360DigitalInfluence

Yesterday was a busy day of back to back presentations from the first day of the FDA hearings and there are many recaps now sharing some topline points from the conversations and presentations. I shared my own take on some big themes that emerged from the early part of the day here on this blog. Aside from the content presented during each of the speaker’s time on stage, I think there were several pivotal moments of significance throughout the day. Here’s a chronological recap of what I felt they were, and what they might mean for the next step of this process the FDA has just begun:

1. Pharma needs guidance (Eli Lilly) - Being the first real pharma brand to speak on the agenda, Michelle Sharp did an excellent job representing some of the main concerns that most pharma brands have. Her point that they were operating in a vacuum and therefore simply not willing to use the online channel was well presented. Ultimately, it was her presence and the comparative courage of Eli Lilly to have her on stage that truly stood out, particularly when you consider how many pharma brands were content to sit on the sidelines passively and simply watch the proceedings.

2. Medical Professionals want pharma involvement (VuMedi) - Robert Winder from VuMedi offered a stirring argument for why social media content, and brand sponsored content in particular is not just a nice to have for surgeons, but may be a necessity. Using persuasive data points such as the fact that 78% of orthopedic surgeons only perform 1-2 ACL knee surgeries per year (so education is critical), Winder’s point of view was that content for surgeons can be sponsored by pharma and medical device brands to help facilitate better patient care.

3. Patients want pharma involvement (WEGO Health) - There was a recurring point from several presentations throughout the first day, but none delivered the message in as compelling a way as the WEGO Health team. Using a social media survey that they conducted of their own patient population, they uncovered many interesting data points to support the overarching ideas that 79% of patients actually WANT pharma and medical device brands to participate and share information in online communities. In fact, many have started to request and even expect it.

4. Overview of how it works today (Yahoo) - Though among the more self serving of the presentations throughout the day, the one thing that the Yahoo presentation did quite well is lay out a step by step view of what a typical marketing campaign on their site might look like. This gave the panel and audience the first concrete step by step view of what a campaign might actually looked like, and asked the most important question … “is this ok?” Amongst the body of presentations of the day, this will likely be one that the FDA panel returns to and considers as part of the debate.

5. Natural language is needed to build trust (Envision Solutions) - As far an enlightened consultants go, Fard Johnmar has already established himself in the world of healthcare marketing - and his presentation shared an important point that nearly everyone else ignored … that the barrier of distrust between patients and pharmaceutical companies could be dramatically improved by the use of natural language to describe things like side effects. His suggestion for the FDA to compell companies to state this information in a more meaningful way may be the one takeaway from the day that actually makes the biggest impact in building more trust for the pharmaecutical industry as a whole (a tangential, but important element of the hearings).

6. New framework for keyword advertising (Google) - When the team from Google came to the stage to present, the last of the day, a hush fell over the crowd. It felt something like I imagine it must feel when a rock star walks into their own backstage party. People were “shushing” each other so they could all pay attention and Google proceeded to share one major point - that sponsored link advertising since the FDA sent their warning letters had resulted in less clear, less transparent, less useful and less clicked on advertising. Not mentioned, but obvious, was the fact that Google likely was losing lots of revenue from brands that were electing not to advertise with keyword marketing anymore because of fear over the warning letter. In response, Google shared a model for sponsored links that seemed logical and will likely be frequently debated.

7. New framework for accountability (Ogilvy 360 Digital Influence) - Though clearly self promotional, I will include our presentation as the seventh and final “signficant moment” of the day yesterday. In our session, we introduced the concept of the “3 C’s Rule” of accountability for brands and content online. In summary, it says that brands should be held accountable for content if they created it or if they collaborated with or compensated the creator in some way. The real significance of our presentation, however, and several others throughout the day was that they are clear signs from people within the industry raising their hands and saying - “we want regulation to help us define right and wrong.” The tone is not one of resistance, but of participation. Guidelines help all of us, and we want to see them as soon as we can.