The Schwartz Digital team has been busy as of late creating videos and podcasts for our healthcare clients. It's great that these services have been so well received--I personally think it's indicative of widespread understanding among the types of companies Schwartz represents that there's way more to telling a story than issuing a press release and getting covered in BioWorld or Medical Device Daily. (Not that we don't love and value those publications, because we certainly do.)
Here's a recent video for client Phytel that shows how a clinic is using the company's technology to deliver coordinated patient care.
I imagine one of the things that's really forced marketers to consider video is the fact that YouTube is the second most popular search engine in the US. It's safe to say that YouTube offers something for everyone, but built its reputation among consumers who were looking to be entertained, instructed or grossed out. By now, though, it seems that most companies have figured out that YouTube and other significant video sharing sites, like Vimeo, or even niche sites like TheDoctorsChannel, are in fact looked upon by their target customers as useful sources of information.
If you're the kind of person who appreciates numbers over anecdotal evidence, consult the 2009 Forbes/Google Report called "The Rise of the Digital C-Suite." It'll tell you that "text is king" when it comes to consumption of information by executives, "but online video is entering the C-suite's ranks." In fact, the report says, "27% of senior executives under the age of 50 cite web video as their preferred format for information gathering ...." [The report does note a generational split, with execs who are 50+ favoring text.]
So there's a general trend toward video. But how does it affect companies that mostly care to reach technical or scientific audiences? I suspect that video is going to be very interesting to them precisely because their stories can be so complex.
One thing Schwartz has always done with technical companies, stretching back to our first healthcare client 20 years ago, is help them translate their stories for consumption by a general audience. That ability is now, and always will be, I believe, a critical first step of any communications program.
But sometimes it really kills executives of science-driven companies to prepare their stories for relatively broad audiences. Not because they're unable to speak using terms that their mothers might understand; on the contrary, most are willing to lose the jargon when they need to. What obviously pains them is the thought of having to compress their stories to a few sentences in order to make them palatable to reporters, for example, while preserving the details that will catch the attention of the most knowledgeable audiences, such as other scientists or sophisticated investors.
I think video is a natural option for these companies because it can help them better project the things that make them unique--the researchers, the enthusiasm or images associated with their work--that they often lose, almost by necessity, in writing.
What do you think? Have you seen good examples of healthcare companies that don't market to patients or life sciences firms using video?
Say what you will about the effectiveness of conferences in the marketing mix--there are still a lot of shows that companies feel they have to attend in order to see and be seen. In the case of Schwartz client BioImagene, that conference is the annual meeting of the U.S. & Canadian Academy of Pathology (USCAP).
BioImagene is one of the companies that dominate USCAP and their PR team is working overtime to support the show presence. So it was nice for everyone to see a blog entry, "BioImagene PR Doing It The Apple Way," from New York-based pathology resident Karl Robstad, M.D.
Dr. Robstad offers, "In an industry that, at least in my opinion, lacks some of the excitement in spreading the word about their newest and best products/services, BioImagene is a real stand-out taking a page out of Apple’s handbook, by creating mystique and hype around product releases, and then following the hype up with grand spectacle unveilings."
He continues, "You can look at stuff like this and call them 'PR stunts' or whatever, but I think there is a certain amount of merit behind a good PR campaign."
We'd agree, Dr. Robstad, and thank you for noticing. It's all about generating the sort of visibility that makes the BioImagene sales team happy and that underscores how a company that was founded a few years ago is altering a century-old industry.
The BioImagene booth was hopping at USCAP last year. Here's to an even more successful 2010 event later this month.
This photo from euthman is covered by a Creative Commons license.
Yesterday the Boston Business Journal ran an overview, "Biotechs proceed with social-media caution," of the state of affairs in drug companies' use of Web 2.0 platforms like Facebook, Twitter and blogs.
As you'd expect, this is an issue tracked carefully by every PR firm in Boston, San Francisco and other areas where the drug and medical device industries are concentrated.
