10 Things I Hated (and Loved) about the ePharma Summit

I did not attend the ePharma Summit today -- I just had too much work to do here in the office taking care of business. Besides, one day was enough for me to meet old and new friends, which is what I love about ePharma Summit and other industry conferences. Unfortunately, there are some things that I hate. Let me elaborate in no particular order.

#1: Yesterday, before driving down to Philly, I ranted how much I loved how the folks who are running this conference promoted it and are keeping us informed about the conference and ePharma marketing issues in general (see "ePharma Summit: Practicing What's Being Preached!").

#2: The number one thing I hated was how panel "moderator" Robert Goldberg -- co-founder, Vice President and Director of Programs for Center for Medicine in the Public Interest and blogger at DrugWonks -- attempted to hijack the panel discussion on "Driving Policy/Guidelines Around the Use of Social Media in Pharma."

By way of introducing the panel, Goldberg started by saying we should excuse his craziness because he hadn't had his coffee that morning. He then went on a conservative rant that had many attendees scratching their heads and wondering if, in lieu of coffee, he imbibed or smoked something more powerful on his Accela train ride up from Washington, DC (or wherever).

Goldberg ranted on about Congress approving $1.1 billion for comparative effectiveness studies and other such anti-government issues that had absolutely NOTHING to do with what the panel was going to discuss! He had the bully pulpit and he used it to HIS advantage, not ours. Bob is like that. For example, he used Ted Kennedy's illness to attack the "liberal healthcare agenda" (see "HOW 'LIBERAL' CARE WOULD KILL TED"). Not once in that article did he have any kind words of comfort for Kennedy or his family!

#3: The number one thing I loved about this conference was the network of people I met there. Unfortunately, there were few pharma people in attendance, although I did meet a couple of J&J people, including Peter Justason, Director, Global Marketing Group, and Marc Monseau, Director, Media Relations and JNJBTW blogger (Marc -- why is your facebook image a photo of a mouse?). If it wasn't for J&J, Pharma's presence in social media would be practically nil!

Speaking of J&J's use of social media, Peter introduced me to Bill Sickles, Head of Healthcare at Google. Bill was the person responsible for spearheading J&J's Youtube launch. I hope to have him -- and maybe Peter as well -- as a guest on my Pharma Marketing Talk show as part of the ePharma Pioneer series of interviews.

I also met Bill Evans, Senior VP, Digital, at Fleishman Hillard, who is interested in working with me to delve into case studies of successful ePharma programs -- something that his colleague, Mark Senak, has been doing on his blog (Eye on FDA).

I finally met Wendy Blackburn, blogger at ePharma Rx and contributing author to Pharma Marketing News (see "Measuring & Communicating eSuccess," PMN Reprint #79-03).

Those were some of the "new" (to me) people I met. Of course, I also met a number of "old" friends including James Chase, Editor, MM&M (we dissed our competition), RJ Lewis, CEO, eHeathcare Solutions (who told me all about go-carting at 60 mph in south New Jersey -- the closest he or I may come to Le Mans), Mark Bard, President, Manhattan Research (we talked how to keep ahead of dopplegangers in Google searches on our names, something he seems fond of doing), Mark Gleason, Sr. Vice President, Aptilon Holdings, who admitted to not having a facebook page (!), Jack Barrette, CEO, WEGO Health, who will be my guest this Thursday on Pharma Marketing Talk.

#4: I hate how at these conferences we always talk about the same thing -- why pharma doesn't pay more attention to (and spend more money) on "e" and how far behind other industries it is in this regard. There's a divergence of opinion on this topic. Some want to see the glass half full -- or at least more full than the naysayers see it. Paul Ivans, conference co-chair, thinks the "e" slice of the pharma marketing pie is "much greater" than the 3%, which is based on measured media spends (even that low number is often misquoted higher than it actually is; see here). He cited search as one of the unmeasured media spends and the fact that some brands devote MUCH MORE to "e" than other brands. All true, but when compared to other industries, we are comparing apples to apples -- ie, measured media spends, and pharma is still lagging (see here for more on that).

If the ROI of "e" promotion is about 4-5 (ie, $4-5 dollars returned on every dollar spent) compared to 1-2 for broadcast TV DTC advertising, why are we even having these conferences? That was a question posed to John Mangano, Senior Director, Comscore after his presented his ROI analysis of a de-identified case study. I have to wonder at the veracity of those ROI numbers. As much as I like Comscore, I've seen the exact same dog and pony show before, which is another thing I hate about these "e" conferences.

