From Todd LaRoche, EVP, Managing Director of Creative, Palio

With the recent merging of United and Continental Airlines, an event that happened a while back came to mind that I thought would be worth sharing if you didn’t already know about it. A musician named Dave Carroll had some difficulty with United Airlines – United apparently damaged his treasured Taylor custom guitar during a flight.

For over 9 months, Dave tried to get United to pay for damages caused by baggage handlers to his guitar. During his final exchange with the United Customer Relations Manager, Carroll said that he was being left with no choice other than to create a music video for YouTube exposing United’s lack of cooperation. The Manager responded: “Good luck with that one, pal.”

So Carroll posted a retaliatory video on YouTube. The video has since received over 8.4 million hits. United Airlines contacted the musician and attempted to arrive at a settlement in exchange for pulling the video. Naturally, Dave’s response was: “Good luck with that one, pal.”

Taylor Guitars sent the musician 2 new custom guitars in appreciation for the product recognition from the video that has lead to a sharp increase in orders. Here’s the video, if you didn’t already play it above.

Pretty amazing: 8.4 million hits (and rising) that United Airlines could definitely have lived without, (and that Taylor Guitars has benefitted by hugely), all because of a poorly-handled customer service issue. Goes to show you just how much power the world of digital communications has brought to the consumer. Now, instead of buyer beware, seller beware – your consumer has more power than ever to shape your brand’s image.

Palio is a full-spectrum global pharmaceutical and consumer advertising, marketing, and communications agency that excels in brand creation and specializes in brand strategy, product launches, global marketing, and digital and integrated media.

"Adrift" by Eric Zener

From Ken Messinger, SVP, Creative Director, Palio

Recently, I took a rare and welcome day off and left quaint and beautiful Saratoga Springs for New York City in order to recharge my creative batteries. Everything in the art world is bigger, better, and more innovative in the Big Apple, right?

Not always.

Last Tuesday was spent gallery hopping with my wife throughout Chelsea, which is something we try to do at least once a year. Normally I come back thinking that I should gather all of the creative talent at Palio, rent a bus and get the team down there for a day in order to see what the art world at large is up to.

Not this time.

Unfortunately, this trip was really more like amateur hour than inspiring. I would guess that my wife and I hit at least 50 galleries, which isn’t too hard to do because when the majority of the work is really bad, you tend to move quickly. Also, the galleries are pretty much lined up one after another on each block, often with several in the same building between 20th Street and 27th Street on the West Side of Manhattan between 10th and 11th Avenues.

Anyway, a lot of the work really looked like student work, meaning sloppy or just obvious. For example, we saw a large painting that depicted only the left side of a church merged up against the right side of the US Capital. Down the middle was an actual handsaw sticking out a foot from the top. Separation of church and state! Get it? We also saw too many abstract pretenders, weak photography, and unappealing sculpture.

This isn’t to say there wasn’t anything good or even great because there was. In fact, just when we thought we were doomed to a day of mediocrity, along came the beautifully unique work of Korean sculptor, Jae Hyo Lee at Cynthia-Reeves Gallery (here’s a decent look at his work but it really doesn’t do it justice), and the amazing California artist, Eric Zener, with his underwater themes at Gallery Henoch.

The day was still great, and I’m anxious to go back since new exhibits are constantly being displayed. It’s important to remember that because art is so subjective you’ll see things differently because, using marketing lingo that we all know too well, we were just an “n” of two.

From Mark McCoy, SVP, Brand Planning Director, Palio

There is a high level of dissatisfaction with our healthcare system these days, and pharma companies are an easy target upon which to fix blame. Even though pharma companies discover and develop the drugs that advance medical treatment, the industry is so vilified that only cigarette makers and big oil are more distrusted by the public.

We have reached a point that virtually any criticism or attack on the drug industry is considered credible, regardless of how unfounded that criticism may be. In fact, spurious attacks on the drug industry now pass for peer-reviewed medical literature.

Pharma Support Leads to Failing Grades

In a recent issue of Archives of Internal Medicine, “Pharmaceutical Industry Support and Residency Education,” an article based on the results of an e-mail survey, revealed that acceptance of pharmaceutical industry support by residency programs appeared to be associated with a lower rate of program graduates passing the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM).

According to the Archives of Internal Medicine press release and the publication abstract, accepting support from pharma companies leads to residents failing their board exams. Apparently medical residents, much like Judas Iscariot, pay dearly for accepting tainted money. However, buried on the last page of the paper, territory seldom traveled by our ADHD-afflicted generation, it is revealed that no causal relationship was found between accepting pharma company support and the ABIM test pass rate.  In addition, the e-mail survey didn’t ask how much pharma company support a residency program accepted. So, a residency program that accepted a small one-time contribution would be considered the same as a program that regularly accepted large contributions for the so-called analysis.

