Fake vs. Real Pharma Twitter Followers

Fake vs. Real Pharma Twitter Followers

Piotr Wrzosinski (@pwrzosin), IPM Digital Marketing at Roche and a member of my Pharma Twitter Pioneer Group (see here), recently posted this to Twitter today:

"0% of my followers are fake. How many fake followers do you have..? http://sttsp.pl/ahaf @StatusPeople #FollowerSpam"

Goodie! Another social media metric I can use to compare pharma Twitter accounts. I quickly followed the link to StatusPeople Web site where I was invited to "Find out how many fake followers your friends have."

Before looking at my "friends" data, however, I looked at my own and found out that 73% of my nearly 12,000 Twitter followers were neither "fake" ("spam" accounts that "tend to have few or no followers and few or no tweets, but [which] tend to follow a lot of other accounts.") nor "inactive." This was quite better than most pharma Twitter accounts as can be seen in the following chart (click for an enlarged view):

I do not have 0% fakes like Piotr; six percent (6%) of my followers may be fakes. This is the lowest percentage among the 16 pharma Twitter accounts I measured. @Abbottnews had the highest percent of "fake" followers: 18%. Fouteen percent (14%) of followers of Roche, Novartis, Pfizer GSK(U.S.) are "fakes" or suspected spam accounts.

Why is it important to know how many fake and inactive followers a Twitter account has?

"There are two reasons," says StatusPeople. "First it's important for you to be sure when you communicate on Twitter that you are communicating with real and active followers. Because the more active your follower base the more likely they are to share your content.
The second reason is there are a growing number of Fakers out there. People who buy followers in a vain attempt to build legitimacy. "'Look at me I have 20,000 followers, I must know my...' They are essentially trying to game the system and it's important for you to be able to spot them, and steer clear of them. Because ultimately if you're willing to lie about how many friends you have you are not a very trustworthy individual."

Well, Pfizer has over 31,000 followers. Way back in 2010, I asked "How Did Pfizer Get So Many Twitter Followers?" (see here). I suggested that Pfizer sent out a memo to all their more than 100,000 employees worldwide telling them to follow @pfizer_news. I was kidding, of course. But I suspected something was up because Pfizer_news somehow attracted about 3-4,000 NEW Twitter followers in just a few days (see chart below)!

Source: pharmamkting.blogspot.com via Pharma on Pinterest

Did Pfizer "attempt to build legitimacy" by "gaming the system?"

One caveat: StatusPeople contends that its tool provides "very accurate insight into how many inactive and fake" followers a Twitter account has, but ONLY if there are fewer than 10,000 followers. "If you're very 'popular' the tool will still provide good insight but may better reflect your current follower activity rather than your whole follower base."

Only 6 out of my sample of 16 pharma Twitter accounts have fewer than 10,000 followers (Phrma, SanofiUS, Diabetes_Sanofi, BoehringerUS, BMSnews, and Abbottnews).

If you want to learn how many fake followers you have, go here.

How Johnson & Johnson Uses Twitter for Patient Support: A-plus for Effort, D-minus for Sharing

How Johnson & Johnson Uses Twitter for Patient Support: A-plus for Effort, D-minus for Sharing

Every day, I get a synopsis of tweets and newsfeeds from selected pharma companies that I am following (see "News Direct from the Pharma Industry"). Lately, I've been noticing a number of tweets from Johnson and Johnson (@JNJComm) that are direct responses to complaints from consumers about its products. In some cases, complainants have had an extended conversation with JNJ.

However, you won't find these conversations if you look at the @JNJComm Twitter timeline here but you can find them in the PMN Forum archives here. More on this later. Right now I'd like to focus on one of these conversations.

@hiltmon (Hilton Lipschitz) complained about an Acuvue contact lens problem in a tweet posted to @JNJComm. @hiltmon said: "@JNJComm, could you please fwd this to Acuvue team: See the hole in the lens (top right), happened twice now. Thanks. pic.twitter.com/50ML8IrT" The link leads to this photo:

Whether or not this could be classified as a legitimate "adverse event," is a matter for debate, but JNJ responded as if it were: "thanks for alerting use. Please call us at 800-843-2020. It's important that we fully understand what occurred. Thanks! ^DE" Here's a screen shot of the full exchange:

I am not sure what "^DE" means. It appears that JNJComm uses it only at the end of responses to these sorts of complaints. I assume it allows some kind of tracking or followup. [Actually, it indicates the author - in this case Devon Eyer; see UPDATE at the end of this post.] In any case, the end result was one happy (I assume) customer.

I cannot find a legitimate Acuvue Twitter account, although the brand does have a Facebook page. After a quick scan through the Acuvue FB page, I can find no consumer complaints or conversations like the above. It's all good brand "conversations" over there on the Acuvue FB page :-)

The above Twitter conversation might be considered a "brand conversation," which is what brand marketers would like to see (although they would like positive rather than negative conversations about their products). So, JNJ corporate communications people are having these brand support conversations via Twitter, but the brand people -- who presumably manage the FB page -- do not. That's telling in respect to the question I asked in a previous post: "Who's Your Social Media Daddy?"

This conversation is somewhat hidden from most of the nearly 20,000 @JNJComm followers. As I mentioned above, it does not appear in @JNJComm's Twitter timeline because each tweet begins with "@". That makes it a personal conversation in Twitter. Unless you access @JNJComm's Twitter RSS feed as I do, you won't see these tweets. That's unfortunate, IMHO, because it means that the power of social media (e.g., sharing content with followers) is sidestepped. In this case, other consumers may not learn about important safety and other information about Acuvue lenses. Public health would be better served if everyone could learn from the conversation (e.g., the batch number of the faulty lenses).

Of course, it also means that these conversations may not be picked up by the media -- presumably the main audience for @JNJComm and other pharma corporate Twitter accounts -- or by regulators who may like more information about faulty medical products.

UPDATE: ^DE indicates that the @JNJComm posts were written by Devon Eyer, Director, Corporate Communications, Social Media at Johnson & Johnson (see her LinkedIn profile here).

I have included Devon in my list of contenders for the 3rd Annual Pharmaguy Social Media Award. You can learn more about this award here and/or vote for your favorite here.

Boehringer Ingelheim Shows How to Support Patients via Twitter and Beyond

Boehringer Ingelheim Shows How to Support Patients via Twitter and Beyond

One of the uses for pharma Twitter accounts that many ePatient advocates recommend is to directly support patients seeking help regarding their Rx products (see, for example, this Pharma Marketing News (PMN) article: "Use of Twitter for Patient Support" [free pdf]).

Although nearly two-thirds of respondents to a PMN survey thought that using Twitter for patient support activities would be somewhat or very effective, relatively few pharmaceutical companies are doing this on a regular basis. From time to time, however, I do see it happening.

Today, for example, I discovered that Boehringer Ingelheim tweeters in Germany (@boehringer) responded to a tweet from a U.S. caregiver who was seeking help in purchasing Spiriva HandiHaler for her mother. First, this person complained to @BarackObama because of the high cost of the product:

@BarackObama @Messina2012 cam some1 tell me y my moms ESSENTIAL medication is $135.00 a month? That's 2 MUCH 4 some1 on a fixed income :-(

She then followed up with a tweet sent to the attention of @Boehringer:

@Boehringer hellol My mother needs 2 purchase Spiriva HandiHaler & her insurance wont cover it. Are there any coupons or assistance 4 this?