#5: As I just said, I hate the "dog and pony" presentations that are meant primarily to promote your business. Aside from the fact that this is like preaching to the choir, it really contributes nothing to the conversation. Maybe it's something we can use to entice more "e" marketing bucks out of pharma product managers, but it doesn't get to the core of the problem. What would have been more exciting would have been a discussion about how to measure the effectiveness of social network marketing, which everyone wants pharma to engage in. This was the gist of a question from the audience. ComScore, unfortunately, does not measure that. I'll be addressing that problem in my Pharma Marketing Talk discussion with Fabio Gratton (see "How To Measure Social Network Communications Success").

#6: [Left intentionally blank for you to fill in -- see comments.]

#7: [Left intentionally blank for you to fill in -- see comments.]

#8: I hate that coffee was very hard to get at lunch and impossible during the afternoon break. I tweeted (twittered?) about that during the conference after James Chase and I wandered around searching for caffeine. If it wasn't for Grad Conn, Snr Director, Product Marketing, Microsoft Health, who cracked us up with his humor, I would have fallen asleep near the end -- if fact I DID fall asleep. Hope I wasn't snoring!

#9: Speaking of Twitter, I love that a lot of us were posting messages from our cell phones during the conference. I was wondering if any of the panel members picked up my tweet about Goldberg ranting while they were sitting there nervously waiting for him to turn the mike over to them? My tweet about the coffee issue may have been unwarranted -- Allison noted that "We've already had a great coffee hour and got a chance to meet a few of our fellow attendees--great coffee, too!" Obviously, I missed that. My bad.

#10: Summarizing Microsoft's efforts to build a personal health data repository, I loved it when Grad Conn simply said, "It's really hard and it's going to take a long time!" That about sums up pharma's path to mastering social media marketing.

ePharma Summit: Practicing What's Being Preached!

After 4 days of R&R down in Miami, FL, I am back tending to my flock (of social networks, blogs, clients, subscribers) and trying to get back in the groove. Unfortunately, I lost my glasses on a Miami Metrobus and I have to put my face against the screen to write this!

But I am happy to see that the folks who have organized the ePharma Summit,which is being held today and tomorrow in Philadelphia, are practicing what they preach by using social media tools to keep me informed about the conference. That's good because I may not be able to attend today's session -- I will be busy catching up and getting new specs! But I hope to attend tomorrow.

NOTE: Pharma Marketing News -- the e-newsletter I publish -- is a Media Partner for this event and has been paid to promote the event. This post, however, is not a paid ad.

This morning the "ePharma Summit Team" (aka Allison Rigels and Amy Xu, Institute for International Research) sent me an e-mail update summarizing who will be presenting. That in itself is more than I have seen many other industry conference organizers do. But the ePharma Summit people are and have been doing much more.

"We’re excited to be kicking of this year’s conference with new features; combining live blogging and Twittering for you to track the event live!" said the Team. "We’ll also be posting several interviews taken throughout the day introducing you to some of the industry leaders and companies who are hear today. If you aren’t in Philadelphia, stay tuned to the ePharma Summit Blog and ePharma Summit Twitter to follow details about the latest presentation at the event. On the ePharma Summit webpage, you can check for the latest video and photos of today’s presentations and exclusive interviews with the speakers."

Even before the conference, Allison et al have employed various social media networks to keep us informed not only about the conference, but about ePharma marketing in general. They've done that through the blog as well as a Facebook Group and LinkedIn Group that you can join.

As a Media Partner, I helped Allison and the ePharma Summit Team by posting their Blog's RSS feed to a special Pharma Marketing Network Forum dedicated to that feed. The summary of and link to each post made to the ePharma Summit Blog is a separate discussion thread (post) within this forum. These summaries have been very popular with the 4,000 or so daily visitors to the Pharma Marketing Forums site. As of February 1, 2009, there were 97 posts made to that forum and a total of 9,869 views!

I think every pharma industry conference organizer and marketer should follow the ePharma Summit strategy of getting involved with social media marketing to promote their conferences and keep their attendees informed during and AFTER the conference. It may not be appropriate for ALL conferences, but it especially useful for recurring conferences like the ePharma Summit, which has good brand recognition.

It's hard work keeping your social marketing efforts going and the ePharma Summit people have now become so experienced with new media marketing that I would not be surprised to learn that some smart pharmaceutical company asked their advice on how to do it.

