Paula Deen Loses 30 lbs. Urges Twitter Fans to Pig Out on Fourth of July!

Paula Deen Loses 30 lbs. Urges Twitter Fans to Pig Out on Fourth of July!

Whilst on the supermarket checkout line, I noticed the cover of the latest, July 9, 2012, People Magazine that featured Paula Deen (see image below). "How I Lost 30 Lbs!" was the headline. Under the banner announcing PAULA'S GET-SLIM RECIPES, the magazine invites us to learn her "secrets": "After diabetes diagnosis, the southern chef finally changed her lifestyle and her pants style. Her secrets will surprise you!"

Deen is really looking good and I cannot wait to discover her "secrets." But, first, I should note that Deen lost those 30 lbs not immediately after she was diagnosed with diabetes over three years ago, but after she signed on with Novo Nordisk to be their diabetes/Victoza spokesperson (see "Paula Deen & Victoza: Brilliant or Dumb?").

Since then Deen and her sons have been creating recipes for "Diabetes Light," a Victoza-branded web site that features "Recipes from Paula with a Dash of Inspiration" (here).

BTW, Novo should get a more recent photo of Deen than the one it currently uses on the "Diabetes Light" website (shown on right). The current one shows a much heavier-looking Deen prior to her recent weight loss.

I wish Deen luck in keeping her weight loss. I know from personal experience that you can lose 25-30 lbs if you change your diet, but quickly gain it back once you regress to your old ways of eating.

Anyway, Paula's "secrets" include these changes in the way she says she eats:

• Fried chicken reduction. Deen says she eats fried chicken only once a month.
• No key lime pie. She says, “You couldn’t pay me to eat that pie.”
• Potato reduction. She has not cut out eating potatoes, but she has cut down on eating them.
• Eating vegetable from her own garden and creating healthy recipes.
• Butter reduction. She has cut her butter consumption in half.
• Eating Greek salads and baked fish.

Meanwhile, however, Deen has been promoting quite a different menu to her 786,000 Twitter followers:

Are y’all ready for Independence Day? Make sure you fix up one of these recipes for the big day! http://ow.ly/bULkY http://ow.ly/i/JuXN

One look at these carbohydrate-rich recipes on PaulaDeen.com and you understand why Novo is not sponsoring Deen's Twitter account:

• Sausage and Potato Salad
• Chilled Grilled Corn and Watermelon Salad
• Lemonade
• Curry Chicken Salad
• Oven Fried Potato Wedges
• Cheesiest Fried Chicken Empanadas with Chili Con Queso Dip
• Bacon Wrapped Grilled Corn on the Cob
• Watermelon Cooler

I suppose I can eat just one Cheesiest Fried Chicken Empanada with a touch of Chili Con Queso Dip, but how am I supposed to eat just a bit of Bacon Wrapped Grilled Corn on the Cob, which calls for 1 Lb of bacon for 8 ears of corn? That's 2 oz. of bacon (300 calories) per cob, not counting the butter I would likely spread on it!

Pharma Celebrity Multiple Personality Disorder (PCMPD)
In my opinion, this demonstrates what I'd like to call "Pharma Multiple Personality Disorder (PCMPD)" where a celebrity promotes one lifestyle under contract with a pharmaceutical company and then promotes the opposite for other business purposes (eg, as a Food Channel chef).

[Thanks to @Paullikeme from patientslike.com for suggesting MPD -- and not Schizophrenia, as I originally suggested -- as the correct DSM-IV diagnosis.]

The fact that Deen has lost 30 lbs is good news for Novo, which received a lot of criticism for its choice of Deen as a diabetes spokesperson. To date, my little poll (below) suggests that a plurality (if not a majority) of people believe the Novo Nordisk deal with Paula Deen was a "Dumb" idea from a marketing perspective. Many people who were unsure may now think it wasn't such a dumb idea after all. What do you think?

From a marketing perspective, is the Novo Nordisk deal with Paula Deen Brilliant or Dumb?
	Brilliant!
	Dumb!
	It remains to be seen.

Meanwhile, I invite you to listen to this conversation with Ambre Morley, Associate Director, Product Communications, Novo Nordisk, about why her company teamed up with celebrity chef Paula Deen as a spokesperson for type 2 diabetes treatment:

Listen to internet radio with Pharmaguy on Blog Talk Radio

Is Deen Positioning Herself as a Potential CHANTIX Spokesperson?
I just picked up a copy of People magazine and learned that "Paula's Next Challenge: [is] Quitting Smoking." She says she "thinks about quitting every day...My husband has quit for over a year now. Maybe one day I'll be ready. I pray that I will," said Deen.

