The regulator published its long-awaited digital update in June but there didn’t seem to be much open reaction at the time. We were fascinated to see what industry insiders made of the detail so ran a small straw poll of our own. The consensus among respondents was that lack of clarity is making it much harder for brand teams to secure funding for digital projects. Business sponsors, we’re told, are not committing to long term funding because of the uncertainty and this is creating a vicious cycle.

Disappointment – and danger

It’s no secret that health companies have been looking for guidance around the use of social media in a regulated communications environment. There’s a clear sense of disappointment from the marketers we spoke to that the ABPI’s updated guidance not only misses the mark but also misses an opportunity to redress the balance of inaccurate health information that exists online. It seems budget holders are finding it easier to say ‘no’ outright to digital, rather than focusing on what can be done, and patients will ultimately be the losers if the regulator doesn’t keep pace with technology.

There’s a vast amount of health-related information online and much will help rather than harm. But, just as forums and social networks can make everyone a journalist, so they empower everyone to offer a medical opinion, potentially to a large audience. Trouble is that internet users don’t necessarily have years of impartial scientific and evidence-based knowledge – and you certainly wouldn’t trust a GP who didn’t. It’s open season for anecdotal health information unless pharma (along with government and other relevant bodies) is prepared to enter online conversations in order to present reliable scientific facts. This is the integrity that the regulations are striving to protect.

Our survey respondents felt this situation would only become worse unless the regulator provided more guidance. I find GSK’s corporate approach interesting – they are trying to counter out-of-date or non-accurate third-party information by presenting factual, branded drug details via the health.gsk site By focussing on what can be done, rather than always worrying about what can’t, a company moves forward. There’s plenty of innovation. Pfizer’s online GP surgery is an example of how pharma is trying to embrace interactivity. Meanwhile, Amgen has 3D video to bring complex science to life in a new and engaging way; Genzyme uses augmented reality to demonstrate how calcium can build up in your heart. These are all innovative examples of digital storytelling and show it is possible to deploy the cutting-edge technologies more familiar from the FMCG space while still respecting the regulatory framework.

The digital dilemma

So what do pharma marketers want from the regulator—a list of everything they can and cannot do? I suspect there’s no simple one-size-fits-all answer here. It may be that extensive commentary on positive campaign elements would help mark the boundaries. However, rather than focus purely on the regulator our respondents said there needs to be internal change within their own organisations. Some pharma firms are trying to shape the broader discussion at corporate level and my feeling is this approach will then lead to developments at brand level. For example, Boehringer has published its Twitter strategy and contributes to blogger podcasts – actively working to be part of online discussion around innovation in digital pharma, and to be transparent about the challenges. Our survey has revealed that lack of business buy-in is not helping lower the barrier, so once the wider business sees the value of digital there will likely be greater willingness to try new things.

Innovation, along with genuine community interaction, will ultimately help pharmaceutical firms strengthen their reputations. Brand utility and patient support can show how pharma can be a genuine partner in the health of the general public. Innovative products, coupled with smart communications campaigns, help tell this story. The journey needs to be a step-by-step progression for each business. However, the real challenge is not the regulation but rather that ‘doing digital’ is a way to implement a commercial goal and not a strategy in itself.

Key Considerations for Digital Communications in Healthcare

• Involve legal, regulatory and medical teams from day one in a collaborative experience which helps generates a positive outcome as all stakeholders understand the rationale behind an initiative.
• Document project objectives, moderation and monitoring plans, review schedules, reporting procedures and training compliance in line with the latest ABPI oversight best practices.
• Much online buzz around healthcare is originally inspired by news, so activate a strong digital news content programme and distribute through a dedicated website that is optimised for sharing.
• Address topics of patient discussion and tap into trends by creating services like mobile apps which have a practical and functional use – the community will respond positively if you are create something that meets its needs rather than an organisation’s perceived marketing needs.
• Be transparent with your audience, explaining why the regulatory and other issues you face make it harder to be interactive.

Some comments about about an interesting, but informal, poll I ran are in PR Week. You can read the article here.

TV producers will be running round preparing evening news bulletins (been there, done that) but are still several hours from going live. It’s more than half a day until morning newspaper readers open print editions to read detailed analysis of today’s budget speech. Meanwhile, online communities have already had their say on the detail. (Of course some of this is on TV and newspaper websites but my point here is that the internet is realtime, rather than on an appointment-to-view basis).

A glance at Twitter shows “White Lightening” (albeit a typo) is now a trending topic. Interesting to see also that Alistair Darling himself is trending — not “budget” or “tax” or “Labour” or anything related, but the man. It’s personal, and the talking points are around the Chancellor and increasing tax on cider.

Looking at conversations across the digital space — from blogs and forums to Facebook, YouTube and beyond — I’ve used Radian 6 to create this word cloud of the hottest topics:

Right now Radian 6 has identified these terms as being at the centre of budget buzz. You can see what’s really driving wider conversation online — it’s cider again, along with discussion around spending (both cuts and increases) and topics connected with housing and business.

