The InPharm post "Sanofi shifts video focus to YouTube" confirmed my belief that the pharmaceutical industry saves money by using almost FREE social media tools like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube for its online communication needs. It can scrap expensive, custom-designed, standalone video Web sites, post videos to YouTube instead, and save money.
"[T]he size of YouTube’s community (some 490 million unique users per month) and the potential to trim costs – however slightly - following recent warnings that 2011 revenues could fall by 10% are likely factors [for why visitors to Sanofi's standalone video website -- www.sanofi-aventis.tv -- are now sent to a new YouTube channel.]"
I decided to visit the "sanofi-aventis TV" English YouTube channel (here).
The first video I played was titled "Living in the Shadow of Atrial Fibrillation." The first scene showed a man painting his living room. Suddenly, he falls off the ladder and for several seconds we see him breathing with difficulty, sweating, and grabbing his chest on the floor. Pretty dramatic. The full video is embedded at the end of this post. I assume it's still available when you read this.
I'd like to focus on a couple of frames, however, from the first scene here:
Maybe you think this acting is a bit over the top or too dramatic.
It turns out that the "actor" is actually a real patient whose name is Bob. In other words, Bob plays himself in this opening dramatic scene of the video. The part of Bob's wife, Samantha, however, "was played by an actress and based on her testimonial" says S-A in the closing screen of the video.
I've seen real patients in commercials sitting on a couch and talking and then appearing in other scenes cutting vegetables, planting flowers, riding bikes, taking baths, whatever, while a voiceover talks about the side effects. But these appearances require very scant acting skills. They certainly don't require the "method acting" skills that Bob displays in the Atrial Fibrillation video!
I wonder: Did Bob get paid extra for this acting role? Obviously, S-A saved additional money by hiring a novice rather than a skilled actor such as the woman who played Bob's wife.
I wonder: Did Bob learn his direct-to-consumer method acting skills from an as-yet-to-be-famous reincarnation of Lee Strasberg?
I wonder: Will further falls in pharma earnings lead to more patient method actors like Bob?
It's a fascinating social media era we are living in. Not only are newspaper reporters being replaced by bloggers, but professional actors are being replaced by people playing themselves in online videos! We have Nalts to blame for this!
Friday, February 25, 2011
Thursday, February 24, 2011
More Pharma Social Media Pioneers Recognized
As evidenced by the first-ever pharma-hosted Twitter Chat (see "OMG! AstraZeneca Hosts Twitter Chat & World Does NOT End!"), there is still plenty of work for Pharma Social Media Pioneers to do and new pioneers to be recognized.
Last year, I awarded the coveted "Pharmaguy Social Media Pioneer Award" to Alex Butler (see "First Pharmaguy Social Media Pioneer Award Given to Janssen's Alex Butler").
I will continue to search out, find, and promote new pioneers, especially those who are actively using Twitter to engage in conversation. The chart below shows the pioneers I currently have in my database (view that database here). You can also follow selected tweets from these pioneers in the ePharma Pioneer Tweets & Posts Forum.

I have included in my list people who are employed by pharmaceutical companies (or very recently so employed) and who have over 200 Twitter followers. If you know someone who should be included and is not, please let me know (click banner below).
UPDATE (12 July 2012): I have dropped the requirement that people have over 200 followers to be on the list -- only a few meet that criterium. Nevertheless, I want to recognize all pharma people who have personal Twitter accounts so the world can see what these people are tweeting about and thus get a more personalized view of pharmaceutical employees who can be the best "ambassadors" for their companies. You know, show the human faces behind the corporate curtains.
(See "Pharma Twitter Pioneers: A Snapshot")
Most of these Twitter accounts are truly personal views and are not meant to speak for the company. They usually include disclaimers such as:
NOTE: Marc also has a personal Twitter account (@MDMonseau), which is included in the database as well. To be fair, we should really compare this account to the others, which are also personal accounts (except for Rob Halper's, which is @JNJVideo). Marc is kind of a special case. From day 1, his @JNJComm tweets were very personal and mostly were free of "corporate speak" language.
It's interesting to see how some accounts have grown over time (see @Alex__Butler vs. @JNJComm in the chart below).
