From Maureen Wendell, VP, Account Services, Palio

A college friend of mine recently started a new business – Heard it From a Mom – that revolves around a unique viral marketing concept called the “Product Relay.”  Heard It From a Mom Product Relays leverage the power of Moms when it comes to product endorsement. In the Relay, a Mom can try a product for free and then refer other Moms she knows to try the product. They can in turn refer other Moms and so on. Since it turns out that 70% of Moms purchase products based on another Mom’s recommendation, the relays have the potential to drive sales by generating Mom-to-Mom product endorsements.  And since this all takes place through the Web site and via the many mom blogs, the results are highly measurable and can range from volume data to psychographic/demographic data on the highest value customers.

All very interesting for the consumer packaged-goods sector, but how can the relay concept enable pharmaceutical companies to harness the power of viral marketing, product trial, personal endorsement and word of mouth promotion? Since we cannot head down the road of product recommendation, we need to find another leverage point that can motivate patients to care for their health and develop a relationship with our brands.

One of the greatest unmet needs in healthcare is education. If we can find ways to reward patients who engage in educational activities along with a brand, it’s a win-win for patients, pharma companies and healthcare overall. With the tools at hand today – games, apps, video – we have the power to engage patients in the most basic (and boring) disease state information and start an Education Relay.

Take diabetes for instance.  A patient who understands carb counting, their insulin sensitivity factor, their insulin:carb ratio and how to translate frequent BG readings into hbA1c is empowered to not only control their disease but to also influence others.

What’s in it for the patient?

- Fun: If the tools are engaging and mobile, it can be a great experience. One need look no further than the Farmville and Mafia Wars to know that games are HOT and people are willing to devote a significant amount of time to playing.

- Savings: Patients that participate and relay to others can earn points that can be used to reduce their broader healthcare costs (vs. discounts on a pharma sponsor’s brand), such as a pharmacy card.

- Altruism: Sponsors can donate to a relevant cause for each engagement/relay.

What other “hooks” can we explore to start an Education Relay and allow pharma brands to develop brand advocates and spread their influence?

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.

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

Let’s say you’re an oncologist with 25 years of experience in patient care, research, and teaching. You’re now working in a medium-sized pharmaceutical ad agency, and you’re the medical strategist and writer responsible for a small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor called pinkiemib, the first successful biologic therapy for cancer of the fifth finger. NouveauRx Pharmaceuticals, the originator and promoter of pinkiemib, is excited with the possibility that this will be their much needed blockbuster product, and you and your team are excited to help them promote it.

You’ve been working closely with the pinkiemib brand team for almost 2 years. You’ve recently developed a series of advertorials, and you’ve written content for its disease state awareness Web site. Concepts have been developed and testing is well underway. The client likes you and your agency team, and the feeling is mutual. The product is set to launch in 6 months. All’s right with the world.

This idyllic picture is suddenly and unpredictably shattered when your agency is told by NouveauRx that they have decided to consolidate their entire $175 million dollar advertising business with the McPharmold Group, an agency holding conglomerate with offices just about everywhere. Nouveau is looking for consistency and cost efficiencies. Their executives feel that they’re not getting back enough in return for their marketing dollars. More worrisome, their marketing dollars are not nearly as effective as their major competitors’.

So you and your agency are out the proverbial door, kicked to the proverbial curb, to the dismay of your now good friends on the pinkiemib brand team. You’ve lost out to a bigger company with multiple subsidiary agencies. Bad for you but good for NouveauRx. Or is it?

While there are undoubtedly reasons to trim the fat, cut costs and consolidate, the old adage, “penny wise pound foolish,” comes to mind. Certainly Nouveau’s costs may be lower with their new agency than they were with yours, but will that translate into improved pinkiemib sales? However, promises of access to the “best talent” and providing economies of scale are often mutually exclusive. Oftentimes neither promise is kept.

Will this new conglomerate have an agency with a team so smart that they can handle the now incredibly steep learning curve that’s staring them in the face?

Will this new agency have someone with the scientific acumen that you and your agency team has in this specialty area… yours gleaned over 25 years, and your colleagues’ gleaned with your guidance over the past 2 years?

Will the new agency have experienced account personnel with the time and the insights to handle pinkiemib on a day-to-day basis, or will Nouveau’s baby be left to bright (hopefully) but inexperienced and perhaps over-their-heads junior account people?

Will McPharmold’s agency have the same quality of creative people, steeped in learnings from first-hand observation of qual and quant research like your creative team? Will they even have brand planners, and, if they do, will their planners have the same depth of understanding of the 5^th finger cancer marketplace, as does your agency? Can the new agency provide invaluable support with research and analytics?

Will the new team have the passion? Will they develop that never-to-be-underestimated great working relationship with the pinkiemib brand team?

There’s more to life and business than consistency and efficiency. I believe they’re both overrated. I agree with Aldous Huxley, the British writer and humanist, who said both, “Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative,” and “The worst enemy of life, freedom and the common decencies is total anarchy; their second worst enemy is total efficiency.”

Could Bayer, Sanofi, GlaxxoSmithKline, and Johnson & Johnson be wrong? Possibly. They all have been wrong before. But then again, what do I know. I’m just an oncologist with 25 years of experience.

From Mike Myers, President, Palio (@mmyerspalio)

Big brother is definitely watching and more importantly further defining his role.