As we all know, companies that market therapies and medical devices in the U.S. have to be prudent in their use of social media. Lacking FDA guidance, they generally believe that they need to steer clear of anything that might be deemed promotional. (John Moore of Chilmark Research boils it down for readers in the Boston Business Journal article: "How do you have clear disclaimers in 140 characters?") And what if patients make claims that aren't supported by FDA labeling? Or report side effects that the drug or device company can't verify?
Yet, as the article points out, people are talking anyway--patients and their families will continue to search online for information about conditions and treatments--and biotech and medical device companies increasingly feel that they have to at least listen to those conversations.
I've heard some ask, "Why would I listen when I can't respond?" That mindset strikes me as too tactically focused and short-sighted. A response to that post or that tweet may be out of the question, but any effective external communications program has to be based on a reasonably comprehensive understanding of how your product is perceived.
Beyond that, as the article and other discussions of pharmaceutical marketing have pointed out, companies can still make some use of social media as a channel to reach target audiences. They might be hamstrung at this moment in time in not being free to engage in every two-way conversation, but pharmaceutical and medical device companies should be able to get creative in their use of social media to disseminate some types of information, such as facts about a particular medical condition and tips on its management that have nothing to do with a drug or device.
Jim Weinrebe from Schwartz attended the November 2009 FDA hearings on social media and opined, at the time, that "active listening and monitoring" of social media by drug and device companies would gradually become seen as "safe" and would not go hand in hand with a requirement to "police."
Pharma and device companies are listening to what's being said online and some are beginning to go a bit beyond. None of these firms are giving consumer brands a run for their money in use of social media, but it's clear that they should at least begin to listen. Perceiving social media use as "all or nothing" isn't in line with industry leaders' current thinking.
When you convene a group of leading healthcare journalists, in front of a room full of healthcare PR professionals, sometimes there's no telling what you might hear. Journalists and PR folk, especially healthcare PR agency specialists, have a bit of a love hate relationship. We both need each other, for different reasons of course, and in light of the different media world we live in today, it's more critical than ever that we best understand how we can help each other. As a PR practitioner, I'm most concerned with finding creative and impactful ways for my medical device, biotech and biopharmaceutical clients to get their message out to their key target audiences. The game has changed and in fact continues to change on what often seems like a minute-to-minute basis. OK, maybe I'm exaggerating but you get the point.
To that end, we prepared a special report with our takeaways from this session, thoughts on how the media environment is altering communications strategies and ideas on how healthcare companies can capture the right mix of influential mindshare. Is it shocking that healthcare journalists are busy (no), have fewer resources (no) and have less time to pursue feature-based stories (no)? How about the fact that several of the reporters we heard from have yet to jump on the social media bandwagon? Probably not shocking, but interesting, yes especially when the media organizations they write for are knee deep in trying to drive eyeballs to their respective Web sites via the multitude of social media tools and channels available. Check out the report and read on to uncover the good, bad and the ugly of what to expect in 2010. Feel free to opine on our blog with your thoughts and observations, we would love to hear from you.
Jim Weinrebe presented his perspective on the role social media is playing in crisis communications management for biotech, life science and pharmaceutical companies at the Publicity Club of New England's "Crisis Communications Preparedness" program held at Schwartz Communications.
Jim, along with his fellow panelists, weighed in on the need to plan, plan, and then plan some more as it's still at the root of any good crisis communications or reputation management plan for healthcare PR. Simply put, you can't be too careful, or too prepared in today's digital media age. It's not so much that many of the fundamentals have changed but that the SPEED, unbiquity of communication and new product applications in social media, with Google Sidewiki offered as just one recent example, have the potential to outpace the planning capabilities of some of even the most seasoned practitioners.
What's very different today in healthcare, according to Jim, is diminished ability of healthcare prescription product manufacturers to control, manage or even respond to messages that are swirling around them in the social media universe. With the prolific growth in use of Twitter, blogs, Facebook, YouTube, Flickr and other channels, social media content is not only broadly influencing people online, but also becoming a feeding ground for resource-constrained traditional media outlets that are constantly seeking audience generated content to embellish their reporting. The news vetting bar has never been set so low for provocative content that can get instantly posted and then picked up by influential traditional broadcast and print outlets in the blink of an eye.
