Thursday, October 02, 2014

Die-Hard Pharma Rx Brand Marketers Should Get Out of the Social Media Game

I received several interesting comments to most post on LinkedIn regarding the pharma industry's reaction to FDA's recent "Guidance for Industry Internet/Social Media Platforms with Character Space Limitations."

In that post (here), I said the FDA has been the butt of jokes on pundit blogs (e.g., here on Pharma Marketing Blog) and also behind "closed doors" at industry conferences. In particular, the agency was criticized for not being technically savvy enough to understand the nuances of social media and search engine advertising.

Two examples of FDA's lack of social media savvy are:

(1) the Agency did not understand how Google site links work and its example of an acceptable site link enabled AdWord could actually violate its own guidelines (see "Don't Follow FDA Guidance on Use of Google Adword Site Links"), and

(2) the Agency did not take into consideration mobile platforms in its guidance even though, as everyone else knows, mobile is probably the most popular way that consumers access Twitter, Facebook, and other social media "platforms."

A few of the comments to my LinkedIn post surprised me.

Wednesday, October 01, 2014

Oh Yeah, Baby! Show Me More!... Viagra TV Ads Like This. But Don't Let My FDA See It!

Wowie zowie! Is that a roll of dimes quarters in my pocket or am I just excited to see this new Viagra DTC TV ad that features what could be a MILF?


I pity the man who can't get an erection carousing with this woman in a beach resort or even watching her on TV lounging around the beach resort telling you that "plenty of guys" have "this issue"; i.e., getting and maintaining an erection.

Oh, Yeah! Well. I'm NOT having an issue right now!

Of course, this Viagra ad reneges on Pfizer's pledge back in 2005 to focus more on disease awareness in its DTC advertising. But (1) Pfizer withdrew that pledge (see here), and (2) this ad, IMHO, has sufficient redeeming prurient value to make us forget all about stuff like checking my blood pressure, etc. as a potential cause of ED.

But there's a fly in the ointment (not that I use the stuff). I think FDA will find problems with this ad.

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Have Hefty DOJ Fines Made Pharma Marketers More Compliant with FDA Regulations?

Dale Cooke (@PhillyCooke on Twitter) live tweeted from the FDLI's Advertising and Promotion Conference yesterday and asked the question:

"Do # of violation letters (low) reflect incr compliance or diff emphasis? #AdPromoFDLI"

In other words, is the number of warning letters low because pharmaceutical marketers have learned to be more compliant with FDA regulations or is there some other reason? I suggested it was due to the dearth of newly-approved drugs, but Cooke reminded me that so far this year the FDA has approved as many drugs as it did for all of 2013.

Anyway, to test my hypothesis, I plotted the number of letters vs. the number of newly approved drugs from 1997 through 2014 (to date):


Is there a correlation?

Monday, September 29, 2014

FDA's Jean-ah Kang Says Google Black Box Ad Format is OK. But Is It "Patient-Centric?"

Jean-ah Kang, Special Assitant to the Director Tom Abrams), Office of Prescription Drug Promotion (OPDP), FDA, has "officially" said that Google's Black Box Ad Format was "OK" as long as it was one click away from the package insert (PI). She gave her blessing at FDLI's Advertising and Promotion Conference today in Washington, D.C.

First, let's look at a mockup of the ad format we are talking about:

Google's Black Box Ad Format. Click on image for an enlarged view.
"Black Box" refers to the special warning about major side effects -- often death -- that certain drug package inserts are required to display prominently in a black box. Learn more about the Black Box Warning in the Pharma Marketing Glossary (here).

Recall that Google presented this format to the FDA at the November, 2009 public hearings (see here) and at least one pharma company -- Bayer -- actually ran an ad using this format (see here).

This format is only "OK" for reminder ads, which do not mention product benefits. Hence, in this case, a version of the "one-click rule" is sanctioned (the PI is just one click away).

There are few things I don't like about this format.

Correcting Misinformation: Eliminate the "Influence Prong," Says Pharma Industry

"It is difficult to envision a scenario in which a manufacturer’s participation in an interactive online or social media forum would not meet the low bar established by the Draft Guidance," says the Medical Information Working Group (MIWG) -- a consortium of medical product manufacturers -- in comments submitted to the FDA regarding the Agency's recent guidance on correcting misinformation about drugs and devices on 3rd-party social media sites. The "bar" MIWG is talking about is the bar that determines when a drug company has "influence" over the content of the site.

PhRMA, the drug industry trade group, refers to the "nebulousness" of the term, suggests that FDA "eliminate the 'influence' test," and adds this recommendation for ensuring an adequate "safe harbor" for correcting misinformation:
"PhRMA recommends that FDA will provide an adequate safe harbor for companies to correct misinformation about medicines online by expanding the scope of the Draft Guidance through elimination of the 'influenced' prong of FDA‘s definition of applicable communication. As discussed below, the term 'influenced,' when used to limit the proposed safe harbor for the correction of misinformation, is both vague and over broad."
Yep, PhRMA used the word "prong!" The devil is in the details.

Sunday, September 28, 2014

"Wikipedia is an Insane Place" - Pharma Should Be Wary About Correcting "Misinformation"

I've just finished reading the comments submitted to the docket regarding FDA's recent draft guidelines for correcting third-party "misinformation" on Internet/social media platforms such as Wikipedia.

The comment submitted by Eric Barbour, a moderator of Wikipediocracy (wikipediocracy.com), a website dedicated to criticizing Wikipedia, immediately grabbed my attention. Barbour did not mince his words of condemnation of Wikipedia:

"Wikipedia is an insane place, and it cannot be handled or used as if sane people administer it."

As evidence of that, I offer the image above left of Wikipedian Kevin Gorman, formerly known as "Wiki-Gnome."

I learned of Gorman from a presentation by Siva Nadarajah, General Manager – Social Media @IMSHealth, who spoke at CBI's recent "Social Media Compliance Strategies & Benchmarking Summit," which I chaired in Philadelphia. His slide presentation linked to a Youtube interview of Gorman (here).

But I digress. Aside from belittling the sanity of Wikipedians, Barbour had this piece of advice for the pharmaceutical industry:

"Any drug or medical company that openly follows the proposed FDA guideline will quickly find their accounts banned and their changes reverted. And the FDA will ultimately look foolish."

That's because of Wikipedia's "Bright Line" rule, which is taken as "gospel" by many Wikipedians. What is the "Bright Line" rule?

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...