Chris Viehbacher, PhRMA’s Chairman, Masters the Art of "Proofiness"

Chris Viehbacher, PhRMA’s Chairman, Masters the Art of "Proofiness"

I just started reading the book "Proofiness: The Dark Arts of Mathematical Deception" by Charles Seife. The book promises to "conduct a thorough investigation into why so many of us find it so easy to believe things that are patently ridiculous. Why, for example, does anyone take seriously the idea that some vaccines can cause autism..."

I only read the first few pages of the introduction last night, but immediately realized that what I learn from it will help me interpret the BS I often hear from pharmaceutical marketers and spokespeople.

The author defines "proofiness" as "the art of using bogus mathematical arguments to prove something that you know in your heart is true -- even when it is not." One tool used by masters of this art is fabricated statistics, which Seife calls Potemkin numbers in analogy to Potemkin villages (fake settlements purportedly erected at the direction of Russian minister Grigory Potemkin to fool Empress Catherine II during her visit to Crimea in 1787; see here).

I didn't have to go out hunting for examples of Potemkin numbers in pharmaland -- it came right to me via a tweet from @PhRMApress: "VIDEO: What Gets PhRMA’s Chairman Up Every Morning? http://t.co/MftWTiSA via @PhRMA @SanofiUS"

The first words spoken by Chris Viehbacher, PhRMA’s chairman and the CEO of Sanofi, included an impressive Potemkin number:

"One of the things that makes me most proud to be part of this industry is seeing that life expectancy has gone from 67 to 81 in a generation. It really shows the positive impact we've had on people and families across America."

A life expectancy of 81 years?! In my heart, I wish it were true, but my brain tells me it is not.

I immediately stopped the video and used Google to peak behind the facade of these numbers. After all, an increase in life expectancy of 14 years in a single generation is so positive sounding that I want to believe it, but so huge that I suspected it wasn't true.

Here's a US life expectancy chart (edited to fit better) I found via Google (World Bank data; here):

According to these data, the US life expectancy (LE) increased only about 5 years in the last generation (1979 to 2009). I don't think US LE increased an additional 3 years since 2009 (the latest year for which real data is available). Viehbacher used Potemkin numbers to impress us with a 14-year difference, whereas the real data only supports a 5-year difference.

Where did Viehbacher come up with his LE numbers? Perhaps he got the 81 years figure from this CNN article, which cited it as the highest life expectancy -- enjoyed by residents of Fairfax County, Virginia.

That same article, however, mentioned that Holmes County, Mississippi, had the lowest LE number -- 66 years. A woman in Holmes County can expect to live 73.5 years, "the average life span that women in the healthiest nations had in 1957 and have since far surpassed." In other words, there are people in the U.S. who have LE's that lag behind those of the world's healthiest nations, "in some cases by 50 years or more." Those numbers should keep Mr. Viehbacher awake ALL night!

The other problem relating to the LE issue raised by Viehbacher is his implication that the pharmaceutical industry is solely responsible for the increase in US LE (except in Mississippi, that is), which is an exaggeration. Other factors include declines in cigarette smoking. increase access to health care for vulnerable populations (eg, children), etc.

The rest of the interview has Viehbacher citing other numbers that support Medicare Part D -- such as each patient receiving a $1200 benefit as a result of the program, which BTW the drug industry does not want to improve by subsidizing the closing of the infamous "doughnut" hole. The study (see here) was paid for by PhRMA, a fact that Viehbacher failed to mention. Whether or not these Medicare Part D numbers are "Potemkin numbers" or other forms of suspicious "proofiness" is something I don't have the resources to get into now. Maybe after I finish Seife's book I will have more anti-deception tools at my disposal.

UPDATE

Christian Clymer, Deputy Vice President, Public Affairs, PhRMA, sent me the following followup to this post via email on 28-SEP-2011:

It's good to know you're keeping up with The Catalyst. I just wanted to clarify some of the statistics you've pointed out, regarding life expectancy and the savings generated by Medicare.

The 81 years life expectancy cited by Mr. Viehbacher is consistent with CDC/U.S. Census Bureau statistics for 2010 that show average life expectancy of 81 years for women (81.4 years, to be exact). (source: http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=195) In 1950 the average life expectancy in the U.S. according to CDC was 68 years. That's a dramatic rise in just two generations. The CDC numbers are also reflected in this chart… http://www.phrma.org/us-life-expectancy-1950-2007.  

While all reputable data sources (e.g., WHO, CDC and others) may vary somewhat on the numbers, they all demonstrate the same fact: there has been a marked increase in average life expectancy in the U.S. and across the globe. Our industry wouldn't presume to take credit for these statistics, but we are proud of the role that we continue to play in helping people live longer, healthier lives, as we've noted on PhRMA.org in the past. (New Medicines Transforming Patient Care http://www.phrma.org/new-medicines-transforming-patient-care)  

Regarding the Medicare savings, Mr. Viehbacher was referring to a recent study in JAMA, conducted by Harvard researchers with no sponsorship from PhRMA or individual companies. Indeed, that study found that Medicare saved $1,200 annually for each beneficiary who had previously lacked comprehensive drug coverage prior to Part D. Those savings came from a reduction in non-drug costs such as hospitalizations and nursing home admissions. (http://www.phrma.org/catalyst/jama-study-reiterates-success-medicare-part-d and http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/part-d-cost-offsets/)    

Just thought you'd want to know.

