Envisioning 2.0

A few months ago, I mentioned an initiative that I’ve been working on that’s been stretching me to the limit and beyond.  Today, I’m pleased to announce that the Path of the Blue Eye project has been officially launched.

The goal of this initiative is to bring people working in health marketing communications together.  I’m trying to help to break down the silos that exist between industry sub-segments (e.g., PR, advertising, digital marketing) and geographic regions.

I’ve decided to launch the project a bit differently.  Once you go to the Website you’ll understand what I mean. Some may react negatively to the approach, while others will think it’s interesting. Whatever your reaction, know that  I believe so strongly in what I’m doing that I don’t mind literally going for broke in order to grab people’s attention and interest them in working together toward a common cause.

Together, we are stronger.  Not only will we be better prepared to serve our clients and others, but the general public will benefit as well.

I hope you decide to join me on this journey.  Learn more about my thinking on this project by visiting the official blog.

kmmad

This post is very much off topic, so feel free to skip it.  However, if you stick around, you might benefit from a very useful resource.

Early this year, I came across a very powerful manifesto written by Hugh MacLeod.  MacLeod produces those Gaping Void cartoons you seen all over the blogosphere, and perhaps in real life.  In the manifesto MacLeod wrote about what it takes to be truly creative: a lot of hard work and fear.  I’ve turned to this manifesto many times over the past six months.  Whenever I doubt myself or what I’m doing, I reread key passages.  It helps me stay grounded.

So, when I heard that MacLeod was writing a book based on the manifesto, my ears perked up.  Now, I wasn’t (and am still not) sure whether I’ll buy the book, as I’m not sure if it will be significantly different from the manifesto and his blog posts on the subject of creativity. I have to take time to read the sample blog chapters before I make my final decision.

However, if the book is anything like the manifesto or his blog posts, I’m sure you’ll get a lot out of it.  Check out the book (it’s on Amazon) and read the free chapters.  Even if you don’t decide to buy the book, be sure to read the manifesto.  MacLeod hits it right on the head.

In a scathing report, Consumers Union estimates that more than 1 million people have died over the last decade due to preventable medical harm.  The newly released report, To Err is Human — To Delay is Deadly,” suggests that since the Institute of Medicine’s influential 1999 report on medical errors, “98,000 people die each year needlessly because of preventable medical harm, including health
care-acquired infections. Ten years after To Err is Human, we have no national entity comprehensively tracking patient safety events or progress.”

While some hospitals have made great strides in the effort to reduce medical errors and the U.S. government has taken steps to limit reimbursement for preventable medical events, the nation still has a long way to go.  Consumers Union is recommending that we develop a nationsl system for tracking medical errors.  The organization suggests that concerns about malpractice lawsuits due to reports of medical harm may be overstated.

To learn more about the Consumer Union report, please click here.

For many years, pharmaceutical companies and advertising agencies have been producing text advertisements that link to Websites promoting medications.  Generally, advertisers used what what was dubbed the “one click rule” – i.e., if information about the risks associated with a medication was included via a hyperlink, they would be fulfilling requirements to post information about prescription medication side effects.

No more.  Recently, the FDA issued 14 warning letters to various pharmaceutical companies demanding that they start including risk information in text advertisements.  According to the New York Times:

“When the Food and Drug Administration sent letters to 14 major pharmaceutical companies late last month, the warning was strong. The companies’ search advertisements — the short text ads that run beside Google results — had to start including risk information about each drug or else be rewritten or removed.”

Today, attendees at a panel with the FDA at the Direct to Consumer National Conference expressed disappointment (via Twitter) that the FDA was not more forthcoming about the warning letters.  In addition, Peter Pitts who is working for the Public Relations firm Porter Novelli said (in a comment he left on the Wall Street Journal blog):

“Guidance? What guidance? DDMAC letters should help companies understand what “in compliance” means. These letters do not. In fact, they make things more muddled. After all, “sponsored links” are by no means a new phenomenon.”

Ken Johnson, senior vice president at the industry trade group PhMRA had this to say: “Rather than regulate through warning letters, FDA could help patients and serve the public health by initiating a public dialogue and FDA guidance outlining clear standards.”

