To level-set, this is how I define NPP:

Brand commercialization initiatives that do not involve the sales force as the primary communication channel.

Here are five best practices to consider when developing your next digital NPP initiative:

• Create credible, peer-delivered content.  Use one of the most powerful levers of HCP marketing: KOL influence.  Create engaging rich media content featuring trusted KOLs in the field, and format it into a self-directed experience.  Provide the user their choice between more than one KOL?  Even better!
• Make the interactive, online experience self-directed.  This requires us as Pharma marketers to relinquish control of the traditional “push” message (we need to get over it).  We live in a “pull” world, and if your customers aren’t getting what they are looking for… they walk with their mouse.  Offer up an engaging experience that is respectful of their time and unique information needs.  This can be accomplished through smart navigation choices and options posed to the customer.
• Personalize it.  When you think about it, Non-Personal Promotion is a horrible name.  Who wants to be promoted to in an impersonal way?   In the era of iTunes, Amazon, Expedia and Zappos, personalization is just not recommended; it will quickly become an expectation.  For HCPs, this means personalizing the first “touch” with your known customers (e-mail or web-key for example) with content that is specific to their needs, then  gleaning valuable data from their interactions with interactive promotion programs and what they request from a fulfillment perspective.  This information can all be used to optimize your next “touch” (outbound e-mail, display ad, website landing page) with the customer.
• Live fulfillment.  One of the goals of your NPP initiative should be to build and enhance relationships with your field force and company.  Therefore, if a target customer requests anything as a result of participating in an online promotional activity, why not have the rep deliver it personally?  Given the ongoing access challenges faced by the sales force, these programs can serve as important door openers and relationship builders.
• Integrate your “Personalized” NPP initiative into your overall HCP marketing plan.  Successful NPP initiatives should be thought of as constant “conversations” rather than campaigns.  To that end, think through the key components of your NPP initiative (Outreach, Engagement, Fulfillment, Observation & Adjustment) and how best to integrate these activities into your overall plan.  Specifically, data integration and analytics can require multiple stakeholders to lock down, so make sure you start these conversations early in the planning cycle.

Note:  Julie Batten and I recently spoke on the topic of “Personalizing Non Personal Promotion” at the recent Eye for Pharma conference in Boston.  Check out our presentation on slideshare here.

The consulting firm McKinsey was so obsessed about this new consumer that they commissioned a huge study to understand them better.  (20,000 consumers, 5 industries, 3 continents)

(Click above to enlarge)

Click here to run video with voice-over explanation.

I  believe there are many implications of this study for Pharma marketers.

1) We know that physicians, patients and consumers are on-line in record numbers “actively evaluating” and searching  for solutions to the questions they have. These are actively engaged people looking for something. (Yes, it may vary based on therapeutic and average customer audience….but please, can we put this debate to rest?)

2) Pharma has traditionally been focused on “push” rather than “pull” marketing. Pushing a product-focused message to the proper target across many channels (including digital) at a high frequency has been the name of the game for decades.

3) Within this traditional model, it is very difficult for the engaged, on-line audience and “Push” Pharma to intersect.  Pharma is largely on the sidelines in the digital space when it comes to meeting the needs of the actively engaged physician, patient or consumer who is not looking for a brand, but rather a solution to their problem.  See for yourself – just try typing in some symptoms of a disease and see how many Pharma companies are trying to engage you to provide some answers.

Given the strong push by Pharma to redefine themselves as patient-centric health management companies, I strongly believe they need to take a broader view of their role in the online space.  This could start with brand managers redefining their roles as “Brand Publishers”.

Brand Publishers:

1) Create a comprehensive set of customer-desired digital assets (branded and un-branded) based on a current and deep understanding of needs.

2) Deploy these assets across the expanding digital landscape.  (Evaluation of digital opportunities required)

3) Ensure these assets are “Findable”, “Discoverable” and “Shareable”.  (Think Search Engine Optimization and Marketing)

4) Leverage every customer engagement to further your business objectives.  Always give them somewhere to go “Next”.

5) Measure their digital initiatives and refine content/experience accordingly based on customer needs and web analytics.