Even More Scandalous in the Retelling

In the San Diego Health Examiner, Warren Goff picked up on the results of the e-mail survey and asked, “If someone paid for your meals every day, bought you books and gave you gifts, do you think that they would expect anything in return?” In a flash, the common pharma company practice of providing food at conferences and educational activities is distorted into drug companies paying for residents’ food every day.

The Examiner attacks big pharma educational support as poor, inaccurate, likely incomplete, cherry picked, biased, and delivered by lecturers on the company payroll. Residents subjected to this drug company education become worse doctors.  The Examiner article first takes a shred of information from the Archives article, distorts that information, and then launches on a rant against the deceitful drug industry. The original Archives article did not even measure the quality or accuracy of any pharma company-provided education.

Time to Call Foul

Pharma companies and their agencies almost always keep silent when stories like “Pharmaceutical Industry Support and Residency Education” appear in the press and are widely publicized on the Internet. The result of this silence is increasing – and frequently unfounded – criticism of the industry with no statement representing the opposing point of view. This one-sided argument has left the drug industry with a poor image among the American public, an image that shows no signs of improving. Perhaps it’s time for the drug industry and its agencies to speak up and defend itself from fabricated attacks delivered by adversaries of the industry.

From Paul Harrington, SVP, Creative Director, Palio

Why do you look with envy at my Macintosh laptop when I open it in a meeting? Why must that stringy bungee of drool sway from your chin as I effortlessly use all the same MS Office programs you rely on? And why begrudge me a moment of awe as my Mac causes stop-n-stares as it nonchalantly slides along the belt to be x-rayed at the airport?

Chances are, you own an iPod. (Or someone sitting right next to you does.) Over 100 million of them have been sold (and there are just over 300 million people in America as of this blog entry). And we all acknowledge that for the most part, the iPod – and iTunes – revolutionized not only the music industry, but also our very culture as a whole. Everyone loves iPod, because hey, what’s not to love?

So if you follow this logic, the iPod proves that Apple is smart. Cool. User friendly. Fun. Accessible. And revolutionary. Case closed, right?

So why, dear reader, are you still handcuffing your creativity, productivity, and freedom with that bloody awful PC? It’s a throwback to the days of Pong, “The Safety Dance,” and shoulder pads the size of bread loaves.

This really isn’t stop-the-presses news. In fact, it was during the days of Purple Rain that Apple told the world in no uncertain terms that everything was about to change. Were all the PC users watching “Knots Landing” instead??

You could have a Mac too.

Yet you stubbornly continue to pigeonhole Apple and the Macintosh platform as the “snobby, creative types-only” computer. In fact, a quick Google search indicates that 90% of all computer users still suffer at the hands of the geek-peeps in Redmond. Really? 90%?! This, despite the repeated insults that were DOS, Windows, Vista, and now back to Windows again. And let’s not forget the fun of Y2K.

I’m not a PC hater. Sure, I use Microsoft products. I/we/you love many of them. But PCs are just harder to use, and even harder to love. You know it, I know it, Bill Gates knows it.

OK, let’s address the elephant in the room: cost. Yes, Macs cost more. So does a Volvo, but you’d pay that extra amount to protect yourself and your family, right? Hey, it’s as true today as it was when the phrase was coined: you get what you pay for. So spend a little more on a Mac, and be ready to be flabbergasted by the return on your investment.

So, you’ve got a PC. What now?

Junk that piece of crap. Seriously. You’ll be AMAZED at the liberation you’ll experience once you give Apple a try. Compare the labyrinthine structure of Windows to the intuitively designed graphic interface and operating system of Apple. Test-drive a Mac’s wicked-fast speed. Savor Apple’s human, environment, and fashion-friendly designs. Know that all the programs you know, trust, and love, plus some you’ve been afraid to try (PhotoShop, anyone?) work on a Mac. And did I mention, just have a good ol’ fashioned dose of fun, too?

Grab your IT guy, and shake him or her until they put Apple on your company’s list of supported platforms. Go throw that black, fugly, clunky box you have in your home office in the recycling bin at Best Buy and invest in a Mac your whole family will embrace. And slide an oh-so-delicious MacBook Pro into your backpack the next time you travel.

This isn’t a battle. The fight’s already done and won. But like the light from a distant star, it just hasn’t reached a lot of you yet. And just to prove that Apple fans have a sense of humor, here’s an excellent shot at Apple courtesy of the yellow folks of Springfield. But it’s all still true.

