Multichannel Marketing: Easy to Brag About, but Difficult to Do

"Multichannel pharma marketing [see PMN glossary definition: MCM] is conceptually relatively simple to understand, but incredibly difficult in practice," says Len Starnes, former Head of Digital Marketing & Sales, General Medicine at Bayer Schering Pharma. "That said, multichannel is not a transient phenomenon, it’s here to stay," according to Starnes, who is a candidate for this year's Pharmaguy Social Media Pioneer Award.

Len is well-known for his LinkedIn surveys, such as a 2009 survey that asked "Will doctors’ social networks radically change pharma marketing & sales?" Thirty-one percent of respondents to that survey thought this would happen within 2 years (by 2011) and 38% said within 5 years (2014). For more on that, read "Socially Challenged Pharma" (PMN Reprint#84-03; pdf). I think it hasn't happened yet, but multichannel marketing (MCM) to physicians these days must surely include social media "channels" and even more importantly mobile.

But given the "incredible difficulty" of implementing MCM, Starnes is hosting another survey on LinkedIn (here), which asks "Will pharma marketing become de facto multichannel marketing in future?" The results to date are shown in the chart below (click on chart for an enlarged view).

There seems to be overwhelming sentiment that MCM will be de facto for pharma within 5 years.

Starnes' survey also has generated a good number of comments, some of which I include below. My own opinion, however, has to do with the difficulty of implementation vs. the ease with which pharma marketers talk about MCM, which used to be called "Customer Relationship Marketing (CRM)."

I've attended many pharma marketing conferences in the past that focused on "CRM." These days, however, I don't see any CRM presentations included in conference agendas, whereas there are conferences dedicated to "Multichannel Marketing." More often than not, these conferences actually focus on digital marketing. The upcoming Pharma Marketing Show (Europe) is a good example (note: Pharma Marketing News is a Media Partner for the conference; however, I have not been paid to write about it on Pharma Marketing Blog). It's description includes this observation:

"The pharmaceutical marketing sector is fast moving with new marketing techniques developing to meet the wider challenges of the industry. Over recent years, pharma has learnt what emerging technologies such as online and mobile can offer to a marketing campaign."

There are somd very interesting presentations on the agenda; even a couple that address the "difficult" part of MCM: data collection and management (propeller head stuff) such as:

• Managing and analysing vast amounts of data
• How can pharma utilise data to enhance strategic marketing?
• Using big data to integrate multiple sourced customer information and improve quality of customer engagement

In my mind, pharma marketers are "old school", meaning they believe marketing is more of an art than a science (see, for example, "Are Marketers Artists or Mathematicians?").

When I talk to my nephew who sells digital media advertising, it's all about numbers and esoteric measurement terminology, which is way over my head. These numbers, I bet, cause many pharma marketers' eyes to glaze over. But for MCM to be successful, more pharma marketers must become "propeller heads" or hire, enable, and listen to them, IMHO.

OK, enough about my opinion. Here's a sampling of what experts are saying in relation to Len Starnes' LinkedIn survey:

Christopher Wade said: Len - good question! It's not surprising that the consensus is that MCM will become the norm - in terms of aspiration if not actual reality - over the next few years, but I suspect that like other tech-dependent initiatives it will remain the preserve of the few if it sits in the same marketing organisations that exist today. My opinion is that one of the key points on which pharma trips time and again is that sales are nowhere to be seen. Marketing's role as understanding the product / customer / need space and formulating tactics is no less important, but the group that has the information, resources and experience in executing complex activities is the sales force, or more specifically the SFE / SFO group. I would hope that marketing has access to a level of analyst support that helps them to identify key segments and understand their behaviour and preferences, but implementing is where sales excels - they just need to realise that their competence spans more than the rep/territory model.

Robert Nauman said: Excellent discussion. Thanks for asking the question. I honestly have to say no. My rational is born from the assumption that good Multi-channel marketing requires some interaction on the part of the other party. We all suggest it is the marketing paradigm that has to change here. I am growing skeptical in my belief that will occur anytime soon on the patient or the HCP side, can industry create a real two way dialogue. And given the recent US case with GSK and there $3Billion whistleblower settlement, My opinion is that other entities (not supported by pharma dollars) will be producing the content that meets the needs of healthcare consumers and professionals today. And pharma marketing will not be paying for that content creation. I believe that if truly tested, pharma produced content scores very poorly to content produced via other healthcare entities. In terms of the multi-channels, it adds a level of complexity that in the silo'd world of pharma marketing today, may not be operational. The grow of mobile and video's use in that channel is tremendous. And in developing nations, SMS messaging is making great strides in improving health care yet the industry is not leading in either of these approaches. It is sad, but I believe this is pushing marketers into similar roles that we see in the medical device industry today. Very few marketing dollars, very little innovation.