Although @Boehringer is the German-based Twitter account of BI, it did respond. Here's the conversation:

I commend BI for using Twitter to carry on a conversation about a product rather than just providing @Shaundre an 800 number to call. Also, BI -- in Germany -- has taken the extra step in contacting the US office on @Shaundre's behalf. Good job, BI!

Note that BI first asks if @Shaundre spoke to her (or her mother's) doctor about the issue. Preserving the patient-doctor relationship is important when pharma deals directly with patients or caregivers. About 57% of respondents to the survey mentioned above were of the opinion that use of Twitter by pharma for direct-to-patient support activities could be viewed by physicians as coming between them and their patients. Only 30% said these activities would not interfere with the patient-physician relationship.

UPDATE: @boehringerus, BI's U.S. Twitter account, posted this tweet:

@Shaundrie: Thank you for your message. Send your contact info to usnews@boehringer-ingelheim.com and we will contact you directly.

Branded Tweets Lacking ISI: What's FDA's Thinking on This?

Branded Tweets Lacking ISI: What's FDA's Thinking on This?

This week, I attended CBI's 3rd Annual Forum on Social Media Regulations and Compliance in Alexandria, VA. Many of the medical/legal/regulatory (MLR) presenters and attendees were from smaller pharma and biotech companies such as Biogen, MedImmune, Astellas, Amarin, Ferring, etc.

In the absence of specific social media guidance from the FDA, several presenters tried to "navigate through current guidance and enforcement" to offer advice on how to develop a compliant social media strategy. This technique is what is often referred to as learning from "received precedent," which is a risky methodology considering FDA's past actions that have contradicted previously-accepted precedents (see, for example, "Death of the One-Click 'Rule' or 'Received Precedent' or Whatever!" and "FDA's Actions Speak Louder than Its Words").

One topic that was discussed by at least a couple of presenters was who controls the content on social media and, specifically, what content is pharma responsible for when it engages in social media conversations.

Glenn Byrd, Senior Director, Regulatory Affairs, at MedImmune, spoke about pharma accountability in his presentation. "At what point do we lose control of our content? When do we lose the responsibility [for content] so FDA does not come after us?" He cited "retweeting" as an example. As an non-social media example, Byrd talked about B-roll video, which pharma companies often provide to TV news stations when they are doing a story about a newly released product. "They [the news outlet] take it and they do whatever they want with it," said Byrd.

Of course, the B-roll itself must be compliant with FDA regulations. If it mentions a drug name and its indication, for example, it must also provide the important safety information (ISI) just as if it were a direct-to-consumer (DTC) ad.

But pharma companies are using Twitter to tweet about brands and their indications WITHOUT including any ISI. Take for example this LYRICA tweet that @pfizer_news sent just this morning:

This links to the press release, which has all the necessary ISI. It's as if Pfizer still believes in the "one-click rule" when it comes to tweets linking to press releases. The logic is this: there is no "received precedent" of FDA citing such tweets as violative, therefore it is perfectly OK for us [Pfizer] to do this.

Note that the tweet has been "retweeted" at least 8 times and cited a "favorite" tweet at least 3 times. The tweet has also been posted to the Pharma Marketing "News From the Pharma Industry" Forum (see here) where anyone can post a "reply" message. Thus, an ongoing conversation out of Pfizer's control can result from this tweet on Twitter and on discussion boards. That is the viral nature of social media.

While Pfizer cannot be held responsible for the retweets of its branded tweet or the conversations it may start elsewhere on the Internet, it should be held responsible for the original tweet, which is similar to the search ads FDA cited as violative in 2009 (ie, lacking important safety information).

What do you think?

Pfizer's Deceptive "Campaign Against Migraine" Tweet Deleted - Too Late!

Pfizer's Deceptive "Campaign Against Migraine" Tweet Deleted - Too Late!

Sometimes, you make a mistake and want to "take it back." I understand that. But this electronically-connected world in which we live is making it much more difficult to truly delete e-mails, text messages, and tweets from the network.

Take, for example, this tweet by @Pfizer_news:

This is how the tweet looks as posted to the News Direct from the Pharma Industry Forum of Pharma Marketing Network (here), which I own and "curate"/administer.

This is how I keep up with tweets from major pharmaceutical companies: I use my forum software to automatically scan the Twitter feeds of selected pharma companies and post tweets from these Twitter accounts to the above forum. Because I am "subscribed" to this forum, I get daily email notices whenever these posts are made. That's how I learned about this tweet from @Pfizer_news.

It seems like an innocent enough Tweet and looked interesting - I wanted to see what the "campaign for migraine relief" was all about, so I clicked on the link in the tweet: http://t.co/dhp1shpv, which is Twitter-shortened link.

I was surprised when the link above took me to http://www.relpax.com/, which is the branded website for Pfizer's Relpax migraine drug. I found nothing there about the "campaign for migraine relief" as was promised by the Tweet. That's the deceptive aspect of the Tweet.

The tweet included the hashtag #CampaignAgainstMigraine. A Google search on "CampaignAgainstMigraine" leads to a real "Campaign Against Migraine" Web site sponsored by Pfizer:

NOTE: If you search on "#CampaignAgainstMigraine" you can find reference to the same tweet. The link, however, leads to http://inagist.com/, which no longer lists the tweet.

So, what's the big deal? Obviously, it is deceptive to link to a drug.com site as part of a message that implies you will be joining a campaign against a debilitating medical condition! Hopefully, grownups at Pfizer recognized this mistake and deleted the tweet. But, as I said in the beginning, the tweet lives on -- at least on the Pharma Marketing Forum mentioned above.

Followup (8 June 2012): @Pfizer_news "retweeted" with the CORRECT link this time: "Join the campaign against migraine. bit.ly/KcaV5i #CampaignAgainstMigraine" As I suspected, the link is to the site I found via Google, not to the REPLAX branded website. Hat tip to Amber Williams (@williaqj) for alerting me.

Is 38 Hours Quick Enough to Respond to a Potentially Serious AE Tweet?

Is 38 Hours Quick Enough to Respond to a Potentially Serious AE Tweet?

Subtitle: JNJ Responds to Adverse Event Reported Directly to @JNJComm via Twitter

There are probably more than 100 pharmaceutical company Twitter accounts such as @JNJComm, which posts news and information from Johnson and Johnson's Corporate Media Relations team (Devon Eyer - @DevonEyer - and Bill Price - @wtprice3).

With such a conspicuous presence on Twitter, I am amazed that I haven't noticed very many complaints from consumers directed at these accounts. I'm specifically talking about complaints that relate to adverse drug reactions. Pharma companies are deathly afraid of having to deal with such complaints via social media mostly because of the FTEs that may be required.

But, really, how big a problem is it? I haven't done a quantitative analysis, but I suspect that if @JNJComm gets one such complaint per month, that would be a lot.