While one of the fundamental rules for participation in social media is to actively listen, Jim also noted that even this basic aspect of social media etiquette poses difficult challenges for healthcare prescription product manufacturers, who could be accountable to the FDA for reporting instances of adverse events that have been identified through social media monitoring. It was noted that the industry is seeking clarity from the FDA on these and other issues related to social media, which could be at least partially forthcoming in pending public hearings on this topic in mid-November. Until such guidance is established, Weinrebe noted, prescription healthcare product manufacturer participation in social media will be very modest, and for the most part resembling more of a web 1.0 than a web 2.0 format. Meanwhile, Weinrebe said that social media has more potential to create or accelerate crisis for healthcare prescription product manufacturers. Exceptions in healthcare cited by Weinrebe were organizations like the Centers for Disease Control and American Red Cross, and even individual hospitals, who have employed sophisticated uses of social media to help effectively manage and communicate messages during public health emergencies and crises.
Jim noted that in regulated industries, such as healthcare and finance, there is still a lot of work to be done in educating senior management about the need to apply authenticity in tone to social media communications, even if the communications are nothing more than stand-by statements or simple acknowledgment that a problem has occurred. Jim counseled attendees to consider social media monitoring tools as a core part of an effective public relations strategy, while at the same noting that many healthcare product manufacturers need more guidance on adverse events reporting before even that approach can be robustly implemented.
While the healthcare industry waits with suspense for the outcomes of the FDA hearings on social media, Jim noted that clarity will not be achieved in the short term, that the deliberations will continue well into 2010 and that even by that point and beyond, a certain degree of ambiguity may still be desired by regulatory agencies as a means for cultivating preemptive manufacturer caution.
Jim Weinrebe, executive vice president and leader in our healthcare public relations practice, will join several panelists on Monday, October 26 at Schwartz Communications for a Publicity Club of New England panel program to talk about crisis communications preparedness.
As much as we try to avoid them, crises are inevitable and usually strike at the most inopportune times. The emergence of social media alone has exponentially increased the urgency and need for being prepared. When the pressure is on, it is important to get the facts in order as quickly as possible before any public communication is disseminated and determine the key target audiences that need to be addressed. The pre-determined crisis communications team should be prepared to deliver relevant information in a timely and appropriate manner to minimize the rumor mill and restore order and/or confidence. It's absolutely critical to have a crisis communications team and protocol in place before an emergency or potentially controversial situation strikes.
Jim will be joined by several leading industry executives to discuss effective crisis communications protocol and offer insight into real world case study examples. More specifically, Jim will provide insight into managing a crisis in healthcare PR. Participants will walk away with an understanding of what works, and what doesn't, when under the gun and how to best prepare an effective crisis communications plan in a time of turmoil. To register for the program, please visit www.pubclub.org. Space is limited so please reserve your spot!
Attendance is down at this year’s international BIO conference and many of the clinical stage attendees are in a frantic race against their respective burn rates, but this event once again distinguishes itself as a forum where many of the industry’s best and brightest convene to be passionate about their science and its life changing potential, despite the formidable odds faced by so many. And while Big Pharma stalks the aisles and presentations looking for the next hidden gem that will restore luster to their aging portfolios, it is, once again, the little guys who really shine as the sources of innovation.
What has changed are the business models and pipeline strategies. They are far more practical in outlook and expectations than ever before. Projects of real scientific merit but commercially less within reach are being shelved in favor of more focused business strategies. With sharper focus on fewer projects, but ones with nearer term potential, these companies are operating with far more operating savvy that will help them weather the storm.
Big Pharma would be wise not to approach this as a buyer’s market. Even a biotech on the brink of running out of cash may have the cure that ails their portfolio. This is a more sober, more realistic partner match making environment where it is advisable to tread carefully.
