Named And Shamed

By Author: Thomas Strickland
Total Articles: 102
Comment this article

In the last century (eleven years is such a long time), the only way of getting out news about a product or service was to send out a press release. If the media outlets considered the release newsworthy, they would publish some or all of what was said. This was a very uncertain process and people with the right contacts to get press releases published were able to command quite high fees. Today, we see the results of an information revolution. The majority of people now walk about carrying hand-held devices that connect either to a telephone network or the internet or both. This means it's possible to connect directly with people who may have an interest in the particular piece of news.

You ask how a stranger would know your interests. If you use Google or any of the major social networking sites, your interests are carefully analyzed and the information sold on to marketers. No matter what your choices about privacy on your profile, these sites make money by enabling marketers to target you. This means the ads you see are adjusted to fit your interests and, increasingly, the SMS and other electronic messages you receive ...
... will be aiming to sell you something. In this high-pressure world, Bayer has recently been named and shamed for breaking the European rules on using the social media to promote its drugs. The regulations forbid any use of electronic messaging to sell medication to members of the public. The only messages allowed are to medical professionals. Unfortunately, the German manufacturer sent out two sets of messages on Twitter. The first was promoting a drug to treat multiple sclerosis. The second to alert people to a new version of its erectile dysfunction drug.

When challenged by the regulator, Bayer denied it was promoting the drugs. It claimed the messages were informational. Quite what the difference might be is not clear. Facts can both inform and promote. Anyway, the regulator was unimpressed and publicly shamed Bayer for breaking the rule. Perhaps this is an example of all publicity being good publicity. No matter what the reason, there's been a lot of publicity about both branded drugs.

The rules in the US are slightly different but using Twitter is unlikely to be any more successful. The FDA requires all promotional information about a drug to list the adverse side effects. This would exceed the number of characters allowed in a tweet. For all the major manufacturers, the big decision is going to be what to do about the rule changes introduced by Facebook. Before the change, drug manufacturers could put up a page but not open it for comments. Now these pages must have open comments. The danger for companies is that unhappy people may post comments warning others of bad experiences. Reputation management becomes more challenging.

Interestingly, Bayer has opened its page on Levitra. So not only has the company managed to tell everyone there's a melt-in-the-mouth version, but it also plays fair on Facebook. This shows a mature outlook on the use of electronic media for promoting their drugs. In the case of Levitra, the profile of the brand has been lower than for the competing brands. It's going to be interesting to see which manufacturer comes out ahead in this latest race.