@TonyJewell, who was responsible for the AstraZeneca #rxsave Twitter chat (see my interview of Tony here), is a recent addition to my list. I notice that before the #rxsave chat, Tony was adding about 1 follower per day. Afterward, he is adding maybe 2 followers a day. Which goes to prove that hosting a Twitter chat can DOUBLE the rate at which you add followers! I don't think, however, that Tony will surpass Alex any time soon.
Although there was an "anomalous" spike in followers of Alex Butler in January, it wasn't as dramatic a spike that @Pfizer_news experienced back in December 2010 (see "How Did Pfizer Get So Many Twitter Followers?").
Addendum: Tweets vs. Followers
Just out of curiosity, I also plotted the number of followers vs. number of tweets for these pioneers to get the following scatterplot:
I notice right away that the top two accounts in terms of followers -- @JNJComm and @Alex__Butler (labeled "A" in the chart) -- have attracted a large number of followers but have not posted very many tweets. Their Follower to Tweet ratio is 4.7 whereas the norm is closer to 0.35 (that is, # followers = 0.35 x # of tweets). The "B" people are also somewhat off the norm. Obviously, it's not about the quantity of your tweets, but could be about the quality.
"C" (@shwen) is way out their on his own. Shwen has posted an incredible 13,280 tweets! But he has been doing this probably longer than anyone else.
Addendum: Followers vs. Following
Another factor to consider is how many people these pioneers follow. We always praise those pharma people who follow a lot of other people on Twitter. It indicates they are listening to many points of view. Here's another chart:
There's definitely a "gang of five" pioneers that stand out from the crowd in this regard:
Addendum: Followers vs. Klout
Another parameter that is often used to rate Twitter accounts is the "Klout" score, which measures overall online influence. The scores range from 1 to 100 with higher scores representing a wider and stronger sphere of influence. Klout uses over 35 variables on Facebook and Twitter to measure True Reach, Amplification Probability, and Network Score. You can find anyone's Klout score by typing "http://klout.com/[twitter name]" as in http://klout.com/pharmaguy.
In the chart below, I plotted # of Followers vs. Klout to see if there was a relation between the two:
There doesn't seem to be much relation between a person's Klout score and the number of followers of that person (ie, having many followers doesn't guarantee you will have a proportionately high Klout score and vice versa).
In this case, there is a "gang of three" pharma Twitter pioneers that stand out from the crowd:
Klout says that @brainygirlnyc is an Explorer who actively engages in the social web, constantly trying out new ways to interact and network. She's exploring the ecosystem and making it work for her. Her level of activity and engagement shows that she "gets it." Klout predicts she'll be moving up.
There must be many other ways to measure the "influence" these pioneers have besides the number of followers, followings, and tweets. What I intend to do is pay closer attention to what these people are saying on Twitter and give each of them my own unique "Pharmaguy Influence" rating, the parameters of which are yet to be determined.
Last year, I awarded the coveted "Pharmaguy Social Media Pioneer Award" to Alex Butler (see "First Pharmaguy Social Media Pioneer Award Given to Janssen's Alex Butler").
I will continue to search out, find, and promote new pioneers, especially those who are actively using Twitter to engage in conversation. The chart below shows the pioneers I currently have in my database (view that database here). You can also follow selected tweets from these pioneers in the ePharma Pioneer Tweets & Posts Forum.
I have included in my list people who are employed by pharmaceutical companies (or very recently so employed) and who have over 200 Twitter followers. If you know someone who should be included and is not, please let me know (click banner below).
UPDATE (12 July 2012): I have dropped the requirement that people have over 200 followers to be on the list -- only a few meet that criterium. Nevertheless, I want to recognize all pharma people who have personal Twitter accounts so the world can see what these people are tweeting about and thus get a more personalized view of pharmaceutical employees who can be the best "ambassadors" for their companies. You know, show the human faces behind the corporate curtains.
(See "Pharma Twitter Pioneers: A Snapshot")
Most of these Twitter accounts are truly personal views and are not meant to speak for the company. They usually include disclaimers such as:
"All tweets are my own and do not necessarily represent my employer's view."A few are sanctioned by the company such as Marc Monseau's @JNJComm.
"Opinions tweeted are my own; not those of my employer"
"These tweets=Me and not my company"
NOTE: Marc also has a personal Twitter account (@MDMonseau), which is included in the database as well. To be fair, we should really compare this account to the others, which are also personal accounts (except for Rob Halper's, which is @JNJVideo). Marc is kind of a special case. From day 1, his @JNJComm tweets were very personal and mostly were free of "corporate speak" language.