Do it. Because once you go Mac, you’ll never go back.

© Nicola Jennings 2008 (Note: this photo has been altered from its original version.)

From Jeremy Lichtenberger, Senior Brand Planner

Let me first say this, James Dyson annoys the hell out of me. His painfully slow British accent and pompous way of explaining how he came up with his brilliant ideas makes me want to smash a Budweiser bottle across his grill. However, in a world where every company claims to provide “innovative solutions,” you have to respect James Dyson for creating a brand that truly delivers on that promise. So as much as the guy annoys me, I listen to his commercials, I respect his opinion, and I believe that as marketers we can learn a lot from the Dyson brand.

The first global product Dyson launched was a vacuum cleaner and it set a new standard for consumers in that market. By capitalizing on the chief complaint of vacuums (losing suction), Dyson was able to demonstrate that he had solved this problem with new and innovative technology and thus reshaped the way we think of vacuums forever. In addition to solving the problem with existing vacuums, he created a new and very timely issue with vacuums. Dyson claimed that because vacuums had bags, they were actually creating dust and allergens rather than taking care of them. Essentially, he differentiated his brand from the entire market in 2 unique ways. Dyson also felt like he needed to display how well his technology worked by using a clear container in the vacuum. A strategy that market research and marketing experts told him was “crazy.” He went with his gut because he believed in his technology and the Dyson was born.

Since the launch of his vacuum, Dyson has put out a bladeless fan that blows filtered, clean air; and most recently, a hand dryer for restrooms. All of his products maintain their position throughout their marketing campaigns – Dyson’s brands provide a new way of thinking about their respective categories. I had the pleasure of using one of the hand dryers recently and it is awesome! But he still annoys me.

So here are 3 things we can learn from Dyson:

1. Think differently. If you continue to challenge the status quo, you just may come up with something brilliant.

2. Go with your gut. Market research is helpful and should be applied whenever possible but don’t allow market research to make every decision for your product or service.

3. Stay true to your brand. Establish a position and maintain that position throughout your marketing campaign.

And by the way, I own a Dyson.

From Geoff Sheldon, VP, Brand Planning Director, Palio

After reviewing the Marketing Executives Networking Group‘s 2010 Marketing Trends Report, conducted by Anderson Analytics, where “social media” obtained the dubious honor of the buzzword that marketers are most tired of hearing, I started thinking about the anxiety and irrationality that I have observed as marketers and advertisers continue to grapple with the concept of social media.

From personal experience, I have lost count of the number of meetings that I have been involved in whereafter the subject of social media was raised, there was a deathly silence, followed by some uncomfortable conversation, before the subject was changed and everyone moved on as if the whole conversation never took place.

Then on the flipside, I have also had the pleasure of being exposed to a number of ill-conceived client requests along the lines of “I don’t care what you do, just get me some of that social media stuff, and quickly!” (These kind of requests typically come out of left field, and seem to driven more of a client’s desire to be seen as cool, cutting edge, or keeping up with the Joneses, rather than being aligned to a particular marketing or communication strategy.)

I guess what has, and continues to surprise me, is the fact that both of these situations are driven by panic; manifested as either fatigue or avoidance or a desire to just do something/anything…

In many ways it is very obvious to see where this panic is coming from. As a new frontier, social media to the uninitiated appears to be overwhelming and uncontrollable (all things that tend to create anxiety), but with a little bit of knowledge and understanding it is easy to put social media into perspective as nothing more than just another communication touchpoint that can be leveraged as part of an integrated marketing plan.

What the advent of social media, and other channels (online/mobile etc.) has necessitated, however, is for marketers and advertisers to up our game in terms of media planning. In today’s media fragmented world, the way consumers are receiving their information is ever changing (social sites are here today and gone tomorrow), which requires us to have a deeper understanding of our consumers’ media consumption and to be a lot more nimble in the way we execute our tactics.

To me, having to stay relevant and one step ahead of our consumers is exciting and one of the main reasons I enjoy this business; it’s certainly not something to panic about.

From Ian DeMeritt, PhD, Senior Medical Writer

As printed promotional materials are continually being replaced by flashier electronic detail aids and on-line content, it is not surprising that DDMAC continues to cast a regulatory eye on digital presentations of pharmaceutical advertisements. Last April, DDMAC fired a resounding shot across the bow of the pharma world that sent a clear message that it was well aware of the goings-on in the digital realm and that it meant to enforce on-line media as diligently as that in print form. The more recent FDA hearings on social media, the FDA’s new “transparency blog,” and the recently-launched “FDA basics” Web site demonstrate a growing commitment to their online presence.