I hope Chris doesn't mind me adding this response, which I sent to him in reply:

I would point out that Viehbacher mentioned ONE generation ("a generation"), not two, which may have been just an honest mistake, I'm sure. Of course, white females live about 5 years longer than us guys! So, you're not really comparing apples to apples (ie, females to females) when you cite 81 for females in 2010 and 68 for the general population (I assume) in 1950. As for the JAMA Medicare study, I'll have to take a look at it.

BI's Famously Unpronounceable Video Lives On!

BI's Famously Unpronounceable Video Lives On!

A day or two after I posted my impression of Boehringer's (BI's) new YouTube video that spoofs efforts to pronounce the company's name through "word of mouth" (WOM) marketing, BI made the video private and unviewable by the general public. BUT, thanks to "crazyparrot1000," the video has been uploaded here. I have also embedded it below:





Last night, I tweeted: "@Boehringer Sorry to see that the parrot video was made private. Was this a project approved high up in BI?" As of yet, I have not received a response to that tweet.

Why did BI decide to block viewing of this video less than 48 hours after it debuted on YouTube? 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."

Sorry, but I'm not buying that.

I think my followup post (BI Masters the Art of WOM through Its "Parrots," er, Spokespersons) nudged BI into realizing it had made a mistake. In that post, I pointed out that BI was slapped by the PMCPA regarding how it may have dissed the competition via its real-life Word of Mouth "parrots" -- ie, patient advocates, key opinion leaders, and the press. The following image sums it up nicely, IMHO:

Sexist?
I sincerely wish BI gave me a chance to preview this video while I was at a recent pharma eMarketing conference in Lisbon where I first learned that BI was going to launch something big on YouTube the following week. I may have criticized the video for being too sexist (the women are all very well endowed and are referred to as "lovely ladies").

Maybe -- just maybe -- it could have been negative reaction from BI's employees regarding the inappropriateness of buxom lab techs that got BI to remove the video. If so, I think BI should make that known and offer a public apology. What do you think?

Is this BI parrot video sexist & does BI need to apologize publicly?
	Yes and BI should apologize
	Yes, but no need for BI to apologize
	Not sexist and no need for BI to apologize
	Not sexist but BI should apologize anyway for wasting money on this

In any case, perhaps the video was not green-lighted by the higher ups in BI, but I bet it was shut down by them!

Lessons Learned
P.S. A lesson learned by BI is that you often cannot take back what you did via social media and YouTube. Despite the attempt of BI to block the viewing of its video, it lives on in the version that was copied and re-uploaded by "crazyparrot1000." BI acknowledged this in a retweet of a tweet notifying them that the video was still on YouTube: "Yes we are! Power of #sm :) RT @xilede: @Boehringer you are aware that the parrots are still around on #youtube, right?"

BI is now backpedaling and claiming the whole thing was sort of a university thesis project: "As @BoehringerUK said, Uni of Mainz is now preparing thesis on vid. Entire prject was trial balloon & now analysis comes! #hcsm"

In previous tweets, however, BI was making a big deal about how this video is ushering in its new emphasis on word of mouth marketing:

"Embarking on a new comms journey, @Boehringer has started to push the idea of WOM. Watch to learn more http://ow.ly/6zD1u #hcmktg #pharma"

"An idea needs to fly and we take this literally. Take a moment & watch our short video on #YouTube http://ow.ly/6Akmu #mtv @raycokes #pharma"

Unfortunately, it seems the idea of this video should NOT have flown!

Will BI, however, try to get YouTube/Google to remove the copy of the video uploaded by "crazyparrot1000?" It's possible. I suggest you copy it ASAP before this happens. One thing I learned at the Lisbon conference is how to do this: Go to site KeepVid.com

The Big C in the Big Apple

The Big C in the Big Apple

I just received this tweet from Fabio Gratton (@skypen), Co-founder & Chief Innovation Officer of Ignite Health: "Have you seen the C in NYC? (disclaimer: client) http://t.co/8CmVJOun?"

No, I didn't "see" the C in NYC, because I haven't been there lately. So I clicked on the link. This lead me to HepC.tv, a YouTube channel sponsored by Vertex Pharmaceuticals, which coincidentally recently received approval for INCIVEK for the treatment of Hepatitis C (aka HepC). I believe Fabio's company was involved in either creating the video and/or the HepC.tv YouTube channel -- but not the Cs themselves (Fabio deals in the purely digital realm).

