Open The Dialogue

The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) held hearings for the last two days on the issue of drug promotion on the internet and social media.  Of key concern – drug ads on Google and elsewhere were missing critical health side-effects information which is mandatory in other media formats such as print, radio and television.  To help clarify the issue, heavy weights such as Google, Yahoo and Pfizer testified to present their case in addressing these concerns.

As we saw it, there are two different, but related, issues at play here, including:

1.) How drug companies can advertise on the internet:

Due to the nature of the medium (i.e., small website banners and sponsored search links) companies such as Google, Yahoo and various pharmaceutical companies are urging the FDA to provide a direction on how to appropriately inform consumers of the drug’s health risks.  Google and the pharmaceutical industry have provide suggestions that include links back to informative web properties; both the WSJ Health Blog and NPR’s Health Blog delve deeper into this story.

2.) What role pharma companies will play in social media regarding how drug information is discussed:

The big issue at hand is how pharma companies must disclose health risks while remaining conversational on social media (i.e., Twitter, Facebook and blogs).  One issue that resonated was control on user edited sites like Wikipedia; these sites provide less control for brands to manage what the users add or delete from drug information.  As such, pharmaceutical reps are arguing that they should be held accountable for only information under their direct control, such as company websites.  More information on this story can be found on NextGov. Some interesting thinking on addressing both of these concerns by Pharma Marketing News and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufactures of America, as reported by redOrbit: “Online pharmaceutical-marketing expert John Mack of Pharma Marketing News, recommended that the FDA take the unprecedented step of mandating that drug manufacturers put “tags” on their Twitter posts in order to monitor and potentially censor discussions about specific products.  A similar suggestion was made earlier in the week by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America representative Jeffrey Francer, in which he encouraged the FDA to require a standard safety logo for drug-related Web content that would link consumers to an official FDA-approved website with information about the medication in question.”

As marketers, for any campaign or program, clearly we need to be mindful in how we create online ad campaigns and how we develop social media strategy to ensure proper discloser of drug health risks. We are strong proponents in the value of social media in providing access to health related information and connecting with others of similar conditions.  In fact, social media is the perfect tool to being an informed patient, which, we believe, can help in better treatments and care.  However, social media is no substitute to consulting with our doctors about what is the best course of treatment for whatever ails us.

We’ll continue to monitor this news and share updates and thinking along the way.

Understanding the sentiment of key online communities and influencers on timely industry issues, new products, company news and legislation can be incredibly helpful to business prosperity.  The DialogueMedia team is pleased to announce the launch of MWW Pulse, a group of blogger panels who can offer diverse industry expertise on key issues.

MWW Pulse is a social media destination for readers who want insights from top online influencers in important categories, including: Environmental and Sustainability, Health and Wellness, Consumer Technology and Personal Finance. Several times a year each panel will be asked to provide commentary, analysis and opinion on provocative subject matter – similar to what they’re already doing on their own blogs — for the MWW Pulse site. The program kicks off today with blog posts from a panel of Environmental & Sustainability bloggers, including Jasmin Malik Chua from Inhabitot and Ecouterre, Adam Shake from Twilight Earth, Maureen O’Connor from The Alternative Consumer, Stephen Del Percio from GreenbuildingsNYC and Janet Dean from the GreenMomReview.

We know that by enlisting some of the best minds on important topics we can facilitate an energetic dialogue resulting in breakthrough ideas, solutions and thinking – a win, win for the community, for our clients and for the panelists involved. Also, by MWW Group facilitating these discussions, we hope to learn a great deal from the collective knowledge of the panel, and ensure our clients follow the best practices that are often discussed in such forums. These panels will become a source for energetic discussions surrounding these topics and our panelists become a go-to source of commentary for media outlets ranging from broadcast news, print feature pieces and other blogs.

I must confess that I have quite the affinity towards colorful pie charts, so when I came across Mashable’s post the other day with this beauty I was pretty excited.

It has become very common to see celebrities using Twitter to connect with fans and promote their recent projects but did you ever really think about how they stack up against one another in terms of engagement, sentiment, and followers/following ratio? Brian Solis and PeopleBrowsr recently released the Twitter Celebrity Report for August 2009 where he analyzes the conversation and celebrity engagement during the month of August 2009. It’s a great read and I highly recommend taking a look at it.