Inherent to this new brand publishing model is responsiveness and speed to market…..something that we all struggle with given our internal and external regulatory environment.  Lets face it…big Pharma is not the CBC….and we will never be able to publish content in real-time.  However, I believe that buy-in from senior leadership that there is a need to focus more on customer-centric pull marketing is a first step to creating the organizational change it will take to make it a reality.

What do you think?

Addendum August 9/2010:  Check out this article from Forbes.com “Publish or Perish” for some interesting insights from the leader of McKinsey’s Digital Marketing Practice, David C. Edelman.

I don’t know about you, but the “warm fuzzy” that I felt after seeing this spot for the first time was very powerful and inspirational.  This is an orange juice company!  They squeeze fruit into a carton and sell it! Do they substantially improve the quality of people’s lives….even save lives on a daily basis?  (No…that would be our industry).   What they do offer up in an engaging manner is simply a promise of a brighter morning.  Brilliant.

“But….where are the key messages for the product?   This could be for any orange juice company!  Why are they better than the competition?”

I am sure you have heard all of these objections when evaluating new concepts for your branded product or corporate campaign.  In my view, these are the sort of objections that often can limit our thinking and guide marketers down the blazing path of mediocrity.  This Ad is one element of an integrated campaign.  It’s job is to engage, invite, and to create buzz.

OK, so you can probably tell I am impressed and frustrated all at the same time.  What can we learn from this campaign?

My Key Learnings:

1) Create an Emotional Brand Connection. Tropicana offers brighter mornings.  Everyone can relate to it.  Our industry’s products change the lives of Canadians for the better on a daily basis.  Yet, emotion is often traded for more rational and scientific messages.  Putting the obvious regulatory hurdles aside, I think we still can do better.

2) People Gravitate to Stories. A story was told in this commercial.  It was a uniquely Canadian one, and it captured the interest of thousands.  (Believe it or not, the story was first told on Facebook..so the TV spot really was chapter 2).  And there are more chapters….just check out the Tropicana site on Facebook. Over 36,000 fans and counting…..  What  I find really impressive is the ongoing narrative about the commercial shoot, not only from the company, but also from people that witnessed the event first hand.  People added their own chapters to the story by uploading their own photos and videos.

Our industry has wonderful stories to tell of triumph over suffering, improvements in quality of life, and of life-saving therapies.  Better yet, we can offer people the opportunity to share their own personal stories with others impacted by the same disease.

3)  Build a “Tribe*”…build a Brand. Tropicana created a community of people that were engaged by the same powerful experience.  To that end, do you think the 36,000 plus Tropicana fans on Facebook (or the thousands they told the story to) are more likely to pick up a Tropicana carton off their grocer’s shelf versus a competitive brand?  I do.   (*Check out Seth Godin’s “Tribes” for more inspiration on this topic.)

What do you think?

Their talks were inspiring and the examples of stellar consumer marketing campaigns were impressive.  I took away many important learnings from the conference….some brand new….some just strong reinforcements of prior learnings.

An important reinforcement was just how critical it is for your digital content to be “Searchable”.  During Mitch Joel’s talk, he reminded us that:

Every Page is your Homepage  (…and Google Controls It).

80% of all on-line experiences start with search.  Canada is predominantly a Google nation, therefore most people’s first experience with your brand (or not) is in Google search.  Furthermore, people are often adding in multiple search terms in an effort to get to the exact content they are looking for as quickly as possible.  If successful in accessing your site from Google…don’t give yourself a high-five quite yet.  If they don’t find the content they are looking for where they first touch down on your site (home page or not) they often leave.  (This is documented as the “bounce rate“…an important metric when you are evaluating your website effectiveness).

OK, so what does this mean moving forward?

It means that you need to ensure your digital content is optimized for search (referred to as Search Engine Optimization or SEO)….so that the search engines can access your content regardless if it is located on your homepage or buried in your site.  Talk to your digital partner in more detail about this…..or get in touch with me for further info.

Exercise: Get closely acquainted with the content that is served up when you “Google” your brand, generic name and other keywords associated with your brand and disease state.

If you currently have a digital campaign underway – how is your brand represented on Google search?  Are you present on the first page of the organic listings (left side)?   How about when you enter multiple search terms together?  An in-depth assessment of  how your customer will experience your digital campaign starting from the search box is a critical exercise.  Your digital partners should have taken this in to consideration right out of the gates…..so talk to them further about how you can improve your visibility within search.