HepC.tv is featuring the video "Man-on-the-Street: New Yorkers' Reactions to the Big Yellow C." The big Yellow Cs (see image below; looks more "orangish" than yellow to me) appeared in well known locations in NYC starting on September 13, 2011. The video shows people's reactions and what they think the Cs are supposed to represent. One person said "vitamin C," another said "cholesterol," and another said "cauliflower."

Surprisingly, no one said "Cancer!" At least no-one shown in this video. How can that be? The plaque on every big C says "4 million Americans have this disease. 3 million don't even know it." Sounds like cancer to me. Maybe I'm conditioned to think that because I am a fan of the ShowTime series "The Big C," which is about a woman living with cancer. Maybe Fabio et al did not want to promote the show, so they edited out any mention of cancer in the video, which, after all, is part of a campaign designed to "raise awareness among New Yorkers about hepatitis C and provide information on testing."

The Big Yellow C HepC campaign is what I would categorize as "guerrilla marketing," which according to wikipedia is "unexpected and unconventional, potentially interactive, and consumers are targeted in unexpected places." The Big Yellow C HepC campaign is interactive because each C includes a QR code imprinted on it. You have to get up close to it to scan that code and see where it leads you. Where does it lead? Maybe the QR code should have been on the closing screen of the video so us non-New Yorkers (or ex-New Yorkers) can scan it without getting on the A-train to 125th Street! (I'm guessing, however, that the QR code leads to the FindHepC.com web site, which is shown on the last screen.)

I have many questions about this campaign similar to the questions I had about other such campaigns (see "Zyrtec Telephone Pole Ad Campaign: Guerilla or Gorilla Marketing?"). Here are some questions I posted in a comment to the video:

• Is this sort of thing scaleable? I mean, in how many cities can this be implemented? 
• Are the C's on tour around the country? What about in rural areas? 
• How do you measure how effective this is? Via the QR code? 

As you know, I am a big fan of QR codes -- I have three of them on my new business card (see here)! But how many people in NYC have smartphones with a QR code reader app? Do they even know what a QR code is?

In fact, Vertex is planning many live events in the boroughs of NYC and elsewhere to increase the awareness of Hepatitis C and get people to be tested so they can sell oodles of their new treatment.

Another question I have is How did Vertex get permission to put these Cs all over NYC, which is very skittish about possible terrorist attacks? Remember that guerilla marketing campaign in Boston that went awry, causing panic among the public? I guess the Cs look too colorful and friendly to be considered dangerous.

What I am waiting for, however, are the graffiti artists to tell us what THEY think the Big C stands for. Also, we New Yorkers (and ex-New Yorkers) are known to treat anything not bolted down as "found art," available for  taking home to your loft for kitschy display! I'm betting, however, that Vertex doesn't leave these things hanging around 125th Street or Herald Square overnight.

BI Masters the Art of WOM through Its "Parrots," er, Spokespersons

BI Masters the Art of WOM through Its "Parrots," er, Spokespersons

Even Social Media Savvy, Personable, Fun-Loving Boehringer Ingelheim (BI) Can Bring Shame to the Pharmaceutical Industry!

No sooner did I give Boehringer Ingelheim (BI) kudos for its recent humorous and playful YouTube video (see here), than I learned it violated Clauses 2, 9.1, 3.2, 22.1 and 22.2 of the ABPI Code of Practice (see "Promotion of Pradaxa by Boehringer Ingelheim Breached ABPI Code of Practice").

You can read the details yourself in the above link. At the core of the case were stories published in UK newspapers based upon a BI press release. BI also provided reporters with access to paid physicians and patient spokespersons.

The case originated from a complaint by a "general practitioner" filed with the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA), which oversees the ABPI Code.

The PMCPA "was very concerned about the content of the press release and the briefing material for spokespersons. The [PMCPA] Panel considered that these would in effect encourage members of the public to ask their health professional to prescribe a specific prescription only medicine. The Panel was concerned about the lack of information in a consumer press release relating to side effects."

In the YouTube video mentioned above as well as in a recent tweet, BI said it "believes there are better mktg tools than FB & Twitter." It appears that BI thinks friendly news reporters are among the better tools available to it.

It's amusing that the news articles made some great marketing statements that BI could never make, such as referring to Pradaxa as a "super pill" and a "revolutionary drug." The stories also dissed the competition (warfarin) by referring to it as "rat poison." BI press materials did not refer to warfarin as rat poison and "otherwise made no disparaging remarks about the medicine," said PMCPA, which had no evidence about how warfarin had been described by Boehringer Ingelheim’s spokespersons or at any press conference. Therefore, no breach of the Code was ruled in that regard.

Obviously, what "spokespersons" say falls under "word of mouth" (WOM) marketing, which is what BI says is one of those "better mktg tools than FB & Twitter." As this case demonstrates, it is very hard to prove that pharmaceutical companies are responsible for WOM marketing that violates regulatory and industry rules.