Bio Job Blog : Bio Jobs : Biotechnology Jobs : Biopharmaceutical Jobs : Bioscience, Biotech Jobs : Bio Job Blog : Biocareer : Bio-Business Training, Biotechnology Training : Jobs in Biology : Internships in Biology : Internships in Biotechnology

An article in today’s New York Times business section loudly proclaimed that the number of people using Facebook had topped 500 million. Further, according to the article: “The company has grown at a meteoric pace, doubling in size from a year ago and each month, more than 30 billion photographs, links to Web sites and news articles are shared through the site, and its members spend roughly 700 billion minutes there.”  

While these statistics are mind boggling and represent an incredible business opportunity for any company, life sciences companies including most major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have largely shunned Facebook. In a post earlier this week on EyeonFDA, its author, Mark Senak rightly noted that:

 “When social media began to ebb from a media pathway for individuals to connect, to one where institutions and industry began to employ social media as a means of communicating with their constituencies Facebook has become an extremely important referral source - a driver of traffic - to Web pages.” Despite this, “the pharmaceutical industry, as a highly regulated industry, has lagged behind other sectors.”

The reasons for pharma’s reluctance to use social media to engage stakeholders are numerous. The most common ones offered include the lack of regulations guiding the use of social media and its possible effects on adverse event reporting for approved medicines. However, the lack of regulatory guidance and consequences for adverse event reporting didn’t prevent life sciences companies from building branded product websites, sponsoring patient communities or investing in social networks for physicians. Therefore, it is unlikely that the lack of regulatory guidance and fears of overwhelming adverse event reporting aren’t responsible for pharma’s reluctance to embrace social media. I suspect that the real reasons may have more to do with increasing transparency surrounding clinical testing, drug approvals and drug pricing and reimbursement. But, I digress....

Interestingly, despite the lack of regulatory guidance and concerns over adverse event reporting, some pharmaceutical companies have chosen to boldly go where no other life sciences companies have gone before on Facebook.  According to Mark, the following companies have created corporate or disease/cause-related fan pages on Facebook:

1. Labs Are Vital sponsored by Abbott Laboratories
2. AstraZeneca US Community Connections
3. AstraZenecaCareers
4. Bayer Karriere
5. Bayer Sustainability
6. Johnson & Johnson Network
7. Nursing Notes by Johnson & Johnson
8. Pfizer

While the number of person who are fans of these pages are minute (as compared with the total number of Facebook users) they likely represent highly committed and focused groups of user—any pharmaceutical marketer’s dream! Although Facebook still subscribes to the notion that “bigger is better, niche networking and social media sites are growing in popularity. This is because these sites may give marketers and advertisers a “bigger bang for their buck” as compared with larger, more unfocused and disparate user communities. In other words, penetration and uptake rates are likely to greater in focused niche populations as compared with the general population at large.

I have long contended that social media tools can be used for other than promotional purposes in the life sciences industry. To that end, the use of social media for clinical trial patient recruitment and retention is rapidly expanding and there are signs that pharmaceutical companies have finally recognized the power of social media for recruiting purposes e.g. AstraZenecaCareers .  

I have no doubt that the life science industry will eventually recognize the utility power of social media. It is no longer a question of “if” but rather ‘when” for social media and the life sciences industry?

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!! 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Mark Senak, social media enthusiast and author of the EyeonFDA blog, raised the question on his blog today as to whether or not the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ought to have a fan page on Facebook: the ever expanding, ubiquitous social media platform. He aptly points out that FDA has already created a channel on YouTube and has a twitter account. So, why not a fan page on Facebook, he asked.

While Mark and I agree on most things, I am not convinced that having an FDA fan page on Facebook would make a difference in the way in which FDA communicates with the American public. FDA is already behind on the social media curve and, as the FDA public hearings held late last year suggest, the agency is struggling with formulating regulatory guidelines for its use by drug and devices manufacturers. Might not creating a FDA fan page on Facebook be the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s (agency) back? 

Perhaps I am overreacting to the whole Facebook phenomenon and grossly under estimating the agency’s capabilities. But I simply don’t get Facebook!  At best, it is overwhelming, difficult to navigate and seemingly cluttered mindless chatter and people engaging in Mafia wars. There is no question that a fan page would increase FDA’s exposure and its “hipness quotient” but to what end? The agency already has trouble maintaining and managing its existing web assets (have you ever tried finding information at FDA.gov?). Adding a new website would simply mean more work for overworked and underpaid government employee who seemingly play by different rules than the outside world.