For further info on this topic, check out Jonathan Richmond’s excellent post:  Pharma Search Engine Rankings Need Fixing

Follow me on Twitter

Up front, I want to re-state the definition from my first post on the topic of social media:

Social Media – any online property involving user-generated (physician, patient, consumer) content.

From my perspective,  the heart of the issue that needed to be addressed by PAAB and Health Canada is this:

If a physician or patient creates content (such as offering their opinion in an open text box) on a company-sponsored website, who is ultimately “responsible” for this content?

The answer:  It is the company.

So what does this mean for Pharma Marketers in Canada?

1)  If physicians or patients make comments about your drug on your company-sponsored site that are off-label (indication) or not within the “spirit” of your product monograph (better efficacy, lower side-effects than reported in PM, for example), your company may be in violation of the Food & Drugs Act.  You would need to remove that information from the site.  While there may be some exceptions (non-branded site may have more leeway depending on how feedback is elicited), I believe this is where we net out with current regulations.

2) If physicians or patients discuss an adverse drug reaction on your company-sponsored site, and it meets the 4 criteria of a reportable adverse event (There is a reporter, a patient, a drug and an adverse event), the company is responsible for managing the reporting of that adverse event through the proper channels.

3) Regarding point number one above, there are no current industry guidelines to suggest how often companies should monitor their social media sites to ensure compliance.  While one could argue this is a company by company decision, Henry Anderson (guest speaker, Novartis USA) suggested that social media monitoring guidelines developed by the industry (Rx&D) would help companies take a more confident step towards incorporating social media into their marketing practices.  I’m with Henry.

4) Corporate and Marketing strategy should guide your actions in the social media space.  What are you hoping to achieve?  My personal view is that our industry needs to explore ways to become more transparent and socially responsible in our dealings with customers and patients.  Interfaces where we offer people the opportunity to voice their opinions in an open forum is a step in the right direction.  Some companies are coming forward to talk about the benefits of this new approach.  (See MS Gateway example and Len Starne’s slide presentation from my Patient Social Network Post).

What do you think?

While Wikipedia does offer medical content, a host of other medical & therapy-specific wikis have launched.  See David Rothman’s list here of 69 different medical wikis. One medical wiki that has received a lot of attention recently and is not on this list is Medpedia.  Launched in February of 2009,  the platform offers three inter-related services:  a collaborative knowledge database, a professional social network for HCPs and organizations, and on-line communities where HCPs and non-professionals can interact.

Medical wikis are an important resource for physicians.  As stated by one of the founders of another popular medical wiki: AskDrWiki, Dr. Ken Civello says “I think the majority of people who use the site are looking for a differential diagnosis..to jar their memories”, or to use it as a “reference to supplement what they already know.”

So, who can contribute to these wikis?  Most wikis have guidelines regarding who can contribute/edit and what policies are in place for final editorial control.  In the case of Medpedia, any “member” (person who registers) can suggest changes, while only physicians or PhDs can become editors, ultimately those who can create new or edit existing content.  Editors must be “approved” based on a submission of their credentials and full disclosure of any conflict of interest.   See Medpedia’s FAQs for a good list of answers to common questions in this area.

So, what does this mean for the pharma marketer?  Here are two key questions that get commonly get  asked.

1) Can I (pharma marketer) create content for my brand on a wiki?

This is where you really need to be careful.    I believe the more important question to ask is should you.  Most companies have developed strict company policies about content submission on wikis.  Make sure you understand the policy before you move any further.   One thing to understand about wikis is that in most cases all new entries, edits and deletions are logged in a public area for all to see.  Out of interest, Wikipedia does allow anonymous entries….but IP addresses are still trackable to a company network.  The ramifications of this has been some Pharm companies being called out in the press after special “wikiscan” software was deployed and determined that some staffers were found to be editing entries about their drugs on Wikipedia.  Whether it was warranted or not, the net impression was not positive.

Having said that, I believe through a fully transparent process, medical experts within Pharma should be providing factual and well-balanced information to Wikis.  In the case of Medpedia, there are physicians and PhDs employed by companies that are on the editorial board with full disclosure communicated in their profile.