This month, I noticed a complaint made to @JNJComm by @CapeFearPhoto (aka "Chad Heavilyarmed"). At 12:06 AM on May 2, 2012, @CapeFearPhoto tweeted:

"Hey @JNJComm Can we talk about #sideeffects from your Janssen Pharm products? Please? #stillvomiting #nightterrors #nothappy #NUCYNTA #FAIL"

About 20 minutes later at 12:21 AM, @CapeFearPhoto sent another tweet directed to @JNJComm:

"Seriously @JNJComm I know you guys are probably sleeping. Kinda wish I could. Let's chat about #NUCYNTA drug trial results and #sideeffects"

Yes, Devon and Bill were probably asleep, but @JNJComm did finally respond at 1:59 PM on May 3, 2012:

"@CapeFearPhoto Thanks for the message; we'd like to learn more about your situation. Please call 800-526-7736 or visit http://ow.ly/1LCBtn"

The link leads to Janssen Pharmaceutical's "Tweet Response" page, which was "last modified" on Apr 13 2012. This is the first time I've seen such a Web page. I wonder if other pharmaceutical companies have similar pages to which they direct Twitter users? The page informs visitors that:

"This is in follow up to your recent tweet regarding our product. As a pharmaceutical company, we are required to inform the Food and Drug Administration of any adverse experiences associated with our products. Therefore, our Global Medical Safety department would like to learn additional information about your experience and hope you will contact us at janssenmedinfo@its.jnj.com or at 1-800-526-7736."

At 2:20 PM on May 3, 2012, @CapeFearPhoto responded with this tweet:

"I will @JNJComm! #Nucynta gave more adverse reactions than anything I've ever taken and almost drove me to suicide. #horribleterriblebad"

I'm not going to get into whether or not this qualifies as a reportable adverse event. But it should be noted that the tweet was directed specifically to @JNJComm and that @JNJComm responded PUBLICLY via Twitter within 38 or so hours.

Perhaps JNJ could have responded sooner. After all, the "Tweet Response" page was available and the tweet that @JNJComm eventually sent out could have been a MLR pre-approved "boiler plate" response all ready to go. Or was it? Maybe it took @JNJComm so much time to respond because it never before received such a message and had to craft an appropriate response and get it approved before it could be sent!

Whatever, just another pharma social media first for me to document. Here's a screen shot of the relevant conversation for the record:

Beware of Subtle Changes to Social Media Sites that Can Impact Your Brand; e.g., Novo's Levemir

Beware of Subtle Changes to Social Media Sites that Can Impact Your Brand; e.g., Novo's Levemir

Keeping up with all the changes implemented by social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter can be a challenge for anyone. But it is especially important for pharmaceutical marketers to understand how such changes can impact their use of these sites and potentially get them into trouble with the FDA. An example of this was Facebook's new policy about comments and the implementation of Timelines. I have covered those issues by interviewing experts (listen, for example, to these podcast: "Facebook Timelines for Brands: The Implications for Pharma Companies" and "Pharma Facebook Commenting Changes: The Final Story").

Some changes, however, are virtually unannounced and may go unnoticed by brand teams. Twitter, for example, has made some changes to how things are displayed on its website when people are viewing accounts like Novo Nordisk's @racewithinsulin Twitter account. This is a fully "branded" account that features a celebrity endorsement of Levemir, Novo's long acting insulin used to treat diabetes. It's tag line is: "Racecar driver Charlie Kimball partners with Novo Nordisk to prove his high performance career is possible with insulin."

The "Race with Insulin" branded Twitter account is old news (listen to this podcast "Novo Nordisk's Race With Insulin Campaign: It's Not Just About Twitter"). What is new, however, is how information is laid out on the screen. Here's a screen shot (click on the image if you need a better view):

What I noticed is that the box that provides the "fair balance"/safety information is partially hidden by Charlie's tweet stream. I commented previously how this information is virtually impossible to read even when it is fully visible (read "Can You Read This Fair Balance on Race With Insulin Twitter Page, or Is It Just Me Having Problems?"). Now, however, it is even impossible for people with perfect eyesight to read fully.

No matter how wide I pull the screen, the safety information is blocked by the tweet stream. I also cannot scroll down to bring the bottom part of the safety information into view because that info is a static image in the background and only the tweet stream middle section of the screen scrolls up and down.

Novo Nordisk has changed the background image since the last time I visited the @racewithinsulin site. Part of that change was to move the safety information further down, which has lead to the second problem I noted above.

The first problem, however, is likely due to the new design implemented by Twitter. Novo Nordisk has not updated the background image to be compatible with this new design.

It's possible that the FDA may look at this branded site and determine that it violates regulations because the display of major safety information is not fully part of the branded message, which clearly is that Levemir is used for the treatment of diabetes and that you can live a "high performance career" with Novo's brand of insulin.

Of course, the FDA would have to read this blog post to learn about this.

Pharma People Pioneers on Pinterest

Pharma People Pioneers on Pinterest

I have been keeping track of pharmaceutical employees who have personal accounts on Twitter for over a year (see "More Pharma Social Media Pioneers Recognized"). There are currently 105 people on the list (find it here).

I do this for several reasons:

1. to see if the people who "talk the talk" of pharma social media actually "walk the walk" (only 40% of pharma people who have taken my Social Marketing Readiness Self-Assessment personally use social media "frequently; fill out the assessment here and see more results),


2. to keep track of how these pioneers are using social media, and


3. to help me communicate with them (it's often impossible to reach them via email or by phone).

A majority of these pioneers have LinkedIn accounts for professional use and probably many also have Facebook pages. While I also keep track of pharma pioneer LinkedIn pages, I generally do not bother to peer into their personal lives that they may chronicle on personal Facebook pages.

Recently, I've been interested in Pinterest for my own use and started searching for pharma companies who have Pinterest accounts (see "Should Pharma Ponder Pinterest? Novo Nordisk Is!" and "Pharma Pinterest Update: Bayer US Pins, Novo Nordisk Depins!"). Yesterday, however, I received an email notice from Pinterest that Craig DeLarge, Director, Healthcare Professional Relationship Marketing at Novo Nordisk, who liked my pin "Charlie Kimball, Novo Nordisk, and Me Make Up. http://bit.ly/kjIAH." (This link is to the blog post in which that pin/image appears.)

Craig has a very interesting Pinterest page (here) that includes the following "boards" (ie, categories of images):

• Places I've Been
• Brands I Love (Live)!
• Health
• Wisdom
• eMarketing
• Social Media
• Politics

Craig likes some of the brands I like, including BMW, Movado (watches), and Apple ("Apple MacBook Air My latest tech crush"). Novo Nordisk, of course, is also on his list of brands that he likes and obviously lives by.

I was also interested in what Craig pinned on his "Politics" board, especially this one about Mitt Romney:

Source: a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net via Craig on Pinterest

I've learned a lot about Craig DeLarge in a very short time via the images he has posted to his [emphasis]personal[end emphasis] Pinterest page. While Facebook also now is very visually focused, it takes me longer on Facebook to discover a person's true beliefs and interests than it does on Pinterest. As they say, an image is worth a thousand words.

I searched Pinterest for other pharma people social media pioneers on my list, but found only 2 others: Kevin Nalty, Consumer Product Director, Psychiatry, Janssen, and Brad Pendergraph, Manager, Consumer Digital & Social Engagement at Novartis (recently or soon to be laid off). These people -- and Craig -- are among the most followed pharma people on Twitter, so it makes sense that they would lead the way on Pinterest.

I look forward to finding more pharma people/social media pioneers on Pinterest. In fact, I think I will start a new board on my Pinterest page dedicated to "repins" from pharma people (I already have one for repins from pharma companies).

Charlie Kimball - Novo's Branded Spokesperson - Makes Expensive TV DTC Debut

Charlie Kimball - Novo's Branded Spokesperson - Makes Expensive TV DTC Debut

Charlie Kimball, the Indy racecar driver spokesperson for Novo Nordisk's NovoLog Flexpen, which is used to treat Type 1 diabetes, made his debut as star of his first direct-to-consumer (DTC) TV ad. Not only does the ad feature Novo's product, it also promotes Kimball's Indy team Chip Ganassi Racing. A win-win!