While industry executives are perplexed by the new warning letters, one can look at this situationa as a glass half full.  Demands on the FDA to issue clear and unabigious guidance on Internet and social media marketing will only increase.  I understand that people inside FDA are open to dialogue.  In my opinion it can’t happen fast enough.

Last week, on April 1 of all days, I received an e-mail from the Disinformation Company, a television, book and film production company about a new film it is releasing, titled: “Killer at Large.”  I get lots of pitches in my e-mail inbox, and generally ignore them, but this one caught my eye.  It seems that the producers of the documentary are arguing that obesity is as serious as terrorism.  From the release:

“When asked what the most pressing issue is in America today, former Surgeon General Richard Carmona responds: ‘Obesity, because obesity is a terror within. It is destroying our society from within and unless we do something about it, the magnitude of the dilemma will dwarf 9/11 or any other terrorist event that you can point out to me.’”

Clearly, using the terrorism angle is a good way to cut through the clutter.  As advertisers like to say: Carmona’s quote has stopping power.  However, while the strategy may capture people’s attention, will it turn people off to the very important message the documentary is trying to convey, that 75% of Americans may be obese within ten years?

As for me, I found the reference to 9/11 distasteful. What’s your take?  Is this pitch brilliant or distasteful?

Image Source: The Disinformation Company

Today, my e-mail box has been burning up with astounding news from the FDA regarding social media marketing.  In a press release, which is starting to be widely distributed online, the FDA is said to be developing draft guidance on social media marketing! First, my mouth fell open in shock.  Then I remembered what day today is, April 1.  Here’s the “release”:

“New FDA Draft Guidance Aims to Improve Health Information Obtained via ‘Social Media’ Websites

The Food and Drug Administration today issued a draft guidance document designed to improve communications to consumers and health care practitioners about health conditions and medical products that they obtain on ’social media’ Websites such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and online bulletin boards. The guidance is the result of FDA research and policy development, and was influenced by the success of the recent social media based peanut recall program (see http://tinyurl.com/d3lvag).”

This is a clever ploy by my fellow blogger John Mack of the Pharma Marketing Blog to drive traffic to his Website and get folks buzzing about the new “guidance.”

I took some time to call one of my contacts in the FDA’s media relations department today about this release, Rita Chappelle.  She is aware of every FDA release that crosses the wire.  She told me: “We have not issued any releases today.”  Check out the FDA’s newsroom to confirm her statement – as of 1:30 p.m., Eastern.

Also, careful examination of the “release” reveals that the telephone number listed regarding media contracts is incorrect.  In addition, FDA always provides specific contacts on all releases who can field media requests.  Finally, the FDA does not use TinyURL links in its official communications.

So, stop distributing this release to your colleagues.  You’ve been had.  April Fools!

I’m always on the look-out for interesting marketing campaigns using digital technology, especially mobile phones. This is why I was happy to come across a new mobile campaign launched by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America designed to augment the impact of their teen and parent-targeted anti-drug campaign.  According to Media Post:

“The pro bono effort uses banner ads from two ongoing interactive efforts–the teen-oriented “Check Yourself” and the parent-aimed “Time to Talk”–reformatted to work on mobile platforms. Once they are at the mobile WAP sites, parents can sign up to receive their first “talk tip” via text message, and teens can use the Check Yourself site to examine their relationship with drugs and alcohol and share the site with friends via text messaging.”

Because the campaign will run for three months, we can expect to receive information about it’s impact fairly soon.  To learn more about the campaign, please see this MediaPost article.

I was turned on to a lengthy eight-part blog post focusing on the death of “viral marketing” by my friend and fellow Amherst grad, Mike Arauz from the folks at MIT.  He’s written a response/reaction to the posts by Henry Jenkins and his colleagues that’s well worth your time.  And, when you have about an hour to spare, read (and cogitate on) the original series by Jenkins.

Devices like the iPhone are taking the world by storm and igniting the once-moribund mobile Internet market.  Lots of people are discovering the joys of being able to access the Internet from anywhere.