2) So, what should I do if I see a deficient entry or factual error about my drug or a competitive product?

Before you do anything, talk to management and get the medical department involved.  There may be a legitimate approach to take, such as  contacting an existing editor of the content to “suggest” changes, or having a senior member of your medical team submit content in a fully transparent manner.  Given the global audience that wikis have today, marketers need to ensure that their best intentions to provide factual and well-balanced information does not get misinterpreted.

What do you think?  Participate in the poll below:

Follow me on Twitter

3rd Party PaSNs (no pharma involvement from inception, but have attracted pharma sponsors)

One of the largest and best known is PatientsLikeMe.com.  Promoted as the “leading online community for life-changing conditions”, the site enables patients from around the world to share their experiences with their disease, and to provide structured feedback (data) on how their disease & treatment is progressing.  PatientsLikeMe (PLM) in turn sells this data to pharma/biotech companies to help “accelerate the discovery of new, more effective treatments”.  Recently, UCB was the first pharmaceutical company to partner with PLM to develop their own online epilepsy community to capture real-world information from people living with the disease.  I gather that UCB is trying to capitalize on PLMs existing architecture instead of trying to re-create the wheel – a smart idea.

Inspire’s network of PaSNs.  Inspire has developed a network of 184 different US-based support groups, and it is growing by the week.  Inspire offers free support communities to healthcare organizations and publishers in the US.  They make money by partnering with clinical research organizations to recruit patient for trials.  One notable Inspire group is the Advanced Breast Cancer Community, sponsored by BMS.

Alliance Health is another US mega-network company with multiple support groups.  Diabeticconnect.com is a good example.  They make money by offering direct online marketing opportunities to pharma and consumer companies, tapping into their membership across all of their support groups.

Yes, there is a Canadian example:  the Canadian SkinPatientAlliance.ca.  This non-profit (sponsored by all of the key pharma players in dermatology) offers an open discussion forum for patients to discuss their disease and treatments.

Brand Sponsored PaSNs (Pharma directly responsible for launching and supporting)

Lets start with a notable Canadian PaSN brought to you by Teva Neuroscience Canada.   Teva, the makers of Copaxone® (treatment for MS) is responsible for MSwatch.ca, an online community offering information and other services to patients, caregivers, HCPs and the general public.   Of specific interest, they offer a forum where people can post questions, comments and their personal experiences with any MS therapy.  Teva should be commended for this open & transparent approach.  (No, they are not my client!)

Another MS company (Bayer, makers of Betaseron®) has established an international network of PaSNs via MS-Gateway.com.  Again they have taken a very inclusive approach, allowing their registrants to openly discuss their disease and treatment via online forums.  I had the opportunity to hear from Len Starnes (Head of Digital Marketing & Sales – General Medicine for Bayer Schering Pharma) about this initiative at a recent pharma marketing conference.  Check out his slide presentation here for more information.

Finally, while J & J (makers of Lifescan® glucose monitoring devices) did not launch this site, they formally acquired it in March of 2008.  Childrenwithdiabetes.com is a community site for kids (and parents of kids)with diabetes.  The site has open bulletin boards and also accepts advertising from competitive companies.

There is no doubt that patients have a huge appetite for information direct from other patients about their disease…..especially diseases that are chronic in nature.  The question is – will more and more pharma companies enable those patient to patient “connections” via PaSNs in the future, or will they remain largely on the sidelines?  There are always barriers (the reporting of adverse events mentioned in online forums always comes up as the largest hurdle) but apparently Teva, Bayer and J&J have all decided that the benefits of engaging patients in this manner is worth the extra effort.

What do you think?  Participate in the poll below:

Follow me on Twitter

Partic

The PSN that has received the most attention in Canada is Sermo.  Sermo was founded by a Boston surgeon in 2006 and today has over 100,000 US physician members.   To date, it has been closed to Canadian physicians but word on the street is that they will launch in Canada before the end of 2009.  Sermo makes money via “information arbitrage”, selling access to healthcare orgs, big pharma and financial companies.  It’s deal with Pfizer in 2007 was highly publicized.  While branded advertising is not permitted, Pfizer was able to create “hotspots” where they could provide information, ask questions, and poll the membership.