Paul Simms said: Great question, Len. You're good at these! Rob, hope you're well (haven't spoken in ages...) I wanted to respond to your point, which unfortunately saddened me. I see every industry in the world, with the exception of pharma, investing in 'content' as a way of engaging its audience - because it works.Yet pharma still seems reluctant to engage those who can speak in the doctor's language (the medical affairs / liaison folks) fully as a communication device. These days we have simply moved from physician access to now worrying about payer access and soon it will be fretting over patient access. To me it feels like pharma continues to create the equivalent of a TV channel that plays only commercials - and that's never going to create high engagement or trust. Stuck on the one blaring channel, night and day. Yes, you are right, pharma is starting from a difficult position and news like that from GSK doesn't help. But are you resigning us all to eternal oblivion? To me the only way to dig ourselves out of this rut is to begin to produce content of value (let alone services of value) and to build those bridges. Otherwise pharma, and by default, healthcare will never reach its true potential. It is possible for GSK et al to produce content of value and to build trust that way. As for multichannel, I can't believe we're talking about it like it's something revolutionary (yes I'm guilty of running events on the topic but that's only because it's what everyone tells me they want...). I'm personally astounded we're even bothering to distinguish between the channel at all. Indeed it's a gross manifestation of the focus on the medium rather than the message. As some have said, we should simply provide valuable wisdom in whatever convenient format our customers request, and use technology to adapt to multiple channels in a semi-automated fashion. Again, that's what other industries do. Can you imagine FMCG or other B2C industries having a big debate about multichannel???

Len Starnes: Reflecting on the comments from both Rob and Paul I am fully convinced that pharma is capable of providing ‘content’, via whatever channel is necessary, and that HCPs want the industry to deliver it – but it must be on their terms. Using Paul’s TV analogy this would be a shift from airing commercials to running full-on documentaries. I state this having recently spoken to a leading doctors’ social network here in Germany, Esanum, who’s CEO confirmed that 80% of its 33,000 members want to access pharma ‘content’ and engage with pharma peers (aka Medical Affairs, MLOs). This once again reconfirms my research with similar networks globally which indicates that the majority of community members welcome industry engagement of all types. What astounds me is that pharma largely continues to ignore these networks in its multichannel efforts - snail mail and email still appear to be brand managers’ favourites.

More here...

Are Pinterest Women & Virality Worth It to Pharma Marketers?

Once again I am responding to a Pharmaforum guest blogger post that was promoted by the author (Kelley Connors) on Twitter: "How Pinterest Creates the Love for #Healthcare #Marketers #hcsm #pharma #womenshealth #socialmedia @pharmaforum ow.ly/c8jiF"

Connors' post, entitled "Understand the rules of engagement with Pinterest" (here), starts out with this observation:

"Since healthcare is such a personalized experience, and 90% of healthcare decisions are made by women, I find it interesting that more healthcare marketers aren’t exploring Pinterest."

She forgot to add that 82% of Pinterest users are women (see data in this infographic).

Pinterest, according to Connors, beats Twitter hands down in terms of "engagement" and "virality."

"Remarkably," says Connors, "over 80% of pins are repins, demonstrating the impressive level of virality at work in the Pinterest community. By contrast, a study conducted by HubSpot at a similar point in Twitter’s history found roughly only 1.4% of tweets were retweets."

From my experience, Twitter drives much more traffic to websites than does Pinterest. I learned about Connors and her post, for example, via Twitter, not Pinterest. What's the purpose of "virality" if it doesn't drive people to your website where you can "close" the deal (ie, get subscriptions, distribute coupons, etc.)? Maybe it's different for shoes than for Rx drugs or B2B pharma marketing news items.

There is one other very important reason why pharmaceutical marketers do not use Pinterest: they cannot turn off or moderate comments like they can with Facebook and YouTube. The only Pinterest comment editing option -- as far as I know -- is to delete the pin and repin it without the comments. That is draconian (it deletes ALL comments, not just offending one) and labor intensive. Pharma is not only worried about possible adverse events mentioned in comments, but also off-label claims. For more on this, read "What's Your Infographics Strategy?" (use discount code 'pgpin4').