I wonder how many agencies that promote social media marketing to their pharmaceutical clients have actually practiced what THEY preach?

Your Fortune: "Marketer Without Network Like Beached Whale"

Another Friday and another installment of the "Bob & John" show; ie, Bob Ehrlich (DTC Perspectives) and me, John Mack (Pharma Marketing News) debate another issue, blogo-a-blogo!

Today, however, I am in total agreement with Bob's post about "The Disappearing Corporate Career Path." I addressed this also in the January issue of Pharma Marketing News (see "Is There Life After Pharma?").

"Today, no marketer should expect to be rewarded with a steady one company career," said Ehrlich (see here). "The days of your company taking care of your future have been on the decline for more than a decade. After this economic meltdown, they are now officially over. Contacts are now king. Get out of your office and develop them before the grim reaper finds you at your desk. A marketer laid off without a network is going to face a long time collecting unemployment."

I agree with Bob 100% on the value of networking, which has always been an important part of my business plan. In 1997 I started with the PHRMA-MKTING listserv. That e-mail listserv has now been replaced by the web-based Pharma Marketing Forums.

Like Ehrlich, I urge pharma marketers to get out there and network. You can also write articles for trade publications -- including Pharma Marketing News (see Author Guidelines) -- and attend conferences.

As the editor of Pharma Marketing News, I get complimentary press passes to practically every industry conference. If you can write and wish to attend one of these conferences (see a Conference Calendar here), contact me (johnmack@pharmamarketingblog.com) or download the PMN Stringer Agreement.

There are over 1,000 Pharma Marketing Forum members and hundreds of posts. As a pharmaceutical marketer you should respond to or start conversations in one of the many forums there that match your area of interest. Demonstrate your knowledge, develop a public profile and a reputation on this site, which gets over 3,500 unique visitors every day. In fact, right now, there are over 140 people visiting the site. One of them might be a future partner or employer or someone who can help you get off the beach!

Good luck!

Pharma: Earn Back Your Trust Before Hell Freezes Over

Yesterday, I posted comments made by Pfizer's global PR chief, Ray Kerins, who asked "How in the hell do we [the pharmaceutical industry] have such a bad reputation?" (see here).

His "core strategy" for improving Pfizer's reputation and model for other pharmaceutical companies is to "engage and educate" more journalists more often.

It's not Kerins' fault that he sees better PR as the solution to Pharma's image problem -- he is, after all, "PR chief" (AdAge's moniker, not mine). Hell may well freeze over, however, before the PR-only strategy works.

The industry, like the economy, needs more than cheerleading PR to regain the trust of consumers and physicians. I included some suggestions for real actions pharmaceutical companies can take to improve their image and I received other suggestions from commenters to my post and from S&R Blog, which I just discovered.

Kim D. Slocum, who has worked in the biopharma industry for over three decades and now is “retired” but doing consulting work for the industry, said this:

"The industry's problem is equal parts 'image' and 'business practices.' Both are going to have to be addressed and the latter probably has to precede the former. Sales & marketing models (with the ongoing set of fairly ugly revelations that appear in the press on a regular basis) have to change dramatically. It's hard to have a good image when many of the major firms in the business are or recently have been operating under Federal Corporate Compliance Agreements.

"The industry's salvation probably lies at least partly in the one thing folks are running away from as fast as possible--comparative effectiveness review. That process done well (with industry help on how to analyze data properly) could at one stroke reduce patient co-pays, thereby eliminating the out-of-pocket optics problem. It would also cut the need to spend 20%-30% of revenues on promotion by a significant amount as well, thereby ameliorating another big image issue. That might actually offer up the possibility of improving profitability while also improving the public perception of the industry.

"Finally, industry needs to be paying a good deal more attention to the bigger environmental & policy issues that can have such a large effect on business conditions. In part, industry got into this mess because it largely ignored things like multi-tier co-pay models (which simultaneously raised patients' out of pocket spending on pharmaceuticals and their ire at the industry) until the process was well advanced. This game is now about to get replayed in the specialty Rx arena and the fallout will be considerable.

"Industry can't simply invent its way out of these problems, as much as it might like to. However, by understanding its channel partners (such as employers, CMS, and health plans) and working with them more collaboratively, it can probably get to an equitable solution for all concerned. That would do more to enhance the image of the research-based firms than just about anything else."