One of the more interesting recent medical stories to hit the mainstream media was the news that for the first time, the FDA has cleared the use of embryonic stem cells in human clinical trials. This particular trial will use a stem cell line developed by Geron, Inc. of Menlo Park, CA and will be implanted in people who have suffered acute spinal cord injury. As somebody who has actually seen the Geron-developed video of the stem cell’s affect on paralyzed mice walking and running after having been implanted with the Geron cells, the raw potential of the therapy is breathtaking. Of course, it will take many years of rigorous scientific testing in people to determine both safety and efficacy. This first small 10-patient trial however is an important first step.
What is curious and thought provoking about this news is its timing. The public debate over embryonic stem cells has been raging for many years now. Embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from embryos. Specifically from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro and then donated for research purposes, with the informed consent of the donors. The debate became a political ‘hot button’ issue when in 2001, the former Bush administration precluded public funding of additional stem cell research beyond 31 specific stem cell lines—ironically of which the Geron cell line was one. The Geron cell line was developed without public funding using instead the private capital markets. The public funding issue was largely perceived as a political gesture toward conservative supporters of President Bush as well as an extension of former President Bush’s own religious beliefs. To which of course, he is certainly entitled as are we all.
During the course of applying to the FDA for clearance of this trial, Geron submitted a 21,000 page Investigational New Drug (IND) application to the FDA, believed to be the largest and most thoroughly documented science that the FDA has reviewed in its history. The company says that the application detailed more than 24 separate animal studies of its product that established both safety and efficacy in animals. A lot of this scientific data had appeared in peer-reviewed publications over the years of development, including a study published seven years ago that showed efficacy in rats. As the FDA laboriously poured over the data during the years of the Bush Administration’s tenure, more people suffered from acute paralysis and investors bounced Geron’s stock up and down.
Then on January 21st, only ONE day after the Obama Administration took office, the FDA, suddenly and without warning, announced clearance of the Geron trial. While much of the news reporting on the clearance focused specifically on the scientific importance of the trial, a few intrepid reporters openly speculated that the change in the White House had immediate impact on FDA policy. This is a topic worthy of discussion. Was the timing simply a coincidence? Or did the Bush administration tacitly impose its own political and/or ethical views on the FDA? The job of the FDA is difficult. It must ensure that the safety of the public is held paramount and at the same time carefully guide new products and technologies through a process that allows new therapies to get to the marketplace after appropriate review. To add a layer of “politicization” to this process does not serve the public or the government. The science of medicine is after all transparent to personal belief or religious conviction—and politics.
The American Heart Association's Annual Scientific Sessions wrapped up in New Orleans last week and for the first time in two years, there was no embargo-gate debate.
Maybe the AHA took a page from the "No Drama Obama" campaign.
What's the fuss all about? For publically-traded healthcare companies, presenting data at a prestigious medical conference like the AHA is mostly a blessing----major stakeholders including clinicians, investors and the media are all focused on news from the conference.
Yet navigating conflicting embargo policies can be a real challenge. For example, consider a Company that has highly-anticipated trial results in hand weeks before it's scheduled to present at a "Late Breaking" session.
One on hand, SEC Reg FD rule encourages companies to announce material news almost immediately. Yet conference organizers have strict policies about releasing data prior to the conference. If the data is being simultaneously published in a medical journal like JAMA or NEJM (as the JUPITER study was this year), add another layer of complexity.
Often times, companies are forced to announce top-line data prior to the conference, without being able to paint the full picture. After weeks of market speculation, the embargo is lifted.
During last year's AHA meeting, this predicament prompted Eli Lilly's CEO to write a WSJ Op-Ed entitled, "The Media on Drugs." He explained "NEJM and AHA asked for promises from Lilly and its partners, and we agreed, not to disclose any of the results prior to Nov. 4. Such guarantees of exclusivity are not only common, but also appropriate, in focusing expert attention on important research." In 2006, the AHA pulled Pfizer from the Scientific Session agenda for pre-releasing data. CNBC Reporter Mike Huckman blogged about an embargo-gate episode at the 2007 ACC conference.
What's a company to do? There is no clear cut answer. The data results, size of company and the anticipated impact of the stock all play factors in deciding the best course of action.
In the next post, we'll outline a few recommendations for a company in this situation.