I saw the commercial on the CBS evening News last night. Kimball did a great job.

I couldn't find a version of the commercial on the Internet, but I DID find a video titled "Charlie Kimball and Novo Nordisk" in which Kimball discusses how the commercial was made. One thing that the video demonstrates is why pharma spends so much money on broadcast (ie, TV) DTC. It's not just the loads of money spent on buying airtime on the major networks. It is also the cost of producing the commercial itself. This is what Kimball discusses in the video (embedded below).

Kimball is amazed by all the people involved such as director, assistant director, key grip, not to mention the production crew's four trucks, two motor homes, and catering trailer. All together, 50 people were involved said Kimball.

In the past, Kimball had only been tweeting (see, for example, "Novo Nordisk's Branded (Levemir) Tweet is Sleazy Twitter Spam!" - the #3 Google search result for "sleazy tweet"!) and making personal appearances, which is more of a PR effort than a marketing effort. My guess is that PR costs much less than marketing and employs fewer people compared to marketing's BIG item productions such as TV ads.

So, thank you Charlie and Novo Nordisk for helping America solve it's unemployment problem!

Taking the "Cool" Way Out of Having Rx Product Convos on Social Media

Taking the "Cool" Way Out of Having Rx Product Convos on Social Media

I have criticized pharma companies for mentioning Rx brand product names via social media. Mostly because they forget to include fair balance or don't educate the public (see, for example, "Novo Nordisk's Branded (Levemir) Tweet is Sleazy Twitter Spam!").

That doesn't mean, however, that I don't believe there is a way for pharma to engage in branded product discussions via social media such as Twitter and Facebook (see, for example, "Breaking the 140-character Limit of Twitter Opens the Door to FDA-Compliant Branded Tweets").

It appears that most pharma companies have decided not to engage in these kinds of discussions and are implying that FDA regulations prevent them from doing so.

Take for example a discussion about Paula Deen on the Novo Nordisk Facebook wall (here) . Amidst the criticisms and defenses of Novo was this statement by "Tanya", a representative of Novo Nordisk:

"Hi Darcy, I had to remove your post becuase (sic) you mention a product name, which we are not allowed to have on our page - even if you post it yourself. Can you repost without mentioning the product name? Sorry! -- Tanya"

Unfortunately, I can't see what product was mentioned because the post was deleted. Duh! However, it was probably Victoza -- the diabetes product that pays for the endorsement by Paula Deen.

I infer from Tanya's statement that there is some FDA law or regulation against mentioning product names on the Novo FB page. In fact, there is no such law or regulation. And in other "social media" contexts -- such as my BlogTalkRadio show -- Ambre Morley, Associate Director, Product Communications, Novo Nordisk, didn't seem to have any problem mentioning the product name. In fact, she didn't point out the possible side effects (fair balance). I'm not sure if she broke the law there or not (you can read a summary of that discussion here; use code '1111nvd' to get it free; or listen to the podcast here).

Are pharmaceutical companies missing an opportunity to educate people about their products by "handling" posts as Novo did in the above example?

Some people actually think this policy of removing posts that mention products is a good thing. Idil Cakim, for example, said "the Novo Nordisk community manager 'played it cool' by only reminding the fans of the FDA guidelines" (see "Novo Nordisk Handles Paula Deen Reactions on Facebook").

I should have put a "sic" next to "FDA guidelines" because there are NONE! Tanya only reminded people what Novo Nordisk's POLICY is. [To be more clear, Tanya SHOULD have said "it is our policy not to mention product names."] I guess Idil -- one of "the world's best social media thinkers" featured on socialmediatoday.com -- also inferred from Tanya's statement that there was a LAW or guidelines.

There are, in fact, some new FDA guidelines for dealing with certain branded communications on social media (see "Review of The Social Media Guidelines Nobody Expected!"). These guidelines only apply to "off-label" discussions on social media sites. I don't know if these guidelines were applicable in this case.

Tanya may have "played it cool," but she missed an opportunity to really inform her FB visitors about Victoza, assuming that was the product mentioned in the deleted post.

But without more encompassing FDA social media guidelines, every pharma company will just continue to take the easy "cool" way out and censor any mention of product names on its social media sites.

P.S. Dear Novo Nordisk: Sorry that I seem to be focusing on you these past couple of weeks! But you ARE in the news a lot these days. I'm not sure it's helping or hurting the sales of Victoza because you don't mention the drug much in public statements about Paula Deen or on your Facebook page. That's fine. Just so you know. I'm not picking on you exclusively. I've gone on posting binges against Pfizer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and practically every other pharma company. So, please don't take it personally.

Your Wife, Your Choice - Diapers or Detrol (now Toviaz)?

Your Wife, Your Choice - Diapers or Detrol (now Toviaz)?

Pfizer's @pfizer_news Twitter account just posted this tweet:

"Toviaz top-line primary endpoint results positive in overactive bladder study of nocturnal urinary urgency http://t.co/OU60l6oZ" (see here). 

The link is to a press release that reports the results of a study that purports to show that Toviaz (a reformulation of off-patent Detrol) is "statistically significantly superior to placebo" in treating OAB (Over Active Bladder). The "statistically significantly superior" results were "based on patient self-reporting," which is a very subjective measure of efficacy to say the least.

OAB is one of those "medical conditions" that has been refurbished by the drug industry so that more people -- especially women -- can believe they have a problem requiring treatment by a pill rather than by some other, less invasive, means. I wrote about this before -- see "Overactive Bladder: 'Pharmacia instrumental in creating new disease' says Former VP." Pharmacia was purchased by Pfizer after that post was made.

An anonymous commenter to that post said:

"In the case of OAB, Pharmacia (and later Pfizer and others) provided an acceptable name for the condition, increased awareness, and provided access to effective treatment for a large group of patients (women especially) suffering a hugely difficult condition. Your wife, your choice - diapers or Detrol?"

I thought the last sentence was worth immortalizing in the title of this post because it is said that OAB is one of those conditions that "women especially" suffer from.

The Pfizer press release claims that "approximately 33 million Americans are estimated to suffer from overactive bladder symptoms." It doesn't say how many of these Americans are women, but the Toviaz Web site features a woman posing as a patient ("Not an actual patient") as in this banner:

Yesterday, I asked "Do Women Take More Drugs Than Men Because They Need To or Because They Are Targeted by DTC Advertising?" (see here). Toviaz ads (eg, the Toviaz.com Web site) demonstrate how women are targeted by direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertisers. As I mentioned in yesterday's post, I plan to discuss this in an upcoming Pharma Marketing Talk LIVE podcast discussion tomorrow (see "How to Score With Women (as a Marketer) via Social Media").

One other thing I have to say about the @pfizer_news tweet is that it is an example of a branded tweet that may not comply with FDA regulations because it mentions a brand name drug plus its indication but does not include any "fair balance" (ie, major side effect information) as required by law.

Most pharma social media initiatives such as company blogs and twitter accounts (including @pfizer_news) are managed by corporate communications people who are increasingly taking on the role of brand marketers. These people tend to think of themselves as outside of FDA's purview. Consequently, Pfizer may claim that the Toviaz-branded tweet is notice of a press release, not advertising, and that the press release contains the necessary fair balance (albeit one click away).