If past experience is any guide, Deen will be "ready to quit" as soon as she closes a deal with Pfizer to be its CHANTIX celebrity spokesperson!

Pfizer's Social Media Initiatives are Getting Old

Pfizer's Social Media Initiatives are Getting Old

On June 18, 2012, Pfizer launched "Get Old," a multi-year initiative supported by nearly a dozen advocacy organizations. Why? According to Pfizer, it is part of Pfizer’s mission to improve the health and well-being of people at every stage of life," not to mention that Pfizer -- like many other drug companies -- is actively working on drugs to treat Alzheimer's Disease. That goal may indeed be a multi-year endeavor. Institutional investors doubt that treatments for Alzheimer's disease being developed by Pfizer (and Lilly) will "achieve the main goals of their ongoing late-stage trials" (see "Survey shows dim faith in Lilly, Pfizer Alzheimer's drugs").

Clinical research doubts aside, Pfizer is obviously courting advocacy groups, which include Alzheimer’s Association, Easter Seals, International Longevity Center at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, Men’s Health Network, National Alliance for Caregiving, National Black Nurses Association, National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, National Consumers League, National Family Caregivers Association, Patient Advocate Foundation, Society for Women’s Health Research, Visiting Nurse Associations of America, and WomenHeart: The National Coalition for Women with Heart Disease. This kind of advocacy activity typically is part of prelaunch "marketing" campaigns.

At the center of the "Get Old" initiative is a "first-of-its-kind online community," GetOld.com, where people can "get and share information, add to the dialogue and contribute to the growing body of knowledge about this important topic," according to the Pfizer press release (here).

Of course, being near the age of the target demographic for Alzheimer's Disease, I decided to check out the web site. Here's what the site looks like today (click on image for an enlarged view):

The site allows registered visitors -- including me -- to "Share your thoughts and experiences about getting old." You can post links, videos, photos, or stories (including comments up to 1000 characters) to the site. You can even submit comments to other posts and "Like," tweet, or email comments. Every comment submitted appears to be reviewed before being uploaded - a process that Pfizer says should be completed within 48 hours.

As usual, I tested the system - specifically the ability to upload a photo and submit comments. I decided to upload an old photo of myself when I was 22-25 years old and add some nice comment about what I may have been thinking at that age about growing old. When you "share thoughts" (i.e., create a "sticky") you can check off how you currently feel about getting old: Optimistic (blue), Angry (red), Prepared (green), or Uneasy (orange). The posting boxes for Prepared and Uneasy are shown in the graphic below (click to enlarge to actual size):

My comment, for the record was: "This is me at about 22-25 years old. At the time, I did not worry about getting old because I was more worried I'd get killed in combat in Vietnam. Today, some young people have similar worries, but added to that, are worries about finding a job - even when they do come home from combat!"

Even if you do click on the above images to get full-sized views, you might have trouble reading what's on the screen. This can be best illustrated in the "Thank You" box displayed after creating a "sticky":

The above screen shot is ACTUAL SIZE. I don't know about you, but I found this IMPOSSIBLE to read because the contrast is TOO LOW! I feel "Angry" about this and I am sure most people older and younger than I feel the same. Did Pfizer test this site with real people before launching? I seriously doubt it. If they did, they probably didn't take the advice of their focus groups, but took the word of the interactive agency that created the site that it was "cool" with nice subtle colors!

UPDATE (20 Jul 2012): Yesterday, Pfizer announced at a conference in NYC that it relaunched the site with a number of improvements, including increasing the font size (somewhat). Pfizer also made some improvements in the contrast area, "where we had some challenges," said Robert Libbey (@bob_libbey), Snr Dir, Global Colleague Communications, Pfizer. "We're working on more improvements to draw more users in a user-friendly way," said Libbey. The new "Thank You" screen shown below illustrates the improvements in readability:

Most of the "sticky" boxes currently on the site are blue or green ("Optimistic" or "Prepared," respectively). That's because they are mostly sticky stuff posted by Pfizer -- including "Editorial Desk," "Pfizer Colleague," or one of the Pfizer partners mentioned above.

I did find a few posts that appear to come from ordinary people like "Desi1612," supposedly a "prepared" 63-year old male. He said: "I am truly loving growing up, some say "finally". I appreciate all I have done more and all I have much more. I do not worry about the future, what is - is, so bring it on and I will find a way to embrace and enjoy it" to which I responded with my own comment: "Thanks for sharing your thoughts."

