.  Jack Friday at PharmaGossip has wondered whether it’s legal.  Yes, as John Mack, author of Pharma Marketing Blog, noted. The marketing campaign is perfectly legal as Zyrtec is now an OTC pill.

However, Mack wondered whether it is true, as Adrants reported, that Zyrtec flyers were seen on telephone poles in Boston.  He said: “I doubt this is a true story — more likely a Web 2.0 plant by crafty Zyrtec marketers.”

Well, shortly after I read these two blog posts, I left my windowless cubicle for a dose of fresh air and sunshine and what did I see?  Well, I caught a glimpse of a flyer taped to scaffolding near my office in New York’s East Village.  So, yes the rumors are true.  McNeil has instituted a clever guerilla marketing campaign once reserved for consumer packaged goods companies and underground musical acts.  I took a moment to scan in the flyer.  As you can see, someone was curious enough to respond to the marketing campaign by ripping off a section of the flyer with the Zyrtec 800 number.

Overall, this is a very, very clever campaign that’s sure to generate a lot of buzz for Zyrtec.

Two years ago, Merck launched a sexy ad campaign for its human papillomavirus (HPV),  vaccine Gardasil.  At the time, many focused on Merck’s marketing and public affairs efforts – especially the lobbying campaign it helped fund to make HPV vaccination mandatory.

Today, Gardasil is still a hot button issue for some, but for much of the media the train has left the station.  Merck still heavily advertises its vaccine, but the furor over it has died down considerably.  For Merck, this is likely a favorable state of affairs.

However, some would like Merck to turn Gardasil’s marketing volume up.  The Hasting Center’s Alison Jost, writing in the current edition of Bioethics Forum, is one of them.  She believes Merck and the government have not highlighted the fact that HPV is a highly communicable sexually transmitted disease.  In fact, it is estimated that nearly 80% of adults will get one type of HPV during their lifetime.  Many shrug off the infection, but some do not.

This is why Jost thinks Merck should do more to educate on how HPV is spread.  But, she thinks this is unlikely because of the abstinence-only agenda of some conservative groups – and the government.  She writes:

“What critics do not seem to have picked up on is that the abstinence-only agendas of these groups, in their ability to affect what is said (or, rather, not said) in ads for Gardasil, also negatively affect women in their late teens and 20s . . . I have been able to piece together for myself all of the details about the interrelationship of HPV, sex, cervical cancer, and Gardasil. But this took a good bit of digging online, and no single site – not even the CDC’s – makes all of the statistics and details readily available.”

She urges Merck to focus less on cervical cancer and more on the fact that HPV is a STD.  Jost thinks this would put Merck on the side of the angels because it would demonstrate that Merck is putting public health before profit.

Overall, I’m skeptical that Merck will heed Jost’s appeal – and it may not have much to do social conservatism.  Most importantly, positioning the product as an anti-STD vaccine is inherently unappealing and may limit the number of people who take the medication.  In addition, “Merck develops cancer vaccine” is a much more powerful and positive message – even though it is somewhat inaccurate.

Finally, as part of the very conservative pharmaceutical industry, Merck likely views engaging in sex education as a minefield it would rather avoid.  Jost makes some good points, but I’m not sure if her recommendation has much chance of going very far.

Recently, major news organizations like the New York Times and ABC News have focused much attention on Dr. Robert Jarvik’s marketing work on behalf of Pfizer. Many Americans have seen the television and print commercials where he touts the benefits of Lipitor and discusses why he prefers it over other cholesterol medications.

Over the years, I watched the commercials and didn’t think much about them. I knew a little bit about Jarvik and assumed that because he invented the artificial heart that he was well-positioned to discuss Lipitor. However, when I learned that he is not a licensed physician I was very surprised. I honestly thought he was because he had a white coat on and referred to himself as “doctor.”

Yesterday, the New York Times reported that Jarvik, who is portrayed rowing in one ad, does not practice the sport. In fact, Pfizer hired a stunt double to row in his place. While using a stunt double is no crime, the report only reinforced the perception that Pfizer and Jarvik were acting unethically.

At issue is the use of celebrity spokespersons to market prescription medications. Frankly, I do not think there is anything wrong with it – if two requirements are met:

1. The celebrity has to take the medication they are promoting

2. If a doctor is being featured in the campaign, they must practice medicine

Following these two rules is important because it ensures the message you are communicating is internally consistent and credible. If a celebrity has not taken the medication they are touting they are not qualified to speak about its benefits. Further, if a physician has not prescribed, it they have no familiarity with the drug and can’t speak about it credibly.

In this case, the Jarvik commercials don’t pass the red face test and that’s too bad. While Pfizer will continue to sell lots of Lipitor, Jarvik’s reputation has taken a major hit. Now, everything he says will be taken with a grain of salt. Given that Jarvik has made numerous wonderful contributions to science and medicine, that’s unfortunate.