In the post about OAB mentioned above, I included slides from a Pharmacia VP that demonstrate the importance of PR and the media in "creating a new disease." One slide said "Drive potential patients to physician offices by using DTC and PR with symptom recognition." Another slide (see below) shows that the Media are an important component in creating consumer demand:

AZ's Tony Jewell Receives 2nd Annual Pharmaguy Social Media Pioneer Award

AZ's Tony Jewell Receives 2nd Annual Pharmaguy Social Media Pioneer Award

Yesterday, I figuratively gave the Hawaiian shirt off my back to Tony Jewell (@tonyjewell), Senior Director of External Communications at AstraZeneca US, for his pioneering use of Twitter. I picked Tony specifically because AZ was the first pharmaceutical company to host a Twitter chat (#rxsave; see "OMG! AstraZeneca Hosts Twitter Chat & World Does NOT End!").

This memorable event was captured on video by the Pixels & Pills/Zomega people at the Digital Pharma East conference in Philadelphia:


Pharma Guy Gives Tony Jewell the Shirt Off His Back from Zemoga on Vimeo.

There were several other contenders worthy of this honor, including

• Brad Pendergraph, Novartis
• Dennis Urbaniak, Sanofi
• Kevin Nalty, Janssen
• Ray Kerins, Pfizer
• John Pugh, Boehringer Ingelheim
• Craig DeLarge, Novo Nordisk

Over 100 readers of this blog voted for their candidate in an unofficial poll (see "2nd Annual Pharmaguy Social Media Pioneer Award Goes to..."). Although Tony did not garner the most votes in this poll, I still picked him as MY favorite -- after all, this is the PHARMAGUY award, which is not a popularity contest.

Tony received many kudos via Twitter, but at least one fellow blogger -- PharmaGossip -- was not pleased because of Tony's PR role in defending Seroquel against critics (see "What a week for AstraZeneca's Tony Jewell!").

The open #rxsave chat was a pioneering event not just because it was the first ever pharma chat. It was pioneering because AZ did it even though it knew that Seroquel critics might try and "hijack" the discussion. In a Twitter chat it is not possible to "edit" or "not publish" comments made by participants. And the conversation can actually be hijacked by "disgruntled" patients or employees (see here).

As I noted previously, two critics were by far the most prolific tweeters during the chat. These 2 people made 256 posts -- about 30% of the total -- during the one hour chat session. @AstrazenecaUS made just 37 tweets and mostly listened and learned. AZ (ie, Tony Jewell) did not ignore the "critics," who posted off-topics tweets about Seroquel.

Despite the volume of off-topic, critical, and branded tweets made by a few people during the chat, the conversation about how AZ can help more consumers save money on prescription drugs went on and was, IMHO, successful.

So, even though Tony may be a PR person whose job is to promote good news about AZ and "spin" bad news, he deserves my award and I hope his pioneer social media effort is emulated by other pharmaceutical companies.

Was Lilly's #mmeds Twitter Chat a Discussion or a Press Conference?

Was Lilly's #mmeds Twitter Chat a Discussion or a Press Conference?

Yesterday, I participated in the #mmeds Twitter chat regarding Medicare hosted by Lilly (see "More Pharma Twitter Chats: Medicare is Topic"). I had high hopes that this would be an informative discussion, but those hopes faded once the official "chat" began.

Before the chat began, Lilly encouraged followers to ask questions: "Hope you can join @Modernmeds for a Twitter chat on #Medicare tomorrow at 4:00. Ask questions now via #mmeds" @Modernmeds is the Twitter account associated with The Campaign for Modern Medicines, which is sponsored by Eli Lilly and Company.

The TOP TEN contributors (in terms of posts made) to the #mmeds chat were:

1.  @Modernmeds 
2.  @pharmaguy 
3.  @LillyPad 
4.  @WVRx 
5.  @HoosiersWFH 
6.  @PhRMA 
7.  @GHLForg 
8.  @mikecapaldi 
9.  @Outlandes 
10.  @patientaccess

I am #2 primarily because I kept asking questions, many of which went unanswered, such as:

• What's Lilly's position viz-a-viz republican proposals to privatize Medicare or raise premiums for higher-income seniors?
• To reduce deficit, should gov't raise the age of Medicare eligibility to 67 from 65?
• Who wants to "break" Medicare Part D and how exactly? Let's go lite on the buzz words, pls. (posted in response to @Modernmeds tweet: "Medicare Part D is a government program that is not broken; let's not break it.")
• why does pharma think Part D is at risk of being "broken?"
• Can you summarize the "proposed changes" u are talking about please? (posted in response to @Modernmeds tweet: "The proposed changes would also cause higher Part D premiums for seniors.")

Finally, @Lillypad got so disgusted, it tweeted "we understand that you may not agree with us-- this is a discussion!" to which I replied "I haven't disagreed with anything u hv said so far - none of my Qs have been addressed."

I wasn't the only one to ask questions. Just before the official chat began, @ellsbelles3 posted this question: "I keep hearing that Medicare Part D is working and not to change it. what does that mean?" This sounded suspiciously like a setup from a phony ordinary citizen similar to "Joe the Plumber."

I immediately opened up @ellsbelles3's Twitter profile and found that despite the fact that the account was opened up more than 6 months ago, this was @ellsbelles3's FIRST and only tweet!

I just had to ask her: "@ellsbelles3 C'mon... you're a PhRMA agent, right? #mmeds". No answer.

That's @ellsbelles3 profile photo above (entitled "xmas_card_reasonably_small.jpg"). She's located in Washington, DC. The vast majority of people that @ellsbelles3 follows on Twitter are politicians and media correspondents -- exactly the types of people a public policy wonk like Amy O'Connor (aka, @Modernmeds and @LillyPad) would follow. In fact, Twitter says @aoconnorND (Amy O'Connor's personal Twitter account) is an account with a very similar profile to @ellsbelles3. So, sorry, Amy. You don't work for PhRMA (directly).

During the chat @Modernmeds and @PhRMA pushed out talking points such as "Medicare Part D is a government program that is not broken; let's not break it.", "Medicare Part D works, has high satisfaction rates, and the select committee should avoid mirroring Medicaid", "Recent #JAMA study found access to Part D saves $1200/yr per senior in healthcare costs", and "We are supportive of a market based system for Medicare Part D." @LillyPad mostly RT'd these points.

Eventually, I figured out what Lilly et al were most concerned about: a proposal by lawmakers (democrats, I presume) to require pharma companies to offer "rebates" to help cover the out-of-pocket costs incurred by seniors who find themselves in Medicare Part D's infamous "doughnut hole" (ie, where Medicare no longer pays for meds). The industry labels this proposal "price controls."

In the end, after 30 minutes, we all agreed that the discussion just began. I wish there was more discussion in the beginning rather than the very end. I tried my best, but it's difficult when the chat organizers have an agenda and dominate the "discussion" with talking points, buzz phrases, and calls to action.

Lilly et al obviously have a different view of what a Twitter chat should be than do I. To them it's a press conference, not a conversation. Like a press conference, they can duck tough questions or just ignore inquisitive journalists (and bloggers) in the "audience." In fact, that's what I felt like during this chat: just another member of the "audience" who is expected to soak up and repeat talking points.

"We will have a chat next Wed at 10 AM, with our President of Lilly USA, Dave Ricks," said @Modernmeds at the end of yesterday's chat. Unfortunately, Mr. Ricks won't be using his own Twitter account (I don't believe he has one), but will "he will be using @Modernmeds's Twitter handle next week," said @Modernmeds. Which leads me to question whether Dave Ricks will actually participate in the chat or if @Modernmeds (Amy O'Connor) will just play the part of Dave Ricks (ie, be his "mouthpiece" as they say in the PR world).