NOTE: The site also includes YouTube videos posted by Pfizer such as the one titled "I'm Older Than You" (find it here). It's interesting that I can post comments to this video on the Pfizer "Get Old" site -- where Pfizer can pre-moderate and block comments before they are uploaded -- whereas I cannot post comments to the same video on Pfizer's YouTube page where "Comments are disabled for this video." Why would Pfizer allow comments on one "channel" and not the other? It is, I believe, possible to enable comment moderation for YouTube videos (see here, for example). Could it be that Pfizer does not have the FTEs to handle many comments likely to come through YouTube vs. the trickle of comments that come through its own Website?

Speaking of the colors to represent how people feel... I suppose this site is meant ONLY for U.S. audiences because colors are very culturally charged. Red, for example, may be an appropriate color to represent "Angry" for U.S. audiences, but for Asian people it means "happy happy happy!' (hence, traditionally Asian women wear red wedding dresses). I've been told that there currently are more Chinese Internet users than U.S. users. Maybe Pfizer has different "Get Old" sites for different countries such as China or maybe the site is banned in China altogether!

There are components of Pfizr's initiative other than the web site. Research Pfizer commissioned as part of the Get Old initiative asked more than 1,000 Americans (I guess it IS all abou US after all!), who are 18 to 65+ years old, about how they feel about getting old. See this infographic for a summary of some results of that survey.

UPDATE (1 July 2011): My post was accepted. In a field of greens and blues, my orange ("Uneasy") sticky stands out!

UPDATE (6 July 2011): When looking for my post today, I couldn't find it. I posted a notice to Pfizer's GetOld FB page (here) and also Tweeted about it to @pfizer_news, who suggested I contact them by email at GetOldInfo@pfizer.com. Within a couple of hours, I got a response:

Hi John:
Thank you for contacting us! While we do not delete posts, the content presented in the “jumble view” is determined by date-submitted – so as time goes by any given post is less likely to appear as new submissions are being received daily. We have provided the steps for viewing your sticky below. We appreciate your patience and apologize for any inconvenience.
Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.
Kind regards,
The Get Old web team

I followed the instructions and was able to find my post. Essentially, you have to log in, select your age and gender, and then enter your screen name in the search box. I guess I got my 15 minutes of fame. Who can ask for more than that? I apologize for wasting Pfizer's time on such trivia, but it's good to know that there is someone behind the scenes helping.

Pharma Engages Patients in Real World, Not via Social Media

Pharma Engages Patients in Real World, Not via Social Media

Some pharma pundits -- mostly consultants who want more pharma clients -- see great potential for pharma to use social media such as Twitter and Facebook to "engage" consumers and patients.

Yet, pharma is lagging behind other industries in its use of social media for engaging customers (see chart below). That's one takeaway of a benchmarking survey conducted by IBM in early 2011. The survey polled eight hundred sales and marketing managers (including 88 from pharma companies) who, provided information about their organizations' key practices and performance indicators. You can find the full survey report here.

Why is this?

Most people will claim that FDA regulations and lack of guidance are the main culprits. Keep in mind, however, that FDA regulates only branded communications between pharma and consumers or physicians. There are plenty of ways that pharma can use social media to engage without mentioning brands. See, for example, "Supporting Patients via Twitter and Beyond" in this month's Pharma Marketing News (subscription required).

So why isn't pharma doing more t o"engage" consumers via non-branded social media?

I think it's because pharma has a long tradition of engaging their clients (patients and physicians) the old-fashioned way - in person. Obviously, pharma sales reps have always engaged physicians through personal contact. It's only recently that this kind of activity has been scaled back.  Some of the pundits I refer to above would say that's because of the ascendancy of "non-personal" (ie, digital) promtion (see, for example, "Building the 'New' Pharma Physician Marketing Model" (pdf; no subscription required).

But a lot of the scaling back of sales reps in the field is due to the fact that there were TOO MANY sales reps calling on the same doctors promoting the same products. Many physicians have grown weary of that practice (sales "pods") and put limits on when sales reps can see them (see "Are Sales Reps Necessary?").

What about consumer/patient engagement?

Pharma also has a long tradition of engaging patients in the REAL world such as through support of patient advocacy groups and disease awareness campaigns. Pharma uses Twitter to promote these activities. An example is this one from @GSKUS: "Nearly 100 #GSKvolunteers embark on life changing assignments to*build healthy communities all over the world.**http://t.co/FloiUmmi*"

So, social media is often used by pharma to promote its real-world engagement with patients and consumers. But social media is used for promotion -- one-way communication  -- not for two-way engagement.