Monitoring conversations gives us a realtime view on what’s front of mind, as well as enabling us to identify the most influential players in the discussion. An opportunity here would be for interested parties (be they the Government, the opposition or any other stakeholders) now to look again at their stories and messaging around each of these issues in order to see how they can shape the conversation, using digital tools to facilitate the next stage of the discussion.

Ultimately social networks give online communities a way to examine and talk about every part of the story, however large, however small. Today it’s about cider — and when the election comes you can be sure that internet users, ordinary voters, will examine every detail, regardless of whether the politicians want them to or not.

Given that the vast majority of people start their internet journeys from a search engine, this  development shows just how important it for brands both to sort out their own websites and crucially create content which people will take away and place on their social profiles.

I’ll leave it to Google to explain how the search bit works:

I thought this video was a pretty good response and imagine it has gone a long way to helping repair things. It’s good that they’ve tried to respond using the same medium that ultimately hurt them, and tried to engage on other platforms as well. Just slightly odd that he talks off camera (as if to a reporter) — surely this is a personal address/appeal to customers and should have been straight down the barrel.

Anyway, here are my thoughts:

It doesn’t really matter whether this is a franchise, an isolated incident or an event taking place in the US – the internet is global and this damages the brand globally. Consumers don’t necessarily know or care about the detail. The only thing that matters is you could be sitting 8000 miles away and now never go to Dominos again. Ouch.

A picture paints a thousand words. If ever there were an example of how powerful video can be in terms of a reputation story, this most be high up there.

Popular conscience. A story like this one around food hygiene is the stuff of legend– what people fear could go on inside a kitchen being shown as “true”. Doesn’t really matter if it is a hoax or joke. The perception is that this is what goes on. This kind of stuff inevitably flies online.

The power of one. In the old days it would have been much harder for one person (or I guess two people here) to damage a big brand like Dominos so much and so quickly. Nowadays it takes one person with a video camera who probably thought they were having a laugh. Compare with footage of the cops at the G20 protests.

So what lessons?

• Monitor the internet proactively to identify issues at an early stage
• Respond quickly using all means available to push the message out. The video started things here but the conversation quickly spread to Twitter and beyond meaning the company had to engage on other platforms as well.
• You can’t separate online and offline. This didn’t just happen on the internet, it quickly hit the papers and TV as well.
• If you are already involved in online conversations then you have a head start on someone who has to build from scratch. Just as in the offline world it takes time to form relationships with people you want to influence.
  

It can take a tough lesson to show the internet can be make and break. But it’s never too late to start thinking about that digital strategy.

First off, is it real or brandjacking? A site called Travelution claims they’ve been told by Ryanair that it’s for real. In my former life as a journo I would have called Ryanair to find out. I’ll leave that for someone else to do on this occasion and we will talk theoretically.

If it’s real (and I simply don’t know at this stage) then is this good digital PR? If this gets people talking and engaging then is it doing its job? Well, the company does have a bit of a reputation for being cheeky and so a controversial approach would be in keeping with that. But if you lay into your customers then are you really doing yourself a favour? So many questions.

I guess at the heart of it is the question of engagement. If they (whoever “they” are) create something that people comment on, interact with (in this case “controversial” tweets) and pass on, then it works. If it loses them business then it backfires. (Of course if this is brandjacking they may want to address it.)

The antihero isn’t a new concept. Maybe it just got an update.

(Of course this could all be a windup and nothing to do with Rynair at all.)

The last Pope was a bit of a digital evangelist, something I learned in the 18 months I spent (on and off) producing his obituary while I was at Sky News. Slightly morbid perhaps but they even have a webcam feed from his tomb.

.

And there’s an immense amount of religious digital buzz around sites like Facebook with groups of people who become fans of religious figures and saints. There’s even an app with daily prayers.

What I find interesting is the way people are sometimes so surprised to find out all this is going on. I guess religions are about like-minded communities forming bigger communities and spreading the word peer-to-peer. ‘Send-to-a-friend’ is just a modern version of the missionary idea.

Plenty of people are offering opinions about how Obama is using the internet to ‘spread the word’ – it’ll be interesting to see how the Pope grows his digital strategy. Perhaps a Twitter confessional is next on the development list?

[I use this Pope example simply because it's in the news today and and it made me think about how communities are using the web to communicate. Plenty of other religions/religious communities are using the internet to communicate as well and offer equally interesting examples.]

If you’re not already one of Jeremiah’s regular readers then I thoroughly recommend paying him a visit.

My thoughts to follow in a separate post.

Accordingly, this article in The Times caught my attention after questions emerged about the possible digital reworking of a picture which features North Korean leader Kim Jong Il.

So how should brands, etc take proactive steps to avoid even the remotest accusation that they might not be totally transparent? Some thoughts in future postings.