It's interesting to see how some accounts have grown over time (see @Alex__Butler vs. @JNJComm in the chart below).
@TonyJewell, who was responsible for the AstraZeneca #rxsave Twitter chat (see my interview of Tony here), is a recent addition to my list. I notice that before the #rxsave chat, Tony was adding about 1 follower per day. Afterward, he is adding maybe 2 followers a day. Which goes to prove that hosting a Twitter chat can DOUBLE the rate at which you add followers! I don't think, however, that Tony will surpass Alex any time soon.
Although there was an "anomalous" spike in followers of Alex Butler in January, it wasn't as dramatic a spike that @Pfizer_news experienced back in December 2010 (see "How Did Pfizer Get So Many Twitter Followers?").
Addendum: Tweets vs. Followers
Just out of curiosity, I also plotted the number of followers vs. number of tweets for these pioneers to get the following scatterplot:
I notice right away that the top two accounts in terms of followers -- @JNJComm and @Alex__Butler (labeled "A" in the chart) -- have attracted a large number of followers but have not posted very many tweets. Their Follower to Tweet ratio is 4.7 whereas the norm is closer to 0.35 (that is, # followers = 0.35 x # of tweets). The "B" people are also somewhat off the norm. Obviously, it's not about the quantity of your tweets, but could be about the quality.
"C" (@shwen) is way out their on his own. Shwen has posted an incredible 13,280 tweets! But he has been doing this probably longer than anyone else.
Addendum: Followers vs. Following
Another factor to consider is how many people these pioneers follow. We always praise those pharma people who follow a lot of other people on Twitter. It indicates they are listening to many points of view. Here's another chart:
There's definitely a "gang of five" pioneers that stand out from the crowd in this regard:
- @jimlefevere (Jim LeFevere)
- @durbaniak (Dennis Urbaniak)
- @shwen (Shwen Gwee)
- @JNJComm (Marc Monseau)
- @Alex__Butler (Alex Butler)
Addendum: Followers vs. Klout
Another parameter that is often used to rate Twitter accounts is the "Klout" score, which measures overall online influence. The scores range from 1 to 100 with higher scores representing a wider and stronger sphere of influence. Klout uses over 35 variables on Facebook and Twitter to measure True Reach, Amplification Probability, and Network Score. You can find anyone's Klout score by typing "http://klout.com/[twitter name]" as in http://klout.com/pharmaguy.
In the chart below, I plotted # of Followers vs. Klout to see if there was a relation between the two:
There doesn't seem to be much relation between a person's Klout score and the number of followers of that person (ie, having many followers doesn't guarantee you will have a proportionately high Klout score and vice versa).
In this case, there is a "gang of three" pharma Twitter pioneers that stand out from the crowd:
- @shwen (Shwen Gwee)
- @JNJComm (Marc Monseau)
- @Alex__Butler (Alex Butler)
Klout says that @brainygirlnyc is an Explorer who actively engages in the social web, constantly trying out new ways to interact and network. She's exploring the ecosystem and making it work for her. Her level of activity and engagement shows that she "gets it." Klout predicts she'll be moving up.
There must be many other ways to measure the "influence" these pioneers have besides the number of followers, followings, and tweets. What I intend to do is pay closer attention to what these people are saying on Twitter and give each of them my own unique "Pharmaguy Influence" rating, the parameters of which are yet to be determined.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Phil Mickelson "Opens Up" to Arthritis Today Magazine
Top pro golfer Phil Mickelson is featured on the cover of the Mar-April 2011 issue of Arthritis Today magazine (see photo).
Recall that Mickelson announced he had psoriatic arthritis last August in a news story titled "PGA Championship 2010, Whistling Straits: Phil Mickelson Has Psoriatic Arthritis - Uses Enbrel To Help Manage Condition."
In that story, Mickelson was quoted as saying "I have no aches and pains. My back feels great. I feel stronger and more flexible than I've ever been." (see "Is Phil Mickelson Shilling for Enbrel?").
When he made that statement, Phil was obviously demonstrating to AMGEN/PFIZER -- the companies that market ENBREL -- what he can do to help them promote their product. AMGEN/PFIZER were suitably impressed and signed him up a few months later (or so they say).