The watchful on-line eye of the FDA was again demonstrated just recently when DDMAC warned 2 pharmaceutical Web sites for making false and misleading claims. While these new letters do not contain any new or groundbreaking information regarding DDMAC’s interpretation of the advertising laws as they apply to Web-based content, they do serve as a useful reminder of some pitfalls to avoid when designing Web sites for a pharmaceutical product. In addition to the familiar “Unsubstantiated Claims” castigations, warnings related to speciously presentated risk information were a key component of each letter.

Both products cited (Isovue and Visipaque) are intravascularly administered contrast media indicated for imaging of the cardiovascular system. Both product labels contain boxed and bolded warnings cautioning against a laundry list of severe and frightening risks including death, convulsions, cerebral hemorrhage, coma, paralysis, and brain edema, among others.

Despite these warnings, the GE Healthcare Web site describing Visipaque boasted an “excellent safety profile” and declared that it was “designed for patient safety and comfort.” The only risks listed on the Visapaque Web site were general cautions against blood clotting, thromboembolic events, and use in certain patients. While the Isovue Website (which presents the results of a head-to-head clinical study against Visipaque) did mention the possibility of severe reactions, the potential for fatal adverse events was not disclosed. This stark omission of important risk information did not escape the notice of DDMAC reviewers and these letters serve as a reminder that all relevant risk information, regardless of the implications to the brand, must be presented to balance promotional claims.

Furthermore, these letters reiterate that the placement and presentation of risk information is just as important in electronic format as it is in a printed piece. The Visipaque risk information was located at the very bottom of a long page of text, hidden below the references. Despite headlines heralding “Product Highlights” and “Product Description,” the risk information was not marked in any way to indicate to the reader that it was either present or important. Similarly, the risk information on the Isovue Web site was portrayed in a smaller font size than the promotional copy and without any headers to indicate its importance or presence.

It should be noted that both Web sites contained a link to the full prescribing information. However, as previous Warning letters have demonstrated, DDMAC is no fan of the so-called “one-click rule.”

While these new letters reveal no momentous changes in DDMAC policy concerning Web-based content, they do reinforce several lessons to keep in mind when creating, designing, reviewing, or reading pharmaceutical-based Web content:

Lesson 1. Safety Information must be clearly labeled as such and be given prominent placement on a Web page

Lesson 2. Risk information must be presented in a similar font size and appearance as promotional messages

Lesson 3. The FDA does not consider any pharmaceutical product with a boxed or bolded warning to be “safe” and any promotional messages to this effect are at risk

Lesson 4. All relevant risk information must be presented, regardless of how scary it might sound or the potential implications for the brand

Lesson 5. A “Please see…” line and/or a link to the PI is not sufficient to replace missing risk information

Lesson 6. The “one-click rule” is still dead

From Mike Myers, President, Palio

Information overload is the norm these days. There never seems to be enough time to read all of the publications and newsletters that I receive in the mail or via e-mail. Add in Twitter updates, Facebook posts, LinkedIn notices, news sites, sports sites, blogs, and the information on the Internet in general, and it’s easy to feel overwhelmed.

Never fear, I’ll manage. One of the things that I do to keep up is to try to focus on a few key sources in all areas of information need. This is the first in a like minded series of things that I peruse regularly.

Listed below are 10 blogs that I find interesting, insightful, and/or generally good food for thought. Let me know what you think and what’s on your list.

• Dose of Digital – Jonathan Richman’s blog on e-marketing and social media in healthcare. Some of the most thorough analysis on social media in healthcare accompanies posts with solid insight.
• Chris Brogan – He wrote Social Media 101 and Trust Agents. One of the gurus in the social media space. While I don’t like the video blogs as much as his other approaches, the messages are always resonating.
• Notes from the Back of the Book – Ellen Hoenig Carlson’s blog on e-marketing, healthcare and social media. She doesn’t post every day which makes keeping up easy. Posts are always amusing at some level.
• Make the Logo Bigger – In their words, make the logo bigger is advertising and a bunch of other stuff. The irreverence coupled with their view on advertising is refreshing.
• Pharmalot – I missed Ed Silverman and am glad he’s back. He often has leading edge news information and provides a nice voice through his blog.
• Eye on FDA – FDA happenings and their impact on pharma with thoughts on the great social media pharma debate.
• Mashable – The self proclaimed social media guide provides a good dose of just that, but also has solid information on technology innovations and happenings that will impact marketers and consumers in general.
• Fuel Lines – The goal of this site is to fuel “ad agency new business through social media.” Frequent updates and good information. Heck, I got the idea for this post from one on this site.
• How to Change the World – Guy Kawasaki’s blog. The blog is good. Following him on Twitter is even better. Hey – Guy – we need an updated post…
• DTC In Perspective – A post a week. Always focused on DTC. Good content and not too overwhelming.