Don’t get me wrong. I am an avid social media enthusiast who believes that persons who engage in social media must be “all in” to be effective. Having said that, I believe that the agency would be better served if it works to improve the navigability and accessibility to information on its existing web assets. There is no question that building an agency fan page on Facebook may convince Americans that FDA gets “the whole social media thing.” But if the fan page doesn’t provide Americans with relevant and useful scientific, medical and regulatory information, then adding a FDA fan page to Facebook will do little more than increasing the heft of an already bloated social media platform whose utility and effectiveness is already beginning to wane.

In my experience, building a website or fan page is the easy part; continuing to populate the pages and sites with useful, meaningful and temporally-relevant content is the difficult part!

Hat tip to Mark for starting the conversation!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

After having looked at pharma’s use of twitter, I decided to also get a feel for how pharma is engaging with facebook so far. Three main uses emerge: 1. connecting employees, 2. attracting talent and 3. promoting disease awareness or treatment adherence

1. Connecting current and ex- employees definately has the most activity. Numerous official and unofficial  groups or fan pages bring together the employees of most of the top pharma companies. For the purpose of this analysis let me concentrate the largest groups with apparent corporate endorsement (ie. use of official logo, links to company website and corporate messaging in group purpose).

Sanofi-Aventis, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer/Wyeth and Roche seem to be leading the pack in terms of activity. Sanofi and Novartis both set up official fan pages with over one thousand members. Lots of employee activism as well at  Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Novartis and Wyeth with facebook groups of 500+ members. (Check out this video from the official BI facebook group, just for fun).

Other, not so active groups: AstraZeneca (also have an English and French fan page), Teva, GSK (French fan page), Lilly, JNJ, and Pfizer.

Interestingly, there are a number of unofficial “Pfizer“ groups expressing negative sentiment towards the company (most of it coming from layed off employees). Pfizer is also the only company that someone set up a group about them, called “conversations of Pfizer“. Not much activity unfortunately, but intersting concept nevertheless.

Another strange aside: Egytian and Turkish country groups seem to exist for basically every pharma company I researched, must be a cultural thing?

2. Regarding attracting talent, there is an overwhelming number of student, intern and training program groups for all companies; most of them probably not official. GSK seems to have the largest number of student groups, a lot of them private. Merck also stands out for its excellent Merck Careers fan page, well done, I think, but not much activity, yet.

3. Promoting disesase awareness is where I believe things finally get interesting for patients. Examples of pharma companies using facebook to drive disease awareness and treatment adherence aare not bountiful, but I did find two great examples.

The first example is the ADHD Moms group, sponsored by McNeil Pediatrics, a JNJ company. The group counts close to 8000 members, but, for me, it is not these numbers that make the group exciting. By setting up this fan page, McNeil has done a great job at creating an environment in which patients/caregivers can receive valuable information concerning treatment management and adherence, while staying within the pharma “comfort zone“.

The concept is simple. One Pediatrician and three ADHD moms, as well as “guest writers“ discuss topics of importance to raising a child with ADHD. There are polls to each topic to get the audience’s feedback, while avoiding  thorny legal issues such as adverse event reporting or off-label usage. The site also offers a podcast series and links to prominent ADHD organizaions.

The second example comes from Novartis Zometa product. It is called: Marica Strassman Takes Role as Patient Advocate. In this group, celebrity and breast cancer survivor Marcia Strassman takes on the mission to “inform breast cancer patients and caregivers about the importance of following treatment regiments outlined by their doctors “. Thus a clear focus on promoting disease awareness and treatment adherence.

The setup up is also highly transparant, clearly disclosing Zometa sponsorship with links to the Zometa homepage, product information and the facebook groupe mission:“ To educate patients with advanced breast cancer and other metastatic cancers about the risks and benefits of Zometa.“

This fan page, like the ADHD example, features links to the most prominent cancer organizations as a further resources for patients. Also, similar to the ADHD page, this site does not allow any comments from its members to prevent any legal issues.

So overall, highly encouraging signs that pharma is starting to use facebook. Most companies still seem to first experiment with more internally focused groups, but some are starting to “test the waters“ and to engage with patients on important topics like disease awareness and treatment adherence.

Silja Chouquet is the owner and CEO of whydot GmbH, an agency specialized in social media consulting, coaching and training. Her fields of expertise are the creation of patient-focused social media communications and marketing campaigns. She runs the whydotpharma blog where she discusses social media and the life sciences and other pharma-related topics.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link