Now that Phil is a paid ENBREL spokesperson, his remarks are more balanced. Here are some quotes from an article in the Arthritis Today issue that features him on the cover:
"Phil tried taking prednisone [a generic drug], but the side effects were awful, he says." [His Mayo Clinic doctors prescribed "weekly injections of a biologic drug"; later in the article several brand name drugs, including Humira, Enbrel, Remicade, and Simponi, are mentioned, but the article doesn't reveal exactly which drug Phil is taking -- that's already on the record elsewhere. But we now know that he didn't like the generic medicine.]
"I like where I am physically and am optimistic about 2011."
"I might take the medicine for a year and then go off it. Then, when and if it flares up, I'd go back on the medicine. I'm OK with taking medicine the rest of my life if I have to."
At the end of this article is this NOTE: "This interview took place after Phil Mickelson entered into a partnership with Amgen-Pfizer, an Arthritis Foundation sponsor, in November, 2010."
So, Amgen-Pfizer not only has to pay Phil, they also have to pay the Arthritis Foundation to get his story published! No wonder AMGEN has blown its marketing budget (see here).
Recall that Mickelson announced he had psoriatic arthritis last August in a news story titled "PGA Championship 2010, Whistling Straits: Phil Mickelson Has Psoriatic Arthritis - Uses Enbrel To Help Manage Condition."
In that story, Mickelson was quoted as saying "I have no aches and pains. My back feels great. I feel stronger and more flexible than I've ever been." (see "Is Phil Mickelson Shilling for Enbrel?").
When he made that statement, Phil was obviously demonstrating to AMGEN/PFIZER -- the companies that market ENBREL -- what he can do to help them promote their product. AMGEN/PFIZER were suitably impressed and signed him up a few months later (or so they say).
Now that Phil is a paid ENBREL spokesperson, his remarks are more balanced. Here are some quotes from an article in the Arthritis Today issue that features him on the cover:
"Phil tried taking prednisone [a generic drug], but the side effects were awful, he says." [His Mayo Clinic doctors prescribed "weekly injections of a biologic drug"; later in the article several brand name drugs, including Humira, Enbrel, Remicade, and Simponi, are mentioned, but the article doesn't reveal exactly which drug Phil is taking -- that's already on the record elsewhere. But we now know that he didn't like the generic medicine.]
"I like where I am physically and am optimistic about 2011."
"I might take the medicine for a year and then go off it. Then, when and if it flares up, I'd go back on the medicine. I'm OK with taking medicine the rest of my life if I have to."
At the end of this article is this NOTE: "This interview took place after Phil Mickelson entered into a partnership with Amgen-Pfizer, an Arthritis Foundation sponsor, in November, 2010."
So, Amgen-Pfizer not only has to pay Phil, they also have to pay the Arthritis Foundation to get his story published! No wonder AMGEN has blown its marketing budget (see here).
Saturday, February 19, 2011
AstraZeneca Hosts "Take on Depression" Facebook Discussion - Seroquel Lurks Behind the Scenes
You may have missed the tweet by @AstraZeneca yesterday that announced "Join the #depression discussion on the #TakeonDepression Facebook page http://ow.ly/3Zihl". This tweet was posted just a few hours after my podcast of a conversation with @TonyJewell, Senior Director for External Communications at AstraZeneca and editor of AZ Health Connections blog, about the recent #rxsave Twitter chat and plans for future pharma-hosted chats (listen to the podcast "The Future of Pharma-Sponsored Twitter & Other Social Media Chats: A Review of the First Pharma-Sponsored Twitter Chat").
I'm surprised Tony didn't mention this Facebook depression chat during my interview. The "Take on Depression" FB page itself was launched back in October, 2010 along with an @FaceDepression Twitter account. I notice that only 2 of my FaceBook friends "Like" the Take On Depression page.
According to the press release (here) "The "Take on Depression" Facebook page will provide tools and resources to individuals who are struggling to manage their symptoms of bipolar depression and MDD [major depressive disorder]. The @FaceDepression Twitter feed will provide articles, links to Web sites, tips, and community events that will help people learn more about their illness and have a more effective dialogue with their physician."
In the press release, Sandy Sommer, Executive Director and Commercial Brand Leader at AstraZeneca said "With the launch of these Facebook and Twitter pages, AstraZeneca hopes to amplify conversations about mental health and provide important health information in innovative ways."
AstraZeneca includes several "rules" at the top of the FB discussion page, including "please refrain from mentioning specific pharmaceutical products by name" and "all comments will be evaluated by AstraZeneca before posting," etc.