Kim, I believe, was on the R&D side of the business before he retired, which may explain his views on the commercial side of the business. “Sales & marketing is the single biggest budget block on any firm's income statement," he told me. "DTC [direct-to-consumer advertising] is now a big line item, the ROI is questionable and it draws a lot of political fire," he added (see "The Future of DTC Advertising," Pharma Marketing News, REPRINT#81-01).

Don Schindler, another commenter and a digital marketing strategist, also mentioned promotion as a problem:

"Drug companies (to me) are a lot like the oil companies. Even though they are doing tons and tons of research, people and media focus on their profit. You profit in good times and bad times by having a necessity with a healthy margin.

"They also spend a ton on push DTC TV marketing. The constant 'screaming' about the population's disease problems is really, really depressing. ED, depression, anxiety. Just because you have the money doesn't mean you need to burn it openly and ignoring my actual needs.

"I'm working with my first pharma client and I'm surprised by the regulations that keep pharma companies from connecting with their consumers (FDA regs). Pharma companies (health in general) is so open until it comes to drugs. Then everything is behind iron curtains. The FDA seriously needs to reconsider this. It is effecting the drug company's reputation the most.

"Stop beating me up with interruptive advertising (calling it awareness) and start engaging me when I need you - with online education and my doctor's CME."

I am not sure what Don meant about "iron curtains," but it could have something to do with hiding negative clinical trial data from the public and from physicians. His comment on "interruption" vs engagement "when needed" is interesting and is good advice for Pharma PR people as well.

Speaking of interruption and physicians, I found this post ("It’s Time To Earn Back The Trust – Part 1 — The Sales Representative") on the S&R Blog:

"After 37 years in the pharmaceutical business I can finally say that I am embarrassed by the industry that once gave me great pride, confidence and a feeling of really contributing to the good of society. Yes, the pharmaceutical industry has contributed to our overall well being with amazing innovation, life-saving therapies, improvement in our lives, longer life and immense cost savings. But a great deal of formerly well-deserved respect for this industry has evaporated as it has lost the trust of its most important customer – the physician. How do I come to that conclusion? I listen, I read, and I watch.

"Our industry has lost much of its clout by marginalizing its greatest asset: its sales force. The pharmaceutical detail rep was once regarded as a valuable, credible source of information. Physicians looked to the “detail man” for information about new and existing products, insights into how these products were most effectively used, and the presentation of clinical data that supported the efficacy and safety of any given product.

"Yet over the course of 15-20 years, the 'detail man/woman' has lost the shine and presence that once existed. Fewer and fewer physicians will now see pharmaceutical representatives. Yes, that is often because of increased demands upon their time, but also because many physicians now find the representatives less informative, less trustworthy, and less engaging. Many physicians look at sales reps as mere 'lunch delivery' people. How did this happen?

"It happened for a number of reasons. A recent conversation with a group of physicians indicated that the sales reps no longer brought anything of value to the discussion. And this is something I have heard, read, and watched for the last 5 years. According to this group of physicians, reps typically had watered-down sales presentations, used poorly designed sales materials, and spouted 'robot-like' information that centered only on what the company wanted the physician to know.

"Another reason often mentioned is that today’s sales representatives are not very knowledgeable about the products they sell, much less the diseases that these products are supposed to treat. Many physicians have stated that it is hard to believe a sales presentation when the rep simply does not understand the disease, its processes and the pharmacology of how a given product acts.

"Adding further fuel to the discussion is a continuing suspicion that the pharma companies are not totally coming clean with their data. Reps are simply repeating the 'good' data but will not discuss the fair balance and sometimes negative data that often comes years after the product has been released. This nagging suspicion has brought many physicians to the level where they simply don’t trust anything that the company says, be it the sales representative, promotional materials, even educational presentations.

"So, amongst all this skepticism, how might the industry proceed to reinstall the trust, confidence and relationships that were once so welcome?

"First, retool the sales force. Make reps knowledgeable by providing high quality levels of training on disease state, pharmacology, and the products that these reps are asked to sell. This also means that reps need to understand their competition as well as they do their own product to be able to effectively differentiate their product where possible.

"Second, provide sales reps with effective and efficient sales presentation skills. It’s not just about the presentation of product information. It’s also about listening, hearing, and understanding the physicians’ concerns and recognizing that your product can’t be everything to every patient. Understand the product’s limits and speak about them honestly.