This week Pharmaceutical Executive reported that pharmaceutical company Vertex recently revamped its corporate Website in order to break away from the staid online presence maintained by many drug firms.  According to the magazine:

“Vertex Pharmaceuticals, last week, took up residency on the World Wide Web with the launch of its corporate site, www.vrtx.com. Not content to look like most run-of-the-mill pharma sites, Vertex had design firm Dotglu build a virtual home that allows patients, physicians, and other visitors to easily peer into the company’s pipeline and find out what drugs are coming down the pike as well as see the faces behind the company.

‘It’s a sea of sameness when you look at pharma,’ Tomas Mendez, cocreative director at Dotglu told Pharm Exec. ‘[Other companies] just show puppies and old people waltzing and say that everything will be OK. The tag line for Vertex includes the word maybe. It’s a lot less confident, but it gives you goose bumps. There’s a humility to it, and that’s about the honesty.’”

Intrigued, I decided to take a look at Vertex’s Website to see how far the company went.  When I got there, I was greeted by an attractive site featuring the company’s robust pipeline of products, including VX-950, a hepatitis C drug that I’ve been regularly covering on this blog.  This new look is certainly impressive, but I was left a little cold.

When I read that Vertex was attempting to be more transparent and engage its stakeholders in new and different ways, I was expecting more.  Sure, Vertex’s Website is pretty, but I was looking for commentary from real people within the company on various issues impacting Vertex’s business.  Yes, Joshua Boger, Ph.D., Vertex’s CEO, has a blog where he dishes regularly about the company, but it’s only available internally.

Perhaps Vetex has plans to engage directly with its stakeholders, a la Johnson and Johnson.  If so, this would be good news – and a wise investment of human and financial resources.  If not, then Vertex’s Website is just the same old corporate-speak wrapped in a shiny new package.

Today the Wall Street Journal reports that some companies are moving from carrots to sticks in their efforts to get their employees to lead healthier lives. According to the Journal:

“Employees at some companies who are overweight, smoke, or have high cholesterol, for instance, and who don’t participate in supplementary wellness programs, will pay more for health insurance. In extreme cases, employees’ insurance deductibles could rise by $2,000.”

Yikes.

Clearly, some companies have decided that marketing wellness programs to employees is not enough.  To get people to change, they argue, you need to hit them where it hurts: their wallets.

If more employers decide to launch similar programs, will their efforts make health promotion programs less relevant?  After all, if money changes behavior will the soft sell go the way of the dodo?

Dr. Daniel Carlat, who writes a blog focusing on psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry, has written a mini-confessional about his days as a paid speaker for Wyeth Pharmaceuticals. In his article, published in the New York Times magazine, he discusses how he felt getting paid to produce talks for Wyeth caused him to downplay the bad and highlight the good about the antidepressant Effexor.

His article has generated a lot of commentary throughout the blogosphere – for and against him. However, one comment, posted on the Wall Street Journal’s Health Blog from a physician currently speaking on behalf of a drug company struck me. He said:

“As a long time speaker myself for Wyeth, I read with much interest Dr. Carlat’s article. I too have been to many speaker’s seminars being updated on the lastest studies regarding Wyeth’s drug Enbrel as I am a rheumatologist. I too have given many talks to local physicians regarding the reasons to use Enbrel for people suffering from Rheumatoid Arthritis, Psoriatic Arthritis, and Ankylosing Spondylitis.I too have accepted honorariums for my time and travel expenses. But unlike Dr. Carlat

I truly believe in the drug that I am supporting in my talks to local primary physicians. I truly believe in the benefits of Enbrel and how this agent has made a huge difference in the lives of thousands with severe arthritis even with the known risks of this agent.As a physician one makes these decisions on a daily basis. And to the cynics who ask if I would also do talks for free, the answer is yes becuase I have also done many talks for the Arthritis Foundation. my local hospitals and arthritis support groups, gratis. As in so much of life, proper balance is of utmost importance.”

This morning, John Mack, author of Pharma Marketing Blog, wrote an interesting post focusing on Eli Lilly and Company executive Diedre Connelly’s recent statements about the drug industry-focused online forum CafePharma. According to Medical Marketing and Media Editor-in-Chief James Chase:

“Lilly USA president Deirdre Connelly yesterday took a swipe at online forums that attract disgruntled, venting sales reps, describing sites like CafePharma.com as ‘outlets for people who don’t have the courage to speak out with their ideas’ for improving their roles and the performance of their companies.”

Connelly’s view of CafePharma’s users reflects the view of other executives who feel that the forum is an outlet for unproductive anonymous venting.