"Want to join the discussion? Chime in on the discussion board or start your own thread now!" says AZ. But there was only 1 topic/post for discussion entitled "Welcome." It was made by "Take on Depression" -- a non-person representing the site -- back on January 4, 2011. It said: "Hey Take on Depression fans! Use the Take on Depression Facebook page to review information and connect with others who have been affected by bipolar depression or major depressive disorder. You can use this DISCUSSIONS tab to post about what you’re going through in order to help others."
There were no responses, so I decided to post a reply asking for a definition of bipolar depression and MDD. The following notice popped up (click on image for an enlarged, readable view):
This is pretty typical stuff; ie, absolutely no mention of product names will be tolerated. There's one small problem, however.
Seroquel Lurks Behind the Scenes
I noticed that it took a long time to display the discussion page and posts. During the minute or so the application was loading, I also noticed the following URL being accessed: http://www.seroquelfbdiscapp.com/, which contains a product brand name; ie, Seroquel!
In fact, you can type that URL in your browser and you will see the "naked" app without the surrounding FaceBook stuff, as in this screen shot (click to enlarge):
Most users would never notice the URL, but there it is. Will the FDA notice? Will it matter? It's a small issue, but I can't explain why AZ would need to use the trade name in the app URL when it could have just as well done without it. If AZ has changed the URL by the time you read this, Nevermind!
I'll keep you posted about my attempt to get the discussion going.
Meanwhile, I also checked out the @FaceDepression Twitter account. That account is "locked," which means @FaceDepression's Tweets are protected and only confirmed followers have access to @FaceDepression's Tweets and complete profile." You need to send a request before you can start following this account. I sent a request.
I'm not sure why AZ would do this. "When you lock your Twitter account," says wiki.answers.com, "only your followers can see your updates. Also, you will have to approve any new followers. It's like as if only your friends have the option to see you, kind of like being a king, you approve and see who can do stuff, but only a few people can see you."
Being the "King" these days is not very popular with the populace as we are witnessing in the Middle East. But I suppose pharma companies are comfortable sitting in their media throne issuing edicts for the populace to read, but only the elite, chosen members of the populace are invited into the conversation!
UPDATE: 2/20/2011. Tony Jewell emailed me soon after this post was published and said "I have directed your questions about take on depression to brand corporate affairs, which handles these subjects (I handle the corporate stuff). Let me know if nobody gets in touch." It's the weekend, so I haven't heard anything yet.
Meanwhile, I notice that the URL for the discussion app was changed after I made my post to www.takeondepressionfbdiscapp.com/, which proves that I provide useful insights.
I did a little WHOIS search on these domain names to get some idea who was responsible. It turns out that Edelman PR Worldwide registered both domains (see WHOIS results in the composite screen capture below; personal information has been redacted from this image at the personal request of the person whose name was used to register the domains. As I recommended below when I first made this post, the domain registration is now private. See here.).
Edelman is an Advertising Age "Top Ranked PR Agency" with 3,600 employees in 53 offices worldwide. I did not know that this agency had an office in Brooklyn Heights, NYC, one of the many New York neighborhoods I lived in. So I used Google maps to see exactly where their Brooklyn office was located and found an unassuming townhouse on a (nice) side street (I removed the image of the building I found upon request from the person who lives at the address). I was expecting something a little more impressive!
Here are a couple of reasons why I find this interesting:
(1) AZ used a PR agency, which may have "farmed out" the Take On Depression discussion board programming to another agency; ie, [redacted], "a next-generation digital marketing firm that designs and executes integrated digital marketing programs enabling clients to achieve scale in their digital marketing." I discovered this by finding the domains' administrative and technical contact person on LinkedIn, who -- according to his LinkedIn profile -- was Edelman's SVP of Interactive Solutions and is now CEO of [redacted].
NOTE: This person contacted me by e-mail and claimed "My credit card was used to set up all manner of accounts over those 11 years [that he was at Edelman; beginning in October 1998, ending in September 2009]. It appears that after I left in September 2009 that some of the accounts were not updated, hence the WHOIS data shows my address and name." But the WHOIS entry was created on 18 October 2010, more than a year after this person left Edelman. Why Edelman was still using his credit card and private address a year after he left the company is a mystery. I also do not know why it was used AGAIN just a few days ago to create the new WHOIS entry for the takeondepressionfbdiscapp.com domain.