"Third, stop scrubbing data. Present the real data, the real truth and make sure that the physician truly understands the appropriate types of patients and conditions that best suit the use of your product. This is a critical factor in bringing back the trust and credibility.

"Finally, help the sales reps build relationships with their physicians. Provide them not only with the real product and disease information that they can share, but also provide them with the tools and services that make the physician’s office life easier – e.g. reliable, unbiased patient information; real and balanced educational opportunities; a sales rep with personality and common sense.

"The industry will only regain a presence and place at the table by providing highly qualified and knowledgeable sales reps. That is the first piece of the trust puzzle. More to come later!"

I don't know who the poster is, but he/she also makes a point about transparency (ie, "not totally coming clean with their data"). I can't wait to read Part II!

So, we've discussed Pharma's image as it relates to both consumers and physicians and some ideas on how the industry must CHANGE -- not just TALK -- to address the problem. I welcome your comments and suggestions.

You can respond to the online
How to Earn Back the Public's Trust Before Hell Freezes Over Survey!

Pfizer's PR Chief: "How in the hell do we have such a bad reputation?"

Over the past 20 months, Pfizer's global PR chief, Ray Kerins re-organized the company's press relations office to "manage" journalists, according to this 3-minute Ad Age video. [Hat tip to PharmaGossip.]

"I blame myself and those of us in the industry for the bad reputation that the pharmaceutical industry has," said Kerins during a conference presentation.

Kerins finds it incredible that despite making products designed to save lives and cure diseases, the drug industry enjoys such low esteem among the public. "How in the hell do we have such a bad reputation?" was his way of expressing it. "It makes no sense."

Well, he doesn't answer that question directly -- at least not in this short video clip -- although he blames pharma PR people for not wining and dining journalists enough, which is traditionally what PR is all about.

"Our core strategy," Kerins says, is "engage and educate," which can be loosely translated to "free lunch and schmooze," the same strategy that has worked so well in marketing to physicians.

"In fact," Kerins said, "we are hosting a lunch with the communications team for Linda Johnson, who is one of the top health care folks at the Associated Press. She's outstanding, she's brilliant, we love her to death." Jeez, get a room already!

I don't know much about Linda Johnson and her general take on the pharmaceutical industry. I've read just a few of her articles about Pfizer -- eg, "Pfizer to buy Wyeth for $68B; cut 8,000 jobs" -- which seems fairly balanced. But she is no Ed Silverman, former reporter and blogger with the Newark Star Ledger.

In 2008 Pfizer brought in approximately 215 journalists. They even invited bloggers like me to come in. I didn't hear anything about a free lunch, so I blew them off (see "Chantix 'Roundtable' Apparently Not Round and Not a Table"). "The meeting, which lasted about 90 minutes, was largely uneventful, in so far as three Pfizer execs sat at a table in front of approximately 30 journalists and analysts," said Ed Silverman.

Kerins -- true to his commitment to engage journalists (and bloggers it seems) -- posted this followup to me in a comment: "Based on the poem that you posted last week [here], we know that you were anxious to attend our media roundtable today. We’re sorry that you couldn't make it. Would be happy to set up some time with you to speak with some of our medical and safety folks to address your questions."

My bad for not taking him up on that offer, which I hope I can take advantage of in the future when another PR fire needs to be put out.

I don't know too much about corporate communications and PR at pharmaceutical companies except from what I have learned from Marc Monseau and Michael Parks. Monseau works at Johnson & Johnson and writes a blog to help him educate journalists (see JNJ BTW). Michael Parks, used to work for Centocor and also wrote a blog, which is now defunct.

BTW, Parks will be my guest on today's Pharma Marketing Talk live streaming audio show and podcast. See "Life After CNTO411 Blog for Michael Parks: Pitch360."

But back to why pharma has such a bad reputation. It's not something that can easily be fixed by "engaging and educating" journalists.

Speaking as a consumer -- the end user of pharmaceutical products -- I say that pharma doesn't do enough to "engage and educate" me. More than that, I hate to see that some people cannot afford drugs and I hate it when pharma tries to keep drug prices high -- as, for example, when it prevented Medicare from being able to negotiate prices as part of the Part D program.

Pharma needs to give some free lunches to us consumers -- more discounts on co-pays, for example. Expand its Patient Assistance Programs to include unemployed people. That sort of thing.

In other words, do more to help Americans get through these harsh economic times and THEN wine and dine the journalists -- better yet, blog about it!