More Pharma Twitter Chats: Medicare is Topic

More Pharma Twitter Chats: Medicare is Topic

The Campaign for Modern Medicines (@Modernmeds) and Eli Lilly & Company (@LillyPad) will host two separate Tweetchats on Medicare Part D to "help raise awareness on the value of the current system, and to learn how to prevent potential changes to it." As reported by PhRMA in a blog post (see "Join the Chatter on Medicare"), "the first chat will be held on Thursday, Oct. 13th from 4-4:30PM EST, with Bart Peterson, Sr. Vice President of Lilly Corporate Affairs & Communication" and the second will be held on Wednesday, Oct. 19th at 9-9:30AM EST "to share your thoughts on the economic implications of proposed changes to Part D, with President of Lilly USA, Dave Ricks as host." Join the conversation using the hash tag #mmeds.

The latter chat is a milestone because it is the first time ever that the president of a pharmaceutical company will host an open Twitter chat.

Recall that the first ever PHARMA Twitter chat was hosted by Astrazeneca in February, 2011 (see "OMG! AstraZeneca Hosts Twitter Chat & World Does NOT End!"). The subject of that #rxsave chat was how to "raise awareness about helping patients save money through prescription savings programs." The discussion was led by Jennifer McGovern, the director of the AZ&Me prescription savings programs.

Eli Lilly is on a campaign to block any changes in Medicare that implement price controls in the prescription drug payment section (Part D) of Medicare. "A new congressional super committee has been charged with raising the debt ceiling and eliminating more than $1 trillion in spending by the end of the year," noted Lilly's Amy O'Connor -- Associate Consultant, Channel Payer Marketing, Managed Healthcare Services; @ambro93 -- in a blog post (see "If It’s Not Broke… Preserving Medicare Part D"). "One of the current proposals includes instituting a Medicaid-like government price control in Medicare Part D."

What Lilly and other pharmaceutical companies are concerned about is a proposal to add Medicaid-style rebates to the Medicare Part D program that has been introduced in Congress by Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). The proposal (S.1206 - Medicare Drug Savings Act of 2011) would require drug manufacturers to provide drug rebates for drugs dispensed to low-income individuals under the Medicare prescription drug benefit program.

Meanwhile, a congressional deficit-reduction panel has a Nov. 23 deadline on what cuts, if any, to make to Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and other entitlement programs.

Thus, there is an ad hoc coalition of industry and senior citizen groups (ie, PhRMA and AARP) opposed to changes in Medicare: the industry doesn't want to see rebates and seniors don't want to see cuts to benefits or raising premiums.

@lilypad tweeted: "Hope you can join @Modernmeds for a Twitter chat on #Medicare tomorrow [ie, TODAY] at 4:00. Ask questions now via #mmeds"

As of now there are no pre-chat questions on the #mmeds list, so I will ask a few that address ideas for keeping Medicare solvent aside fro instituting rebates. such as:

"What's Lilly's position viz-a-viz republican proposals to privatize Medicare or raise premiums for higher-income seniors?" Another question I have is "To reduce the deficit, should the gov't raise the age of Medicare eligibility to 67 from 65?"

I encourage readers to ask their own questions and join the chat later today.

BI's Famously Buxom and Unpronounceable YouTube Video

BI's Famously Buxom and Unpronounceable YouTube Video

"In this brave new world there are better marketing tools than Facebook o Twitter," says Ray Cokes (@raycokes), the actor who plays the "new head of marketing" at Boehringer Ingelheim (BI) in a new YouTube video that spoofs efforts to pronounce the company's name through "word of mouth" (WOM) marketing. The agents for this campaign are parrots who are being conditioned from egg to adulthood to correctly pronounce "Boehringer Ingelheim." The parrots are then shipped out to do their WOM thing.

[I accessed the original video is here when I first made this post. A day or day later, however, BI made the video private and unviewable by the general public. In a tweet, BI said "The vid was made for a test & the period of time was short, so that is why the vid must be made private for now." BUT, thanks to crazyParrot, the video has been uploaded here.]

The parrot in the following frame captured from the video is having a problem and says Sauerkraut! instead of Boehringer Ingelheim. Obviously, the bird is distracted by one of the buxom "lovely ladies" that comprise the BI training staff. By the way the bird is staring into the woman's cleavage, it could have said Spaltung! Whatever ... Ray is not happy!

Another lovely lady -- Faith Busch (@faithandcomm), who tweets for the @Boehringer Twitter account -- told me last week during a conference in Lisbon to expect something exciting on YouTube from BI. I guess this is it.

The new video, IMHO, is not as funny -- and maybe not as "famous" -- as the one I found over a year ago (see "How DO You Pronounce 'Boehringer Ingelheim'?" and below).



It turns out that the above video was produced on spec by an agency trying to win BI business by showing off their creativity. I guess it wasn't "new world" enough -- in fact, it has a certain "iron curtain" feel to it compared to the sterile, all-white "new world" feel of WOM!

I'm becoming more and more interested in BI because it is "pushing the envelope outside the boundaries" in social media. See, for example, "Boehringer vs Facebook Social Media Socialism." BI also seems to have a sense of humor.

It's also a "personable" company -- Faith told me that she often runs into Mr. Boehringer (Jr?) in the BI cafeteria and says hello. I can't imagine the CEO of a publicly traded US pharma company eating in the cafeteria with the minions!

I too would like to meet Mr. Boehringer in Ingelheim and say hello. Maybe he'll invite me in to make a presentation to the lovely BI marketing people about what I've learned from observing pharma's social media efforts during the past 5 years.

UPDATE 22 SEPT 2011: No sooner did I give Boehringer Ingelheim (BI) kudos for its recent humorous and playful YouTube video (see above), than I learned it violated Clauses 2, 9.1, 3.2, 22.1 and 22.2 of the ABPI Code of Practice (See "BI Masters the Art of WOM through Its 'Parrots,' er, Spokespersons").

Pharma Tweets: Followers Trump Content. Pfizer vs. Sanofi Case Study

Pharma Tweets: Followers Trump Content. Pfizer vs. Sanofi Case Study

Everyone is tracking how the pharmaceutical industry uses Twitter and other social media. Jonathan Richman maintains the Pharma and Healthcare Social Media Wiki, which lists dozens of Twitter accounts (no rankings, although Jonathan does give out awards). EyeOnFDA Blog maintains its TWANK! Pharma Twitter Rankings, which is ALL about numbers, especially followers. And I maintain the Pharmaguy Twitter Pioneer list (see here).

None of these compilations says much about the quality of the content (ie, Tweets) pushed out by these sites. Some include 3rd-party measures such as Klout scores. But Klout is a poor barometer of how well pharma tweeters ENGAGE in conversation via social media. To demonstrate this, I compare recent tweets from @Pfizer_news ("The official site for Pfizer Inc., where we apply science and our global resources to improve health and well-being at every stage of life. I'm Jen Kokell, GMR") and @SanofiUS ("The official Twitter feed for Sanofi US. Tweets on news, updates, and other info come from Jack Cox and Stacy Burch. Intended for U.S. audiences only").

I picked these two because my friend @AndrewSpong posted this in today's #hcsmeu Twitter chat:

"despite only having been active since Jan '11, @SanofiUS has published nearly twice as many tweets as @pfizer_news"

To which @rohal responded:

"number of tweets is not a measure for effectivity of comm, quality of perception and understanding is!"