(2) Using someone's private home address in domain registrations is NOT cool! As noted in wikipedia (here) "Currently the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) broadly requires that the mailing address, phone number and e-mail address of those owning/managing a domain name to be made publicly available through the "WHOIS" directories. However, that policy enables spammers, direct marketers, identity thieves, or other attackers to loot the directory for personal information about these people."
When registering a domain name it is possible to use a "private registration" proxy so that your personal information is not readily available in the WHOIS database. Godaddy, which was the domain registrar in this case, offers that service. But, unfortunately, the cat may be out of the bag.
P.S. If Edelman does make the above domain registrations private, then I will -- if formally requested -- update this post and remove personally-identifiable information (but not corporate information).
NOTE: The person whose name is being used
P.P.S. Wow! I no longer have the "creds" to view the discussion on AZ's #TakeonDepression Facebook page. Maybe nobody does!
UPDATE (2/21/2011):
I received this email today from Stephanie Andrzejewski, AZ's Director, Brand Corporate Affairs:
Screen shot of the AZ "Take on Depression" FB discussion page. Click for an enlarged view.
I'm surprised Tony didn't mention this Facebook depression chat during my interview. The "Take on Depression" FB page itself was launched back in October, 2010 along with an @FaceDepression Twitter account. I notice that only 2 of my FaceBook friends "Like" the Take On Depression page.
According to the press release (here) "The "Take on Depression" Facebook page will provide tools and resources to individuals who are struggling to manage their symptoms of bipolar depression and MDD [major depressive disorder]. The @FaceDepression Twitter feed will provide articles, links to Web sites, tips, and community events that will help people learn more about their illness and have a more effective dialogue with their physician."
In the press release, Sandy Sommer, Executive Director and Commercial Brand Leader at AstraZeneca said "With the launch of these Facebook and Twitter pages, AstraZeneca hopes to amplify conversations about mental health and provide important health information in innovative ways."
AstraZeneca includes several "rules" at the top of the FB discussion page, including "please refrain from mentioning specific pharmaceutical products by name" and "all comments will be evaluated by AstraZeneca before posting," etc.
"Want to join the discussion? Chime in on the discussion board or start your own thread now!" says AZ. But there was only 1 topic/post for discussion entitled "Welcome." It was made by "Take on Depression" -- a non-person representing the site -- back on January 4, 2011. It said: "Hey Take on Depression fans! Use the Take on Depression Facebook page to review information and connect with others who have been affected by bipolar depression or major depressive disorder. You can use this DISCUSSIONS tab to post about what you’re going through in order to help others."
There were no responses, so I decided to post a reply asking for a definition of bipolar depression and MDD. The following notice popped up (click on image for an enlarged, readable view):
This is pretty typical stuff; ie, absolutely no mention of product names will be tolerated. There's one small problem, however.
Seroquel Lurks Behind the Scenes
I noticed that it took a long time to display the discussion page and posts. During the minute or so the application was loading, I also noticed the following URL being accessed: http://www.seroquelfbdiscapp.com/, which contains a product brand name; ie, Seroquel!
In fact, you can type that URL in your browser and you will see the "naked" app without the surrounding FaceBook stuff, as in this screen shot (click to enlarge):
Most users would never notice the URL, but there it is. Will the FDA notice? Will it matter? It's a small issue, but I can't explain why AZ would need to use the trade name in the app URL when it could have just as well done without it. If AZ has changed the URL by the time you read this, Nevermind!
I'll keep you posted about my attempt to get the discussion going.
Meanwhile, I also checked out the @FaceDepression Twitter account. That account is "locked," which means @FaceDepression's Tweets are protected and only confirmed followers have access to @FaceDepression's Tweets and complete profile." You need to send a request before you can start following this account. I sent a request.
I'm not sure why AZ would do this. "When you lock your Twitter account," says wiki.answers.com, "only your followers can see your updates. Also, you will have to approve any new followers. It's like as if only your friends have the option to see you, kind of like being a king, you approve and see who can do stuff, but only a few people can see you."
Being the "King" these days is not very popular with the populace as we are witnessing in the Middle East. But I suppose pharma companies are comfortable sitting in their media throne issuing edicts for the populace to read, but only the elite, chosen members of the populace are invited into the conversation!