If you’re not on this list, relax…this is just 10 of the many that I peruse. For an exhaustive review of my broader list, see my personal blog IdeaPharmer. Anyone have something that I’m missing that I should be reading? Please share. In an effort to find the best and lower my reading volume, I tend to make the “electronic pile” bigger and bigger…

From Todd LaRoche, EVP, Managaing Director of Creative, Palio

In the March issue of Pharmaceutical Executive, you’ll find this article, which highlights the “trend setters, the image makers, the creative geniuses” who have architected some of this year’s most memorable and innovative pharmaceutical ads. It’s a great display of work, completely worth looking through.

As the introduction asserts, “The pharmaceutical industry spends billions of dollars every year marketing treatments that they spent billions to create, but more often than not, no one knows who the ads’ creators are. Much like the Wizard of Oz, drug ads are heard and seen, but the teams get little credit for their ingenuity. For years, pharma companies have kept the agencies behind their products a secret, and few of their stories have ever been told.”

So take a look at the article to see some great examples of compelling creative and to find out a little about the people behind the work… “the unsung heroes behind a large portion of the advertising you see every single day on television, on the radio and Web, and in magazines and journals.”

And when you do, let’s not forget about the unsung heroes behind the unsung heroes. No article such as this can truly recognize all of the people that it takes to create Great Work. Sure, the creative leads are the “front men” of the band when it comes to recognizing creativity. But Great Work, creative work that achieves its purpose, takes Brand Planners who capture the insight that drives the strategy behind the work, it takes dedicated Editors who make sure every detail is correct in the presentation, it takes Designers (at Palio we engage our Design Lab on most every creative project) to bring the work to a finer finish, it takes skilled Production folks who ensure the work will appear right in the various media being employed, it takes Medical Writers and Strategists who keep the work credible, it takes dedicated Project Managers who keep the development of the work moving ahead on schedule, and it takes talented Account people who are adept at keeping relationships strong and the business on course. In fact, it takes a whole lot more people than those I just mentioned — it takes an entire agency.

So here’s to the cast of 2010 All Star creatives behind the work, and also to the people behind them who had major roles in making the work Great!

From Steve Dubansky, MD, SVP, Medical Director, Palio

I read with interest Sven Larsen’s Pixels & Pills blog post praising Dr. Parkinson’s no-office-all-house-call medical practice. Dr. Oz agrees, calling Dr. Parkinson’s idea “slick and smart.” But is it really? And do I want my doctor’s practice to be slick and smart?

As much as we rue the disappearance of the good old days when all doctors were Marcus Welby, when all took time with their patients, and all practiced medicine with the same idealism that they felt (or confabulated) when they wrote their med school admission essays, house calls aren’t the answer.

How many patients can Dr. Parkinson see in one day? I imagine that number to be far fewer than he could see in his office even if he took as much time as needed with his office patients. How much does he have to charge for each visit in order to make enough money to make a comfortable living? I’m sure it’s far more than he would need to charge in order to earn a decent living from an office practice. Is this model more like a boutique practice? Who’s going to see all the patients who can’t afford house call charges? Who will see all those whom a very well meaning Dr. Parkinson can’t quite get to each day?

Dr. Parkinson says this about his business model: “It’s paying attention to what’s awesome about Flick’r and then doing it.” I would prefer that my office model be nothing like Flick’r. At the risk of seeming to be a Luddite, I’d much prefer it be more like a newspaper, the old fashioned kind that you hold in your hands, taking all the time you need to understand each article and to draw a well thought out conclusion.

Sadly, not all well-meaning efforts to improve the quality of medical care result in meaningful improvements. Electronic health records (EHR) have a lot to commend them, but they are no guarantee of better care. During my last two office visits to a dermatologist and rheumatologist, I had the great displeasure of realizing that neither of them, while furiously typing away on their EHR tablets, made more than momentary eye contact with me during my brief (aren’t they always?) visits.

The answer to humane, compassionate, medical care isn’t a boutique practice, house calls, or EHRs. It’s simply competence, a keen mind, and a caring attitude that is unfailingly empathic, communicating understanding, patience, and respect for those the doctor is privileged to call “patients.” And an office works just fine.