Shaw Shtick Redemption: Michael Shaw of GSK North America Wins Title of America's Funniest Compliance Officer

Shaw Shtick Redemption: Michael Shaw of GSK North America Wins Title of America's Funniest Compliance Officer

Back in October, 2010, I floated the concept of Pharmaguy's Comedy Improv(e) Club, through which I hoped to highlight the humorous side of the pharmaceutical industry (see here).

Unfortunately, I didn't pursue that half-baked idea and somebody beat me to it!

In today's Wall Street Journal I read that Michael Shaw, Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer, North America Pharmaceuticals at GlaxoSmithKline, won the title of the nation's funniest compliance officer (read more about it here).

Here's a bit of Shaw's Shtick:

"I know what you think when you hear compliance officer," said Mr. Shaw at the beginning of his act. "Dynamic, charismatic, well-dressed, gets into all the clubs, has to beat off women—and men—with a stick."

Then he went into character, as an overwrought guy who sees risk everywhere, until he's pushed near his breaking point.

"But heavy is the head that wears the crown!" he said, his voice rising: "Day in, day out, my job…is to find risk, to understand the problems associated with that risk, and to find solutions."

Mr. Shaw, a tall, clean-cut man, leaned forward, his face reddening, veins in his neck bulging: "Risk, problem, solution! Risk, problem, solution! All day, every day, every situation!" he screamed.

Shaw won his title during a recent competition at New York's Comic Strip comedy club. The competition was  organized by executives at Howard-Sloan, a headhunting firm in New York. The event raised over $11,000 for juvenile diabetes research.

Congratulations to Michael Shaw! You have redeemed the pharmaceutical industry by demonstrating the human side of the business!

[This post originally appeared in Pharma Marketing Blog. 

Make sure you are reading the source to get the latest comments.]

WikiLeaks: Pfizer Hired Investigators to Smear Nigerian Prosecutor in Press

WikiLeaks: Pfizer Hired Investigators to Smear Nigerian Prosecutor in Press

Pfizer was sued after a 1996 Nigerian meningitis trial in which 11 children died during the testing of its new antibiotic Trovan against the standard treatment ceftriaxone. Read the litigation details on Wikipedia.

An InPharm article reveals that "US embassy cables released by WikiLeaks purport to show Pfizer’s country manager Enrico Liggeri was aware of a smear campaign against Nigeria’s attorney general, Micheal Aondoakaa to 'expose him and put pressure on him to drop the federal cases'." Pfizer denies this (read the InPharm article).

Here's the relevant sections of the cables released by WikiLeaks and published in the Guardian here:

Pfizer Exposes Attorney General


-------------------------------


5. (C) In follow up to the April 2 meeting, EconDep met with Pfizer Country Manager Enrico Liggeri in Lagos on April 9. (Note: Liggeri has years of experience in Nigeria because his family operated a business in Lagos from the early 1960s to the late 1980s. He spent most of his childhood in Lagos. End Note.) Liggeri said Pfizer was not happy settling the case, but had come to the conclusion that the $75 million figure was reasonable because the suits had been ongoing for many years costing Pfizer more than $15 million a year in legal and investigative fees. According to Liggeri, Pfizer had hired investigators to uncover corruption links to Federal Attorney General Michael Aondoakaa to expose him and put pressure on him to drop the federal cases. He said Pfizer's investigators were passing this information to local media, XXXXXXXXXXXX. A series of damaging articles detailing Aondoakaa's "alleged" corruption ties were published in February and March. Liggeri contended that Pfizer had much more damaging information on Aondoakaa and that Aondoakaa's cronies were pressuring him to drop the suit for fear of further negative articles.


6. (C) Liggeri commented that the lawsuits were wholly political in nature because the NGO Doctors Without Borders administered Trovan to other children during the 1996 meningitis epidemic and the Nigerian government has taken no action. He underscored that the suit has had a "chilling effect" on international pharmaceutical companies because companies are no longer willing to conduct clinical testing in Nigeria. Liggeri opined that when another outbreak occurs no company will come to Nigeria's aid.


7. (C) Comment: Pfizer's image in Nigeria has been damaged due to this ongoing case. Pfizer's management considers Nigeria a major growth market for its products and having this case behind it will help in efforts to rebuild its image here. Final discussions on the $30 million and $35 million are likely to be tricky because the Nigerian side wants to control who gets the money, not Pfizer. The U.S. Mission will continue to advocate for transparency in settling the case and also note to GON authorities that Pfizer must abide by the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and cannot simple hand over large sums of money to state and local officials. Petrosinelli and Adams will get back to the Mission on what further assistance may be needed. End Comment.