As exciting as these developments are, there are some signs that marketers may be moving quickly to take advantage of the mobile phone’s rich capabilities, but paying less attention to privacy concerns.  According to an article published in today’s New York Times:

“Advertisers are eager to use [behavioral and psychographic] information for much more specific targeting . . . An advertising system could know, for instance, that someone is 27 years old, male, a New England Patriots fan (which NFL.com can track), plays Blackjack, travels frequently between Boston and New York on weekdays (which applications using GPS can track) and uses a 3G iPhone. That would make him attractive to a host of advertisers, like the Delta Shuttle or a Las Vegas hotel, whose ads would appear while the consumer was browsing the Web on his phone.”

I believe that having in-depth information about a target population can help us better understand their preferences, attitudes and beliefs.  However, marketers should figure out ways to educate people on how their information is used or allow them to opt-in to take part in this type of research.

This is why I am happy the Mobile Marketing Association is updating its policies and procedures for effective and ethical mobile research and marketing.  If marketers don’t take steps to self-regulate their activities and demonstrate they are operating in an ethical matter, regulators and public officials will step in.

Last week, a new medical wiki, Medpedia, received significant attention when it announced that several major medical institutions, including Harvard Medical School, were partnering with the startup.  Mark Senak who writes at Eye on FDA, suggested that “when given a choice of learning about the drug from (1) the manufacturer or (2) an objective third party source representing the finest medical schools in the country, patients and physicians are likely to gravitate to the objective resource.”  He also believes that “the influence of Medpedia on prescribers . . . and patients stands to be quite large.”

While Medpedia allows anyone to contribute information, it only gives physicians or PhDs the ability to serve as editors.  These highly credentialed individuals will have the final say on what content ultimately makes it into the online publication.

This restriction has incensed some advocates of full and equal patient participation in medical information sharing, development and dissemination.  In an impassioned post published recently on e-patients.net, Dave deBronkart took Medpedia to task for restricting access to the site.  He wrote: “[W]hat patients need from an online resource is reliable information on topics where they’re not experts . . . And my experience is that it’s an error to presume that doctors inherently have the best answer[s].”

To his credit Medpedia founder James Currier responded to deBronkart’s essay, saying: “I want to make it clear [patients] ARE being invited in.  There are already several key features that anyone — whether medical professional, expert patient, or layperson – can use to engage.  Anyone can create a profile.  Anyone can create or join a Community of Interest to connect and debate (they are admittedly rudimentary today but will be improving in the coming months), and anyone can use the Suggest Changes feature on every Article page. Use these features vigorously.”

The ongoing debate over Medpedia and its editorial policies illustrates – yet again – that some Internet empowered patients and caregivers are chaffing and outright rebelling at the traditional hierarchy of the medical establishment.  Although they respect physicians, they do not automatically view them as the most authoritative source of health information.

In fact, according to a study my firm Envision Solutions published last year, thirty-eight percent of U.S. adults say they have doubted a medical professional’s opinion or diagnosis because it conflicted with information they found online.

Because a good number of physicians believe that a lot of online medical information is of low quality, they worry that patients are second-guessing their advice (or orders) based on shoddy information.  Is Medpedia an attempt by the medical profession to ensure that (via the magic of search engines) content a broad range of content physicians have vetted finds its way into the hands of patients and others?  Would it be a stretch to posit that some people behind Medpedia wish to dampen the disruptive impact of the Internet by ensuring that content people are seeing is consistent with broad medical practice or opinion?  After all if the information patients are reading is consistent with standard medical advice there is less room for disagreement.

The Medpedia debate is another skirmish in the war medical professionals and active laypersons are fighting over the future of medicine.  E-patients like deBronkart trust physicians, but know they are prone to errors of fact and omission.  Medpedia respects the contributions of patients, but  maintains that “physicians and Ph.D.s in the biomedical fields have gone through extensive training and screening before receiving their degrees, and those degrees can serve as an efficient proxy for the Medpedia community to judge an Editor’s ability to contribute accurate and up to date information to the encyclopedia.”

In the end it comes down to what credentials one believes makes people best qualified to develop medical content: a degree + clinical experience or extensive research + personal experience.  It’s clear where the creators of Medpedia come down on this question.  Where do you stand?