I had heard of the $81 million dollar fine/settlement that J&J had to pay for allegedly promoting Topamax (their anti-epileptic and migraine prevention drug) for off-label psychiatric uses.

But Ed Silverman over at Pharmalot was the one who let me know in one of his recent posts about the extent of the Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) between the Office of Inspector General and Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals.

J&J reps are now going to be accompanied by Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (OMJPI) Compliance Personnel or other designees on random sales calls. When conducted, sales reps will not be allowed to interact with physicians or any other healthcare professional without direct observation. At the end of the day, a report will be prepared to outline what happened, whether anything inappropriate occurred, and a general overall assessment of the rep’s compliance with appropriate promotional guidelines.

I don’t believe in off-label promotion. As a former sales rep, it was drilled into my head as the ultimate no-no. As an agency guy, we don’t support it either. It goes against what I personally and professionally feel is right.

And while the overwhelming majority of pharma personnel that I’ve worked with feel the same way, someone feels that everyone needs to hear the strength of this message. Basically, “we’re going to fine you and we’re also not going to trust you to follow what we agree is the right thing to do either.”

My 401K and our current economy are largely where they’re at as a direct result of business improprieties. And while I want people to toe the line and face regulation/scrutiny when they fail to do so, I’d also like pharma to be treated like other industries.

Frankly, the political reasons that politicians and their associated agencies utilize to justify vilifying pharma as the purveyor of all that is bad are wearing thin on me.

If what J&J must do to be compliant in the eyes of the government includes this level of scrutiny, then so be it. I’m all for it. But, when will the countless other industries and firms that have knowingly or unknowingly made mistakes be held equally accountable?

What do you think?

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 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 Jon Hussey, SVP, Director of Brand Planning, Palio

We are in the business of providing stimulus. Yet, more often, we are too focused on the response. If you work in pharma, you have probably seen countless positioning statements that include “first-line,” “drug of choice,” or my personal favorite, “first-line drug of choice.” Yes, we want doctors and consumers to choose our product. And yes, we often want them to use us first. But by focusing on the response, we often fail to convince our targets to act the way we want them to.

In this sense, pharma lags behind other categories. Geico provides a simple, pain-free way to buy insurance that is “so easy a caveman can do it.” BMW gives you “the ultimate driving machine” to provide you with the best possible driving experience. The iPhone gives you a smartphone with superior usability and styling. All of which are reasons you might choose these products above their competitors. Yet for some reason, in pharma we often feel the need to tell physicians how to use our products (first-line) without effectively convincing them of why.

It is hard to imagine BMW calling itself “your first choice in automobiles” or the iPhone being your “preferred smartphone.” People hate advertisers telling them how to think, and physicians are no different.

Clearly, things are not as simple in pharma as elsewhere. We are very limited in what we can say and are required to disclose information that other industries are not. Given the risks involved in generating head-to-head data, most products are faced with promoting noncomparative efficacy and safety data that, for the most part, are undifferentiated. Without a clear differentiating feature — the why — marketers often fall back to telling physicians the how — first-line.

However, every once in a while, you find a pharmaceutical product that has done an effective job positioning itself in the market. They are easy to spot because physicians and consumers have an irrational attachment to them. To someone with insider knowledge they often seem inferior, and you wonder why someone would choose to use them. You start to believe that the physicians that prescribe them don’t know what they are doing, that they are acting irrationally. And no matter how much data the competitors show them on the superiority of their products, physicians remain unconvinced.

A well-differentiated product is a beautiful thing — unless you are competing against one. Then it is like banging your head against a wall. You search for something else to do to avoid having to deal with it. Like writing a blog post.

Well, back to the wall. I hope it isn’t too thick. I have a soft skull.

Get this hat at Stetson Hats. Click the image...

From Mike Myers, President, Palio (@mmyerspalio)

As a continuation of the theme brought forth in my recent post “Healthcare costs and pharmaceuticals – who’s the bad guy?,” I wanted to share an example of the positives that exist and continue in the pharmaceutical industry. In light of recent information that has come to light about GSK and Avandia, this may seem like “small potatoes.” In reality, this is one example of the countless number of “good” activities conducted by an industry that is all too often seen as the “bad guy.”

At a time when everyone seems to increasingly want to jump on the anti-pharma bandwagon, I was happy to see that the media is trumpeting the recent research collaboration between Eli Lilly, Pfizer and Merck. A not-for-profit, the company “will help speed up research on new medicines to treat gastric and lung cancers. The company, which will be called the Asian Cancer Research Group, is one of the first examples of a collaboration among major drug companies to combine resources and expertise to rapidly increase the knowledge of a disease and the disease process.”

“Over the next two years, the three companies will work on creating an extensive pharmacogenomic cancer database. The database will consist of information taken from about 2,000 tissue samples from patients with lung and gastric cancer and will be made available to researchers around the world.”

“Through its work and the subsequent sharing of information, the ACRG hopes to empower researchers, foster innovation and improve the prognosis and treatment of patients with cancer,” said Gary Gilliland, M.D., Ph.D., senior vice president and franchise head, Oncology, Merck Research Laboratories.

On all fronts, I think that this is an outstanding move. In what other industries do we see not-for-profits being set up by competitors?

As I’ve said previously, take a closer look. The guy wearing the black hat may not be the one you thought. Anyone out there want to shoot back?