The other mammoth US PSN is Medscape’s Physician Connect (a division of WebMD), also claiming over 100K members.  An international PSN worth mentioning is the British Medical Journal’s doc2doc.

OK, what about Canada?

The Canadian Medical Association launched Asklepios in August of 2008.  Available to CMA members only, they reported in Jan of 2009 to have 1100 physicians signed-up.  Two main differences between Asklepios and Sermo are 1) Asklepios members identify themselves, whereas Sermo allows members to enter with pseudonyms, maintaining their individual privacy, and 2) Asklepios is a service to CMA members and not monetized (aka Pharma not welcome) where Sermo is a private company with $$ in mind.   It will be interesting to follow the uptake of Asklepios – maybe they will be open to industry partnerships in the future…

While most of the large PSNs have specialty sections where doctors can “fine-tune” their community, they largely are one-stop shops for the medical profession.   What I find interesting (and represents an opportunity for Pharma?) is the creation of more focused PSNs for specific specialties.

Here is a nice example of a specialized PSN:  syndicom spineconnect.  This PSN focuses on the specific needs of spinal surgeons, providing them an opportunity to collaborate on challenging cases with spinal surgeons around the globe.  Membership includes 1400 spinal surgeons from over 35 countries.

So, what are the opportunities for Canadian Pharma?  Here are a few thoughts:

• Partnership opportunities with Canadian PSNs.   Sermo is coming, and competition for “eye-balls” will follow as physicians will likely not be interested in joining multiple networks.  Keep up-to-date on these new entrants – early partnerships may offer great value.
• A company-sponsored PSN for a specific specialty group.  It would need to be managed by a 3rd party via an unrestricted grant from a company and you would need to truly demonstrate you are “hands-off”……..but why not?  Done well, this could help to really boost a company’s profile in a given therapeutic area.
• Mini-PSNs with your KOLs. The acceptance of PSNs demonstrates how comfortable physicians are with technology.  Applying this to an important activity within your company….why not create a PSN for your KOL advisors?  Think of it as a collaboration tool that could allow you to gain valuable and timely feedback on new data, brand initiatives, etc.   It could be a great supplement to your face to face interactions with KOLs.

Find an interesting PSN out there?  Please share it with me.

Follow me on Twitter

“I know my customers are discussing my brand online with all of these new social media tools…..how can we join in the conversation?”

Knowledge is power.  Lets start at the beginning with a definition:

Social Media – any online property involving user-generated (physician, patient, consumer) content.

Given the importance and breadth of this topic, I have decided to handle it over a number of entries.  In future posts, I will take a look at five key social media platforms you should be aware of as a pharma marketer.   They are:

1. Physician Social Networks
2. Patient Social Networks
3. Wikis
4. Blogs
5. Media Sharing sites

For each, I will provide real examples of what is currently being done in the pharma world and what the ramifications are for Canadian pharma marketers.  Stay tuned!

Follow me on Twitter

Why is that?

I believe an important reason is the reluctance by marketers to “turn their back” on any customer segment thinking that they may be leaving “money on the table”.  The result of that is the entire market gets divided into segments (too many segments) and the resulting action plan is not specific enough and difficult to execute.

So what is the solution?

Here are my top 5 suggestions based on best practices I have gleaned over the years.

• #1   Choose a few segments (no more than three) to focus on rep promotion. Consider dedicating “less valuable” segments to non-rep promotion only (think Integrated Campaign for your non-rep promo)
• #2  Market the segments internally by assigning monikers to them (think Nicknames).   This will make the segments more “sticky” and help with execution.
• #3  Provide a clear Plan-of-Action on what your objectives are with each audience segment (think customized message, think behavioural objectives).  This POA should be clearly be communicated on one page.
• #4 Provide simple profiling questions for the reps to assess a given physician’s segment in the field (assuming that the research has not created robust target lists)
• #5 Listen, Measure, Adapt based on feedback from the field, message track studies, etc.  Your target segments today may not necessarily be your target segments in 6 months.

The next time you are considering a segmentation study, really think about the end in mind.  Think about implementation right from the start…and challenge your MR partner to develop a methodology that is best suited for action in the field and via non-rep promotion channels.