UPDATE: 2/20/2011. Tony Jewell emailed me soon after this post was published and said "I have directed your questions about take on depression to brand corporate affairs, which handles these subjects (I handle the corporate stuff). Let me know if nobody gets in touch." It's the weekend, so I haven't heard anything yet.
Meanwhile, I notice that the URL for the discussion app was changed after I made my post to www.takeondepressionfbdiscapp.com/, which proves that I provide useful insights.
I did a little WHOIS search on these domain names to get some idea who was responsible. It turns out that Edelman PR Worldwide registered both domains (see WHOIS results in the composite screen capture below; personal information has been redacted from this image at the personal request of the person whose name was used to register the domains. As I recommended below when I first made this post, the domain registration is now private. See here.).
Edelman is an Advertising Age "Top Ranked PR Agency" with 3,600 employees in 53 offices worldwide. I did not know that this agency had an office in Brooklyn Heights, NYC, one of the many New York neighborhoods I lived in. So I used Google maps to see exactly where their Brooklyn office was located and found an unassuming townhouse on a (nice) side street (I removed the image of the building I found upon request from the person who lives at the address). I was expecting something a little more impressive!
Here are a couple of reasons why I find this interesting:
(1) AZ used a PR agency, which may have "farmed out" the Take On Depression discussion board programming to another agency; ie, [redacted], "a next-generation digital marketing firm that designs and executes integrated digital marketing programs enabling clients to achieve scale in their digital marketing." I discovered this by finding the domains' administrative and technical contact person on LinkedIn, who -- according to his LinkedIn profile -- was Edelman's SVP of Interactive Solutions and is now CEO of [redacted].
NOTE: This person contacted me by e-mail and claimed "My credit card was used to set up all manner of accounts over those 11 years [that he was at Edelman; beginning in October 1998, ending in September 2009]. It appears that after I left in September 2009 that some of the accounts were not updated, hence the WHOIS data shows my address and name." But the WHOIS entry was created on 18 October 2010, more than a year after this person left Edelman. Why Edelman was still using his credit card and private address a year after he left the company is a mystery. I also do not know why it was used AGAIN just a few days ago to create the new WHOIS entry for the takeondepressionfbdiscapp.com domain.
(2) Using someone's private home address in domain registrations is NOT cool! As noted in wikipedia (here) "Currently the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) broadly requires that the mailing address, phone number and e-mail address of those owning/managing a domain name to be made publicly available through the "WHOIS" directories. However, that policy enables spammers, direct marketers, identity thieves, or other attackers to loot the directory for personal information about these people."
When registering a domain name it is possible to use a "private registration" proxy so that your personal information is not readily available in the WHOIS database. Godaddy, which was the domain registrar in this case, offers that service. But, unfortunately, the cat may be out of the bag.
P.S. If Edelman does make the above domain registrations private, then I will -- if formally requested -- update this post and remove personally-identifiable information (but not corporate information).
NOTE: The person whose name is being used
P.P.S. Wow! I no longer have the "creds" to view the discussion on AZ's #TakeonDepression Facebook page. Maybe nobody does!
UPDATE (2/21/2011):
I received this email today from Stephanie Andrzejewski, AZ's Director, Brand Corporate Affairs:
Hi John -I responded:
AstraZeneca is aware that the name of one of our products, SEROQUEL, was inadvertently included in coding in the Take on Depression Facebook page. No product name was ever included in the actual contents of the page and the Take on Depression Facebook page is not intended for the promotion of products. As soon as we became aware of the error, we immediately amended the code. AstraZeneca is fully committed to open, honest, transparent, and ethical social media practices.
Regards,
Stephanie
Stephanie,
Thanks for getting back to me. I am impressed that this error was corrected in a timely fashion considering it is a holiday weekend!
But this error could have been averted if -- as suggested by commenters to my blog -- AZ had chosen a more regulatory-savvy agency to handle at least the technical aspects of its social media campaign. The problems I cited indicate that this important AZ social media initiative may not have been given the attention necessary to convince people that AZ is committed to open, honest, transparent, and ethical social media practices, IMHO.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
OMG! AstraZeneca Hosts Twitter Chat & World Does NOT End!
Despite dire predictions of "PR failure," the #rxsave Twitter chat (see "AstraZeneca to Host First-Ever Pharma-Sponsored Twitter Chat!") hosted by @AstraZenecaUS last night was, IMHO, a great success and proof that a pharmaceutical company can indeed host meaningful Twitter chats. Read the transcript of the entire chat here.