These problems may never arise if pharma pins only innocuous images and videos on Pinterest. That is, pins whose purpose is to generate goodwill, share disease information, promote corporate responsibility, and broadcast other non-branded messages. All of which are of no interest to pharmaceutical marketers who want to promote brands.

For some reason, however, Pinterest is of interest to a few pharma corporate communicators and PR preople. Therefore, you do see a few Pinterest sites that obviously are corporate PR campaigns. Unfortunately, however, the demographics of Pinterest (82% women and mostly consumers) is NOT the target demographic of PR people who want to reach mostly reporters and investors.

Ergo, IMHO, as long as Pinterest does not have a pharma-friendly commenting policy, it will not interest pharma marketers even though its "women's world"/consumer demographic and virality is enticing to them. In addition, Pinterest will not generate much ROI on pharma PR investment. Eventually, the pharma Pinterest pioneers, few though they may be, will drop out even though, as Connors surmises, the Pinterest net "attrition rate" overall is "close to 0%."

Blaming the FDA for Pharma's Tepid Use of Social Media

A tweet by Paul Tunnah (@pharmaphorum) caught my attention this morning:

"…the FDA social media regulations for pharma marketing are extremely strict…" bit.ly/NaPU7h #pharma #socialmedia

This linked to a blog post "Social media challenges and benefits for pharmaceutical companies" by Rodica Ceslov, president of Wild Frog Studio, "a dynamic full-service firm helping companies create go-to-market strategies and execute product launches for new products, new product line extensions and re-packaging existing products."

The full quote from Ceslov is "the FDA social media regulations for pharma marketing are extremely strict, and at the same time still somewhat ambiguous, lacking clear structural boundaries that are needed to prevent unwarranted issues."

How can FDA social media regulations be "extremely strict" when there are NO such regulations (ambiguous or otherwise)?

What the drug industry is looking for is "guidance" regarding how the FDA will interpret existing regulations, which are media agnostic. Even if FDA does issue such guidance, it is not legally binding. Some pharma companies -- eg, Pfizer -- are looking for new regulations, which would be legally-binding (read "Pfizer Asks for New FDA Regulations, Not Guidance, for Social Media").

So, it's more a matter of how pharma INTERPRETS existing regulations without guidance from the FDA. Some pharma companies are more comfortable than others when it comes to doing this as they launch social media marketing campaigns. Pfizer even claims to have a "Social Media Playbook" (read "Is This Pfizer's Social Media 'Playbook?'")

So far, however, no pharma social media communication/campaign has been cited by the FDA for violating any regulations unless the communication overstates efficacy or understates risks (ie, says things that are against regulations no matter what the medium).

The FDA has come out with guidance on responding to unsolicited requests, which include guidance on how to handle off-label drug information requests via social media such as YouTube and blogs (read "FDA Guidance on Responding to Unsolicited Requests for Off-Label Infnrmation Via Social Media").

This guidance is actually neither very strict nor very ambiguous. So stop blaming the FDA for preventing pharma companies from using social media!

P.S. Ms. Ceslov works for an agency that obviously wants more pharma clients. Her blog post promotes a "3 Step eBook" called "How to Succeed in Social Media." My advice to pharma on how to succeed in social media is this: pick your outside agencies with care. For more on that, read "PR vs Interactive: Agencies Vie for Pharma Social Media Campaign Crumbs."

The 3rd Annual Pharmaguy Social Media Pioneer Award

If you are a regular reader of Pharma Marketing Blog, you know that I generally do not like awards sponsored by pharma trade publications (see “Awards. What Are They Good For?”). Such awards are somewhat suspect because of the inherent conflicts of interests involved -- the winners tend to be the agencies that advertise the most in the sponsoring publication or that purchase big page ads announcing that they won the award.

The Pharmaguy Social Media Pioneer Award
Defenders of pharma “social media” site awards insist that we must reward even the most elementary attempts that pharma is making to have online conversations despite all the regulatory obstacles that they face. I agree. But instead of having awards for the work product, why not give awards to the pioneers who have lead the way to create these sites? We can learn more from how these pioneers overcame the obstacles to launch a social media project than from the end result – even if the end result is flawed or faux.

Sometimes, pioneers work "behind the scenes," making it possible for their colleagues to develop customer-facing social media projects. We must recognize these efforts as well. Marketing campaigns and Web sites come and go, but pioneers move on to new positions and continue to spread their influence far and wide.