Sometimes marketers say "communication" when they really mean "messaging" or "marketing," which is one-way communication. By now social media should have changed what we all mean by communication; ie, two-way conversations. It would be interesting to measure this aspect of Pfizer's and Sanofi's Twitter accounts.

Before I do that, let's look at the numbers:

@Pfizer_news

• Followers: 17,705


• Follows: 2,078


• Tweets: 487


• Klout score: 51

@SanofiUS

• Followers: 1,728


• Follows: 1,676


• Tweets: 891


• Klout score: 46

Except for tweets sent, Pfizer beats Sanofi hands down in this numbers game -- although I am amazed that the Klout scores are relatively close considering that Pfizer has TEN TIMES the number of followers than does Sanofi. I am on record questioning how Pfizer obtained all these followers. It boosted its number of followers by about 3-4,000 in just a few days around Christmas 2009 How Did Pfizer Get So Many Twitter Followers?.

Since then, I've heard that Newt Gingrich has been paying to get fake Twitter followers (Gawker received a tip from a former staffer, saying that Gingrich had paid firms to create fake Twitter followers; search company PeekYou analysed his follower list, and found that 92% of them were dummy accounts. Adding insult to injury, PeekYou added that Gingrich's percentage of real followers was "the lowest we had ever seen"; see story here).

I'm not saying that Pfizer did this, but it would interesting if someone analyzed its Twitter follower list and other pharmaco Twitter follower lists.

For my case study, I merely compared 20 of the latest tweets from @Pfizer_news and @SanofiUS to see what was different about them (find my list here).

Here's what I learned:

Self-serving Tweets: 60% of Pfizer's Tweets (12 out 20) were self-serving in that they referred back to Pfizer press releases, blog posts, etc. The tone is overtly NON-CONVERSATIONAL; eg, "Pfizer did this...", "Pfizer did that.." as in "Positive top-line results for Pfizer’s Lyrica in Phase 3 study of patients with fibromyalgia in Japan on.pfizer.com/ntYymj" (there's a tweet FDA should take a look at!). In contrast, I found only 1 self-serving Tweet among Sanofi's last 20 Tweets (5%). If I met Pfizer_news at a cocktail party, I would find any excuse to run away! (Note: Whenever I meet Jen Kokell at conference receptions, however, I look for excuses to stay put!)

Retweets: Retweeting is usually a good measure of "conversation" vs. "communication" in Twitterdom. @Pfizer_news's Tweet stream did not include a SINGLE RT, whereas Sanofi's included 13 (65%). I did not include one RT that retweeted from another Sanofi account. An example of a Sanofi RT: "RT @andrewspong How do we achieve equality for patients with rare diseases? http://bit.ly/pA4bdb | pharmaphorum #rarecare #hcsmeu #hcsm" Not only does Sanofi RT, but it adds hash tags, another indication that it engages in conversation rather than one-way communications.

Hash Tags: Use of hash tags is another good indicator of how well a company engages in conversations via Twitter. Eight out of 20 (40%) of Sanofi's tweets included one or more hash tags, whereas only 2 (10%) of Pfizer's tweets included a hash tag.

Klout may or may not look at these things when computing a score for Twitter accounts. If it does, then IMHO Sanofi's score should be MUCH higher than Pfizer's. But I think the numbers still outweigh the relevance for Klout and even for industry pundits; ie, Followers trump Content!

In the old days of Web 1.0 the the adage was "content, content, content". Today, in the social media Web era, it appears the NEW adage is "numbers, numbers, numbers." It's a shame.

Tracking Public Health Trends: Twitter vs Google vs Your Nose

Tracking Public Health Trends: Twitter vs Google vs Your Nose

While my son was away at school this spring, I asked him how he was doing. "OK dad," he said, "but I have this cough the last few days." I didn't have to search Google or call our physician or tweet about it to learn what may be the underlying problem. I only had to use my nose to know it was allergy season. Given my son's history, I surmised that was the root cause of his problem.

But public health officials cannot depend upon their noses to make important decisions. They need actionable real time data. How do they get it?

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) offers the most dependable disease surveillance data. The system depends on reports from partners in state, local, and territorial health departments, public health and clinical laboratories, vital statistics offices, healthcare providers, clinics, and emergency departments. I imagine a lot of paperwork and time are involved.

Some time ago, Google decided that search trends can be used to track diseases such as influenza. It published results of a study of its data in a white paper: "Detecting influenza epidemics using search engine query data" (find it here). They found a strong correlation between search data and CDC data as shown in the chart below:

Now, researchers at the Johns Hopkins Center for Language and Speech Processing have analyzed 2 billion public tweets posted between May 2009 and October 2010 to learn if it is possible to use Twitter to track important public health trends (see "Analyzing Twitter for Public Health").

The researchers point out the differences between search and Twitter (or other social media) with regard to the intent of the user. "In web search," says Mark Dredze (one of the researchers; see a video of his presentation of results here), "the user expresses a need for information. Whereas in social media, people actually say something about themselves." In that sense, it's easier to conclude that the Twitter poster actually has the flu, whereas the searcher may or may not.

Another advantage of Twitter is that people disclose a lot of information about themselves that can add value to the public health data. This includes information about the drugs they may be taking. That information, of course, is of interest to pharmaceutical companies.

Here are the results from the Johns Hopkins study, which analyzed 1.5 million messages (out of 2 billion total collected) that referred to health matters:

Pharmaceutical companies -- and the FDA (see "FDA is Monitoring This Blog and Perhaps You Too!") -- are already mining social media to learn what the public is saying about them, their products, and their competitors' products (see "Are J&J Agents Trolling for Adverse Events on the Internet?"). But I suspect the technology they are using is relatively primitive compared to that used by the Johns Hopkins researchers.

Alex Butler posed a question during yesterday's #hcsmeu chat: "Have we been concentrating too much on SM as pure communication and not enough on impact of 'big data' to revolutionise health care?" This lead to a lively discussion on the value of "crowdsourcing" to somehow change healthcare. For more on that topic, see "Data Mining in the Deep, Dark Social Networks of Patients."

I can see the value of social media to do surveillance as was done in the studies mentioned above. Such surveillance certainly helps public health officials deal with certain diseases and other health issues (ie, obesity). But it doesn't change the fundamental problem of health care, which is the cost burden. To truly "revolutionise" healthcare -- IMHO -- you have to lower costs and make even rudimentary health care affordable for EVERYONE. But that's a matter for another post!

[This post originally appeared in Pharma Marketing Blog. 

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

Did Boehringer Mishandle This Adverse Event Report on Twitter?

Did Boehringer Mishandle This Adverse Event Report on Twitter?

I follow many pharmaceutical companies (and employees of pharma companies; eg, these people) on Twitter. @BoehringerUS is one of them. To keep track of these accounts, I cross-post the tweets to this Pharma Marketing Forum (News Direct from the Pharmaceutical Industry), which automatically sends me a daily email message telling me what's been posted there. It's a good way for me to filter through all the tweets from the over 2,500 people I follow on Twitter.

Today, I received notice of the following tweet from @BoehringerUS:

@professorbunbun Please call Boehringer Ingelheim @ 800-542-6257 option 4 to report adverse events or product complaints.

I traced back the Tweet timeline of @professorbunbun -- "Meredith: Just a girl trying to aclimate to the 21st century corporate world after three years as Betsy Ross in 1776." -- to find the tweet that triggered that reply from @BoehgingerUS:

Also @boehringerus your drugs, (Mirapex,) didn't work and made my mom's hair fall out so that is a double-strike as far as I am concerned.