Despite Connelly’s opinion, human resources and corporate communications executives at the company might want to read this post (and responses to it) highlighted by Mack regarding diversity at Eli Lilly. The post, (published in May) points the finger at minority employees for Lilly’s recent sub par performance:

“As a long term employee, it absolutely kills me to see what diversity has done to Lilly. Over the last 10 years or so, the increase in diversity (read blacks and females - not thought) has been inversely proportional to the effectiveness of the company. It looks like it will only get worse with the quotas we have at every level of the company.”

Interestingly, the online debate about diversity at Eli Lilly coincides with a growing class action lawsuit filed by minority employees alleging that the company discriminated against black employees.

The lawsuit and CafePharma post reveal some employees do not view Lilly’s efforts to improve its track record on diversity equally. On the one hand, certain executives believe that Lilly is promoting and grooming under-qualified minorities. Other the other, those filing the suit think the company is not doing enough.

From a communications perspective, these two pieces of diametrically opposed data indicate that company executives may to adjust how how they communicate about diversity within and without the company. Key questions to answer include:

-How do we ensure that diverse stakeholders view our hiring/promotional practices as equitable?

-How can we combat the perception that Lilly is hiring under-qualified minorities?

-What can we be doing to demonstrate our commitment to an appropriately diverse and well-functioning workforce to potential minority recruits who may decide not to work at Lilly because of the lawsuit?

I don’t have enough information about Lilly’s situation to appropriately answer these questions. However, company executives should consider monitoring (and taking seriously) commentary published on CafePharma and forums like it. After all, the truth often comes out when people feel they are protected by the mask of anonymity.

As readers of this blog are aware, I’ve been following the progress of Vertex’s hepatitis C drug (Telaprevir or VX-950 ) over the past year or so. I initially wrote about it from a communications perspective, saying that the drug was promising. However, there were signs that company leadership may have overstated its potential.

Today, we learn why it is always a good idea to exercise caution when communicating about a drug early on. According to Reuters:

“Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc (VRTX.O: Quote, Profile, Research) released data on Friday showing its experimental hepatitis C drug is more effective than existing treatments and works in half the time, but causes significantly more side effects.”

The side effect issue is a big deal. In one Vertex trial, PROVE 1, 13% of patients stopped taking the drug in the first 12 weeks of the study because of side effects. In addition, “65 percent of patients who took part in the 24-week treatment regime . . . saw the virus eradicated and stay eradicated after three months.”

The results were a disappointment to investors who sent Vertex stock tumbling. Vertex’s product becomes a much tougher sell because its efficacy profile may not be enough to overcome its toxicity. If patients are not continuing therapy because of side effects, physicians will be less likely to prescribe it to patients. This is especially true if there is another – equally effective – therapy with fewer adverse events.

Now we wait for the FDA’s decision on the drug. Observers think it will be approved, but we’ll see how physicians react once it is on the market.

 

In an unprecedented move, Robert Goldberg, co-author of the blog Drug Wonks has broken a JAMA embargo on news about a group of editorials and studies that will be published in this week’s edition.  They focus on the cardiovascular risks of Actos and Avandia.  According to Goldberg:

“We are publishing, ahead of an embargo, an editorial and a release on two separate articles being issued by JAMA on Sept 11. . . . The one by Nissen claims that Actos reduces risk of heart problems but has no impact on overall death from heart disease. This claim is made from a dataset that is observational, does not control for [severity] of heart problems and does not have MI or heart safety as a primary endpoint. The one by Furberg — a meta-analysis of only 4 clinical trials (a meta-analysis that must set some sort of record for being the smallest ever accepted for publication) claims that Avandia long term has a high risk of MI among long term users yet has no long term impact on total incidence of death from heart problems.”

Goldberg and his colleagues are known for their staunch defense of pharmaceutical companies, so this blog post – if it had appeared after the publication of the JAMA data – would not be very surprising.  However,  what’s notable is that he broke the embargo, in an attempt to “contain whatever damage Nissen, Furberg and JAMA intended with the anticipated publicity.”

I have been following the Avandia debate closely and this latest wrinkle is very interesting.  In this instance, Goldberg blasts Nissen and Furberg because they did not present their data in a public forum – i.e., during the FDA’s recent advisory committee hearing on the safety of Avandia.

I think that Furberg and Nissen did not present the data because they understand public relations.  If the data had been shown during the advisory board hearing, it may not have received much media coverage.  After digesting reams of data and viewing countless statistical presentations, how will journalists know what is important?  Furberg and Nissen, no PR neophytes, understand that the best way to drum up attention is to carve out a platform and scream at the top of your lungs.

Goldberg also understands PR and knows that by attacking Nissen and Furberg preemptively, he is certain to be quoted by at least some mainstream media outlets reporting on the data.

We’ll see how the communications battle between the two camps plays out.  At the very least it should be an interesting case study on how to wage a PR battle.

Image Credit: Roy Grinnell