There were a few attempts by two or three "malcontents" to "hijack" the conversation as I warned about in a previous blog post (here). But despite their attempts to ask "the tough questions" about off-label promotion of drugs and Seroquel side effects, everyone completely ignored the hijackers and the conversation continued as if these people were not even there. [Perhaps there should be Twitter chats on these other topics. Pharma companies will not host these, but patient advocates can and should invite pharma people to listen at least.]
Unfortunately, the way influence is measured in social media such as Twitter, those people who make the most posts -- even if those posts are irrelevant to the discussion and ignored -- get the highest ratings. "What the Hashtag," for example, creates a list of "Top Contributors," which is a misnomer because the top two "contributors" (see figure below; click on it for enlarged view) are the "malcontents" who contributed nothing of value to the conversation.
The data shows that there were 144 other contributors who actually contributed to the conversation. It's impossible to know how many "lurkers" were listening without contributing.
One thing is clear: AstraZenecaUS did not pick up very many new Twitter followers as a result of the chat. Before the chat it had 4,715 followers and afterward (this morning) it had 4,758 followers. There were signs, however, that AZ met some people and organizations in the chat that they will team up with in the future.
So, it's not all about the numbers when you measure the ROI of a Twitter chat!
AZ's goal -- I believe -- was to get answers to some specific questions such as the following:
AZ also provide some nuggets of information, such as:
Listen to My Interview of AstraZeneca's Tony Jewell:

There were a few attempts by two or three "malcontents" to "hijack" the conversation as I warned about in a previous blog post (here). But despite their attempts to ask "the tough questions" about off-label promotion of drugs and Seroquel side effects, everyone completely ignored the hijackers and the conversation continued as if these people were not even there. [Perhaps there should be Twitter chats on these other topics. Pharma companies will not host these, but patient advocates can and should invite pharma people to listen at least.]
Unfortunately, the way influence is measured in social media such as Twitter, those people who make the most posts -- even if those posts are irrelevant to the discussion and ignored -- get the highest ratings. "What the Hashtag," for example, creates a list of "Top Contributors," which is a misnomer because the top two "contributors" (see figure below; click on it for enlarged view) are the "malcontents" who contributed nothing of value to the conversation.
What the Hashtag Chart: See here.
The data shows that there were 144 other contributors who actually contributed to the conversation. It's impossible to know how many "lurkers" were listening without contributing.
One thing is clear: AstraZenecaUS did not pick up very many new Twitter followers as a result of the chat. Before the chat it had 4,715 followers and afterward (this morning) it had 4,758 followers. There were signs, however, that AZ met some people and organizations in the chat that they will team up with in the future.
So, it's not all about the numbers when you measure the ROI of a Twitter chat!
AZ's goal -- I believe -- was to get answers to some specific questions such as the following:
"What is best way to increase awareness of prescription savings programs?"AZ received some good input and answers to those question, which you can find yourself by reading the transcript.
"[Are there] Any pilot programs to drive adherence among uninsured?"
"Are people aware of our healthcare facilities program?"
"Top 3 suggestions for reaching eligible patients? Think outside the box..."
"[Any] Ideas on reaching caregivers of seniors?"
"With health care reform covering millions more, what will demand be for #rxsave"
"How do you think #socialmedia channels like #Twitter could help with patient outreach?"
"Anybody using text messages with patients?"
AZ also provide some nuggets of information, such as:
"In 2010 AZ helped more than 545k patients save $947mil on 4.1mil prescrips through these programs"More pharma-sponsored Twitter chats are on the way. Near the end of the one-hour chat #rxsave session, AZ asked "Was this chat of value to you and should pharma do more of them?" To which I answered: "Definitely, pharma shld do more Twitter chats. U proved that it can work despite hijack attempts!" My opinion was shared by several others who participated in the session. AZ had this to say about that:
"AZ&Me Rx savings programs saw 7% increase in patients helped in 2010 over 2009. What are advocates seeing?"
"re next tweet chats @soulflsepulcher will we host one? let's see how this goes - and how FDA guidance on social media turns out"Maybe FDA was "lurking" and will issue some guidance by warning letter.
Listen to My Interview of AstraZeneca's Tony Jewell:
Listen to internet radio with Pharmaguy on Blog Talk Radio
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)