To better recognize the value of these pioneers, I launched the Pharmaguy Social Media Pioneer Award in July, 2010. The first award went to Alex Butler (see here) and the second award went to Tony Jewell (see here).

The Pharmaguy Social Media Pioneer Award is meant to recognize pioneers who work (or have recently worked) within regulated drug and device companies. The award recognizes courage in the face of regulatory and corporate culture boundaries!

What's With the Hawaiian Shirt?
Let me explain the Hawaiian shirt motif of the award. Around the time that the FDA announced it would hold a public hearing regarding regulation of pharma’s use of the Internet and social media, I started appearing at conferences in a yellow Hawaiian shirt, which was left over from a Hunter S. Thompson Halloween costume (see “Pharma Social Media Crips vs. Legal/Regulatory Bloods: Call for a ‘Peace’ Conference” for a sighting of me in the shirt at the 3rd Annual Digital Pharma East Conference). I also considered wearing the shirt when I made my presentation to the FDA at the November, 2009 meeting (see “Fear and Loathing in Washington, DC”), but out of respect for the FDA and the audience, I opted for a traditional suit and tie.

Although I didn’t wear my Hawaiian shirt at the FDA hearing, it became an emblem for standing out from the crowd, which is a necessary trait for a social media marketing pioneer. I think a Hawaiian shirt motif befits, therefore, what the Pharmaguy Pharma Social Media Pioneer Award stands for.

The Nominees Are…
I have several people in mind as contenders for this award (see the end of this post), but first let me discuss what I consider to be the qualifications for nominees.

What are the qualifications to be nominated to receive this prestigious award?

First, a nominee must work or have worked within an FDA-regulated pharmaceutical, medical device, or biotech company when he or she pioneered in social media marketing or non-branded communications or was an advocate for such. Although there are many people in agencies that are true social media pioneers and who have been involved in many pharma social media projects, only the insider has the experience and courage I am looking for. The insider has to contend with many stakeholders inside the organization and is ultimately responsible for the project. Consultants and agencies do not have nearly as much skin in the game as do insiders.

Although some pharma social media pioneers have subsequently moved on to other positions in non-pharma companies (see, for example, "Is There an Upward Career Path Within Pharma for Social Media Pioneers?"), they are still eligible for consideration as nominees for the Pharmaguy Social Media Pioneer Award.

Second, a nominee must have been a true social media pioneer. By that I mean someone who has been involved from the early days in marshaling the forces necessary to ultimately build a social media campaign. No matter if the campaign has been a failure. We often learn more from our failures than from our successes. Above all, we want nominees who have learned and who can share their learnings with us.

Third, although it is not necessary that a nominee to have experienced a “Mack Attack” such as that experienced by Novo Nordisk’s Ambre Morley (see “Novo Nordisk's Branded (Levemir) Tweet is Sleazy Twitter Spam!”), it can’t hurt, especially if that person has survived and gone on to be interviewed by me (eg, “Novo Nordisk's Race With Insulin Campaign: It's Not Just About Twitter”).

The type of social media that a nominee has been involved with is immaterial as long as it is one or more of the following: a blog, a Twitter account, a Facebook page, a network (community), a YouTube channel, etc.

That’s about it for qualifications.

Who Will Nominate Candidates and Determine Who Wins an Award?
Since this award has my Twitter name associated with it, I take ultimate responsibility for who to consider for this award and who wins an award. I already have several candidates in mind (see below).

However, I also depend upon my readers and colleagues to assist me. You can vote for my nominations and write-in other candidates using the online form here (sorry, voting is closed; see a summary of the results here). Not only your vote, but the comments you add will go a long way awards influencing me, especially if you offer details that back up your choices. I especially need help identifying former pharma people who may be working at agencies, but who did a lot of their social media pioneering while employed at a pharmaceutical company.

Ultimately, I will use my best judgment and experience to decide who is qualified to enter the contest and who wins an award. My decision is final.

NOTE: It occurs to me that many pharma marketing initiatives – including social media initiatives – are the result of teamwork within the organization. For example, a SM Pioneer may operate behind the scenes to support a pioneering product manager who makes the decision. Both are pioneers and should be rewarded. It is possible, therefore, that several people may share the same award. I also recognize the fact that outside consultants and agencies may have played a critical role. When appropriate, these pioneers will also receive honorable mention when the awards are announced.