Washington Post Cracks Down on Dissident Journalists

Reports have come in that the authorities at Washington Post have launched a severe crackdown on journalists’ use of social media after news broke that one of its editors, Raju Narisetti, used the popular microblogging website, Twitter, to send personal opinionated comments to the public.  The crackdown includes never before seen levels of censorship by shutting down Narisetti’s independent Twitter profile and new edicts outlawing similar uses by all WaPo writers.  These actions have been severely criticized by other member websites such as TechCrunch with limited discussion on the subject coming from within.  Narisetti’s conditions and whereabouts within the WaPo HQ are as yet unknown.

Brand Websites Under Attack by Google Sidewiki

Correspondent Steve Woodruff reports that brand websites are facing a critical threat to its image by the emergence of Google’s new tool called Sidewiki.  The wiki allows rogue agents to leave unflattering comments in direct contradiction to the careful messaging on the branded websites for all others to see.  Woodruff highlights the effects it is having on pharmaceutical blogs and websites.

Google Wave or a Google Tsunami?

Reports indicate that there are high levels of chatter surrounding Google Wave to be unleashed today.  Some are predicting it to be a Google Tsunami in its “potential to redefine the web and how we interact digitally.” Experts are still waiting to see what effect it will have for brands and social media strategy.

Seth Godin is on the tip of everyone’s tongue’s today (as he probably planned to be).  Not only did he launch the Brands in Public project yesterday evening but I was able to be in attendance (thanks HarperStudio!) today while he gave a talk to the Digital Publishing Group addressing critical issues in today’s publishing landscape.  Before getting into the re-cap about the event, a bit more about Brands in Public:

Squidoo has built several hundred pages, each one about a major brand. (Here are some examples). More are on the way. We’ll keep going until we have thousands of important brands, each on its own page (and we’ll happily add one for you if you like). Each page collects tweets, blog posts, news stories, images, videos and comments about a brand. All of these feeds are algorithmic… the good and the bad show up, all collated and easy to find.

Of course, these comments and conversations are already going on, all over the web. What we’ve done is bring them together in one place. And then we’ve made it easy for the brand to chime in.

That last sentence is probably most important.  For this ease-of-use, Seth wants $400/month for a brand to use this page as a portal to interact with consumers on the web.  Is this the right thing to do?  Is it worth it?  Where is the value for consumers and the brand?  There has been significant debate surrounding this move and even Seth himself says “BIP” probably shouldn’t be the 1st option:

If you have the tools and wherewithal to build a page like this on your own site, you should consider that. The challenge is getting it done, regardless of where the page lives.

A big post from Jason Falls today debates this even further.  He wonders if BIPs are holding brands hostage:

At first glance, you just think, “So what? The brands can just participate in the conversations on the various social networks and they Brands in Public spider will pick up those conversations as well. Hopefully, Brands in Public isn’t doing anything shady by parsing out the brand participation and that theory will hold true. However, think for a moment of the power, reach and influence Godin has. If his idea takes hold (it probably will because on the surface it’s a good one) and he markets it the way he’s capable of, Brands in Public could be come THE place to go see the “unfiltered” conversation about brands everywhere.

If that scenario plays out, then the $400 or more fee Godin’s company plans to charge is, in a way, blackmail.

It’ll be important to watch how this develops over the coming weeks and months.  There is no denying that time time is now to engage with consumers, directly, online but is this the best way to do it?  How many “walls” should be between you and your audience?  Seth talked a lot about platforms and tribes in today’s #digpub event and a lot of what one sees in this BIP execution also was discussed today in regards to the publishing industry.

During today’s talk, Seth made strong analogies between the necessary innovation that must and is happening in the music industry to what has to happen in the publishing industry in 2009 (arguably, it should’ve started 10 years ago).

• Thinking less about the physical product.  Actual books as “dead trees” shouldn’t be the focus but more books should be the vehicle of great ideas which people will forever be attracted to.
• Applicable to marketing in all industries, he then ran though some solid strategy points -
  • Permission marketing – it’s about developing relationships, creating value and making marking (with permission) a two-way street
  • Scarcity – simply, if you have something of overwhelming value and cap access – it usually becomes more sought after
  • Selection related to risk – as a publisher, you want to be in a position to be finding writers for your readers instead of the other way around
  • Finally, it’s all about attention – if the tools and content you’re producing are creating overwhelming value for your audience, you’ll often hold their attention and, subsequently, their permission

Update:  Seth posted a change in direction for the Brands in Public project today.  In what I think is a smart move, if a brand wants to participate, it becomes opt-in and they must contact Squidoo directly.  All the pilot pages set-up for brands to adopt are now inactive.