Here it is in context via Twitter:

Does this tweet by @professorbunbun satisfy FDA's four criteria for a REPORTABLE adverse event (AE), namely:

1. An identifiable patient - Meredith's mom
2. And identifiable reporter - Meredith
3. A suspect drug, biological product, or device - Mirapex
4. An adverse event or fatal outcome - hair loss

The second criterion -- identifiable reporter -- is the problem. We don't know the true identity of "Meredith."

So, Boehringer did not have enough data to issue a report to the FDA, which has not (yet) issued any guidelines on what constitutes an "identifiable reporter" on social media. For more on that topic, see "Uncertainties Regarding Reporting Adverse Events Found on Social Media Sites."

Instead of telling @professorbunbun to call an 800 number and press "4" to report the adverse event, @BoehringerUS could have been more proactive and asked Meredith to identify herself so that an AER (adverse event report) could be made to the FDA. However, it would not have been a good idea to ask Meredith to reveal her identity via a public reply on Twitter. @BoehringerUS, however, could have sent @professorbunbun a direct message (DM), which is NOT public and Meredith could have DM'd a reply. But that would require @professorbunbun to be a Twitter "follower" of @BoehringerUS and vice versa. It's not likely they follow each other, although the two parties could have agreed to do so.

All this, however, is probably not the job of the people behind @BoehrinerUS, who are mostly public relations/corporate communications people -- although I believe AEs SHOULD be their concern (see "Adverse Event Reporting -- Pharma Puts Profits Before Patients. A Missed Opportunity"). Hence, the tweet telling @professorbunbun to call the 800 number.

Making a public announcement via Twitter on who to contact to report an adverse event is probably a good idea. Perhaps pharma companies should make such tweets from time to time even if they are not responding to a potential reportable AE tweet.

But I question the use of an 800 number in this age of technology, especailly when you are communicating with technically savvy people who use Twitter! Why doesn't Boehringer -- and other pharma companies -- have a more convenient online mechanism for reporting adverse events DIRECTLY to the FDA as I suggested in this post: "Tit-for-Tat Tithe on Pharma Marketing. How It Can Work."

BTW, the AE exchange between @professorbunbun and @BoehringerUS began almost as an after thought prompted by a different sort of adverse event suffered by Meredith herself: the failure of a Boehringer "resistance band" at the Parkinson's Unity Walk (Boehringer was a Diamond Sponsor). Here's @professorbunbun's tweet about THAT adverse event:

Also, @boehringerus next time you hand out resistance bands at @unitywalk it might be a good idea to make sure they don't snap at first use

Is the Nasonex Bee on Twitter? Or Is This an Impostor?

Is the Nasonex Bee on Twitter? Or Is This an Impostor?

A couple of years ago, I suggested that pharmaceutical companies can leverage their brands' assets via Twitter by launching brand mascot accounts. I predicted, for example, that the Nasonex bee character would start "Tweeting like a little bird" (see "Nasonex Bee May Usher In a Whole New Way to do FDA-friendly Pharma Tweets").

I did a Twitter search for "nasonex" and discovered that there is indeed a @Nasonex_Bee Twitter account that describes the fun-loving mascot this way: "Flying around pushing overpriced prescription meds, and showing up on your TV screen in obnoxious commercials far more often than you can actually tolerate me." Below is the screen shot of the account's twitter home page:

Obviously, this is a fake Twitter account.

Brand mascot impostors are rampant on Twitter according to Advertising Age (see "Twitter Identity Theft Strikes Brand Mascots"). "Many of the most-loved brand mascots, from the Pillsbury Doughboy to Tony the Tiger, are on Twitter in some respects, but not in any official capacity," notes AdAge. "Everyday people not affiliated with the brands have picked up those familiar names and cartoon faces, as many marketers have left them idle. @TheChefBoyardee, for example, is foul-mouthed, wears a chef's hat and applied to Charlie Sheen's #tigerblood internship."

The @Nasonex_Bee Twitter account is locked/protected -- you can't follow or see its tweets without first sending a request to do so, which I did (no answer yet). The account has only 1 follower.

It seems that the Packaged Goods industry is not doing a good job protecting their brand assets and neither is the pharmaceutical industry.

If you know of any fake or real pharma brand mascot Twitter accounts, please let me know.

Astrazeneca's Twitter Survey: Will They Share Some Results?

Astrazeneca's Twitter Survey: Will They Share Some Results?

@astrazeneca is currently asking its Twitter followers (of which it has over 5,000) to fill out an online survey hosted on SurveyMonkey. AZ tweeted this a few minutes ago: "Last chance 2 complete our Twitter survey, closing fri...we’d like your ideas: http://ow.ly/4bzf0" In case the survey is closed by the time you read this, you can find a PDF version I created for archival purposes here: http://bit.ly/AZTsurvey

I also use SurveyMonkey to survey my Twitter followers and have received over 1,600 responses to date. You can take my survey (here) and/or see the de-identified results (here).

What is AZ interested in learning from its followers? There's the standard demographic-type questions, including "How would you best describe yourself?" The choices listed tell us something about who AZ expects should or could be following them:

• Media/journalist
• Academic/researcher
• Pharmaceutical employee
• AZ employee
• Healthcare provider
• Government agency/regulator
• Communications specialist/agency
• NGO/civil society employee
• AZ business partner
• Patient/patient advocate
• Service provider/consultant
• AZ shareholder

It's interesting that AZ allows respondents to check off all that apply. Obviously, practically everyone should click "Patient/patient advocate" -- we are all patients at one time or another. AZ should have clarified that and put "Patient advocate" as a separate category considering how interested this group of people are in forging relationships with the pharmaceutical industry (see "Social Media's OK Corral: Docs vs. Patients" and "Some Social Media Patient Opinion Leaders Want to be Paid Pharma Professionals" and "PHARMA Co Patient Opinion Leader Programs").

AZ wants to know if @astrazenca (ie, its Twitter account) is the "main source of information about AZ." I'd like to know the answer to THAT question! (I hope AZ shares some results of the survey; I DM'd AZ this inquiry: "I responded to your Twitter Follower survey. Will you share some of the results?").

AZ asks followers what they want to see more/less of from @astrazenca, including (my responses are in parentheses):

• News from AZ (RIGHT AMOUNT)
• Views/opinion from AZ leaders (MORE)
• Coverage of AZ in the media (LESS)
• Retweets of things we find interesting (MORE)
• Financial information from AZ (LESS)
• Twitter events such as interviews and debates (MORE)

The last question in the survey asks "How could we make better use of social media to meet your needs?" to which I responded: "More Twitter chats! Invite guest moderators such as key opinion leaders, patient advocates, etc."

I haven't yet heard back from AZ whether or not they will reveal some results of their survey. If and when I do, I will let you know what they say (SEE BELOW).

P.S. Note to Astrazeneca. I love the simplicity of your online survey; single white page, small unassuming logo at the top, etc. For future reference: When users finish taking the survey, you should direct them to perhaps the AZ corporate website. Right now, they are brought to the SurveyMonkey sign-up page. Why give SurveyMonkey free promotion? I assume you are paying SurveyMonkey a few hundred dollars per year to use their surveying software, in which case they allow you to redirect to whatever URL you wish. Just a thought.

P.P.S. Just got this from @astrazeneca: "thanks for the feedback - yes we'll share some of the survey results via this feed"