Let me start the process by nominating several people that I know and have interacted with listed in alphabetically by last name. You can click on each name to learn more about this person and add comments. More names will be added as the nominations continue. Please add your nominations and/or votes here.

Nominees
For the most up-to-date list, see Nominees for The Pharmaguy Social Media Award.

NOTE: Every nominee for the Pharmaguy Social Media Pioneer Award is a winner and deserves recognition. But only 1 individual will be awarded the coveted Hawaiian shirt. This is NOT a popularity contest. "Winners" will be chosen solely by Pharmaguy (me) based on my evaluation of merit. Your votes, however, will also count to influence my decision. Also, I need your comments about the people you nominate so that I can profile each and every nominee in recognition of his or her pioneering effort.

Positive or Not, Pediatric Drug Trials Pay Off: Cymbalta and Oxycontin Case Studies

Very few people may know that drug companies can get an additional six months of market exclusivity from FDA as an inducement for them to study the efficacy and safety of drugs in children. Fewer people realize that no matter what the outcome of such tests, FDA will still grant the additional 6 months of exclusivity before generic copies of the tested drug can be introduced.

A case in point is Cymbalta, an antidepressant marketed by Lilly.

As reported in the Wall Street Journal (here), Cymbalta will have an additional six months of U.S. market exclusivity -- through December 2013 -- because the company studied the drug's effects on children. "Lilly said, however, that it won't seek regulatory approval to market Cymbalta for pediatric use because study results were inconclusive regarding Cymbalta's efficacy in children."

Cymbalta is the "duct tape" of drugs; i.e., it has many approved indications for use in adults.

Cymbalta was originally approved in 2004 for adults with major depression. Later the FDA granted Lilly approval to market Cymbalta for treating nerve pain in diabetics, GAD (ie, "generalized anxiety disorder"; see "eGAD! How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Cymbalta!") and fibromyalgia, a condition characterized by chronic fatigue and muscle and joint pain.

With each new indication comes the potential to increase sales significantly. In 2010, for example, Cymbalta was approved for chronic lower back and knee pain, an indication that may have increased sales by $500 Million, a 16% increase over the $3.07 Bn in sales for Cymbalta in 2009 (read, for example, "Cymbalta: A Sweet ROI for Chronic Pain Indication").

But a 16% increase in sales is paltry compared with a 50% increase in sales that is possible when the FDA approves a drug for use in children under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, a statute that created the incentive for drug makers to test the products in young patients. For Lilly, a 6-month extension of market exclusivity for Cymbalta could give Lilly more than a $2 Billion windfall (in April, 2012, Lilly reported that first-quarter sales of Cymbalta rose 23% to $1.11 billion).

I'm sure the intent of the law was to make it possible for physicians to prescribe drugs for children based on evidence that the drugs worked in children. To offset the cost to drug companies to run trails to prove efficacy, Congress allowed 6 months of additional exclusivity during which those costs could be recouped. In the case of Cymbalta, children do not benefit and Lilly more than recoups the cost of pediatric trials, which involve perhaps only a few hundred subjects.

Purdue Pharma, however, claimed it lacked resources in 2004 when it abandoned a pediatric Oxycontin clinical trial requested by the FDA. Only now -- when Oxycontin is a mere year away from losing market exclusivity -- is Purdue pursing such a trial (see "After Delay, OxyContin’s Use in Young Is Under Study"). Sales of Oxycontin reached $1.7 billion (in the U.S.?) in 2004.

It is too soon to know if the Oxycontin pediatric trial will demonstrate any effectiveness in treating children under 12. One thing that is certain, however, is that street use of Oxycontin by children and young adults is deadly. If extended market exclusivity can help prevent illegal diversion of even cheaper generic versions of Oxycontin, then I am all for it no matter what the clinical trail results!

The Different types of Creativity in Marketing

For one of our final group projects for the Master of Marketing, we were given the chance to not only design a marketing campaign but also the actual product we wish to bring to market with our campaign. I mentioned about this in the post about A visit to Smart. This project was very exciting for me because I can finally find the connection between marketing and design. Yay!!!

In preparing for

Partnering with not for profit organisations – Should we give free head hours for good publicity?

For most businesses, the biggest objective is to make money. Marketing as the Master of Marketing program puts it, does it’s bit by letting people know about the product, how well it does its job and most importantly, tell them they need it, and why.

For not-for-profit organisations, the more exposure they have, the higher chances they will get donations. Surely their marketing budget is much