Personally, I think this is a good use of social media by pharma. But it's not going to bring a lot of business to consultants who want to do more engagement exclusively via social media (i.e., "non-personal engagement").

Drug Ads & Coupons: Who's the Decider? The Patient, the Physician, or the FDA?

Drug Ads & Coupons: Who's the Decider? The Patient, the Physician, or the FDA?

The FDA is concerned that the use of sales promotions such as free trial offers, discounts, money-back guarantees, and rebates in direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug ads "artificially enhance consumers' perceptions of the product's quality" while also resulting in an "unbalanced or misleading impression of the product's safety." To test whether or not this is true, the FDA will soon start yet another study focused on Rx print ads: "Effect of Promotional Offers in Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Print Advertisements on Consumer Product Perceptions" (see Federal Register Notice archived here).

[I recently posted about another planned FDA study to determine if disease awareness information in branded ads confuses consumers. See FDA Concerned About Product (eg, Lyrica) Ads That are Too "Educational"]

The history of this study is long and mysterious. I first blogged about it 2006; read "FDA, Coupons, and Sleep Aid DTC Ads." Shortly after that the Federal Register notice regarding the study was "yanked" (see "FDA Backs Down on Coupon Study"). Also, the Advertising Age and Wall Street Journal articles cited in those posts can no longer be found in the archives.

In September, 2011, however, the proposed study re-emerged in the Federal Register (here). Whatever happened between 2006 and 2011 is anybody's guess, but I assume that the Bush era FDA leaders axed the proposed study when they learned of it. By September, 2011, these people were on the way out and the door was open again to propose the study anew.

Anyhoo, I want to focus here on comments that PhRMA made in response to the proposal. Alexander Gaffney (@AlecGaffney), Health wonk and writer of news for @RAPSorg, summarized the general attitude of PhRMA (see "US Regulators Move Ahead With Planned Study on DTC Marketing"):

In its statement to FDA, PhRMA wrote it was “concerned that the study, as currently envisioned, will not yield information that is relevant to FDA’s regulatory responsibilities to ensure that DTC advertising is truthful, accurate and balanced.”

“Although the study may provide interesting information about the effect of promotional offers on consumer attitudes toward a brand,” explained PhRMA, “it likely will provide little information on whether promotional offers create or contribute to false or misleading advertising, particularly under real-world circumstances or whether additional regulatory requirements are warranted.”

PhRMA: The Physician is the Decider
I dug a little deeper into PhRMA comments (here) and was surprised to learn that PhRMA's position is that "it is the physician, not the patient (my emphasis), who ultimately must decide whether the benefits of the advertised drug outweigh its risks for any particular patient." Thus, says PhRMA, "the risks of 'misperceptions' ... should be even lower [PhRMA's emphasis] for prescription drugs than for experience goods [i.e., a product or service where product characteristics, such as quality or price are difficult to observe in advance, but these characteristics can be ascertained upon consumption] because any potential misperception, of necessity, will be quickly corrected prior to use through consultation with the patient's treating physician."

This is a very paternalistic POV in this day and age of social media and patient empowerment. Actually, it is the old "learned intermediary" defense that the drug industry often raises (in the past, less so these days) to shield itself from blame when things go wrong.

FDA must respond to comments submitted, but I couldn't find a direct response to PhRMA's comments cited above. I did find, however, the following comments and FDA's response that addressed the issue of the patient-physician relationship generally:

(Comment 22) Two comments mentioned that the study does not assess how consumer perceptions of product risks and benefits are translated into a discussion with their health care provider. One comment stated that because these products can only be purchased after a discussion with a health care provider, the study be redesigned so that consumer perceptions are measured after a discussion with a health care provider.

(Response) We concur that this study does not address behaviors, such as how ad perceptions are translated into a discussion with a health care provider. As noted previously, one purpose of DTC advertising is to motivate consumers to engage in a discussion with their health care provider about health concerns. Another purpose, supported by research findings (Refs. 20 and 21), is to increase awareness of available treatments. DTC advertising does not exist solely in the confines of a doctor's office; rather, DTC advertising targets consumers outside of a doctor's office, with the goal of prompting consumers to ask their physicians about the product. In deciding whether or not to discuss a particular product with their health care provider, consumers presumably are engaging in some sort of judgment about the product being promoted. Therefore, clear communication of risks and benefits is needed for consumers before a consultation with a physician, and it is valid to measure these impressions.