Answers That Won't Matter: Critique of Lilly's Defense of DTC Advertising

Answers That Won't Matter: Critique of Lilly's Defense of DTC Advertising

The pharmaceutical industry is fighting a losing battle (IMHO) against negative public opinion. The latest weapon to be employed in this battle is a 52-page "booklet" entitled "The Value of Medicine, Improving Health...Improving Life" published by Eli Lilly (find pdf here).

World of DTC Marketing blogger Rich Meyer asks "The real question is will consumers buy it in an era of mistrust and misinformation?" (see Lilly fights back with “The Value of Medicine”). I think the real question is "Will consumers read it in an era of apps and sound bites?"

A 52-page PDF document is a bit much to ask the average consumer to digest even with all the pretty charts and graphs with circles and arrows and paragraphs explaining what each chart is about.

Also, I must say that Lilly engages in some "misinformation" itself, or at least conflicting information (keep reading to see what I mean).

It's all very well to blame the so-called "era of mistrust and misinformation" for pharma's failure to win over the hearts and minds of consumers, but we all know some of the blame falls squarely on pharma's shoulders. It's unfortunate, for example, that this booklet comes out around the same time that AP reported "pharmaceutical companies made up eight of the government's top 10 settlements related to fraud in the last year" (see "Drugmakers top list of DOJ fraud settlements").

But enough about fraud, let's talk about Lilly's defense of DTC (direct-to-consumer) advertising, which is presented in pages 32 to 36 of the booklet.

First, let me say that it's ironic that an industry that spends so much money, time, and effort to produce DTC ads -- including wonderfully creative TV commercials -- to "educate" consumers, relies on pdf files and web sites to defend its products, advertising tactics, and public image. Where's the TV ads? If, as Lilly claims, 30 to 60 second TV ads are so effective in educating consumers about "diseases, about the symptoms that may help their health care provider identify the diseases, and about available therapies to treat these conditions," then why not use TV ads to provide "answers that matter" about "tough questions about access, costs, safety, and ultimately the value that we can bring to patients in preventing and fighting disease" (quoting John C. Lechleiter, PhD, Chief Executive Officer and President, Eli Lilly and Company)?

It can't be that TV ads are too expensive. Lilly claims that the drug industry's spending on DTC advertising (about 65% of which goes to TV) "represents only about 2% of pharmaceutical company sales." BTW, Lilly doesn't mention the $ amount of sales, but it does mention that DTC spending is about $4.4 Bn per year. If you do the math -- something most consumers I regret will not or cannot do -- you get $220 Bn per year for the sales number. I think Lilly is selling itself short here. I find from IMS data that US drug sales in 2009 was more like $300 Bn. Ergo, DTC spending is only 1.4667% of sales. Perhaps Lilly was rounding up -- but it could have rounded down to 1%! Whatever.

Lilly also presents a nice chart to illustrate the point that the pharmaceutical industry "spends less on advertising as a percent of sales than many other industries" (see chart below). Of course, by "less" Lilly really means on a percentage basis. The sporting and athletics goods industry spends MUCH more than pharma on advertising (as a percentage of sales), but not so much more on a dollar basis ($5.6 Bn vs pharma's $4.4 Bn).

According to this chart, pharma advertising spending is 4.2% of sales. How come the discrepancy between this % and the 2% Lilly quoted on the page before the chart? Could it be that this chart includes "advertising" to doctors as well as DTC? Lilly does NOT mention how much the drug industry spends on "marketing" to doctors, but I've seen an estimate of $12 Bn per year for that (see here). But $12 Bn + $4.4 Bn = $16.4 Bn, which is 5.4% of $300 Bn in sales (as reported by IMS) or 7.4% of $220 Bn in sales (as calculated from Lilly's figures).

OK, so the numbers don't jive. I've notice that's often the case when analyzing data about the pharmaceutical industry. I'm used to it. Just another form of "misinformation."

Aside from touting how economical drug companies are regarding advertising, Lilly also claims that "limiting prescription drug promotion may negatively affect patients and health care providers by restricting access to important information about diseases and proper medical treatment. Also, consumers may not as easily receive information about the benefits and risks of prescription medicines."

I can write a whole book in response to that! Let me just say, that in this day and age of Internet technology, which Lilly does not seem to be part of, DTC advertising is an insignificant source of "information about diseases and proper medical treatment" for consumers and physicians alike. Does Lilly really expect us to believe that limiting DTC advertising will negatively affect patients and healthcare providers?

OK. I've spent enough time on this. I assume all of you will download this 52-page booklet and read it from cover to cover. Actually, there are a lot of pictures, so don't worry, you should be able to read the whole thing in about 20-30 minutes or so. Let me know what you think.