Hot under the collar
Posted on 01. Apr, 2009 by neilcrump in Communications, Health, Industry
I am writing this post from a busy internet café in a beautiful European capital city. The only thing is that I haven’t had a chance to see the city yet because as ever, I am working with my lovely client team at a congress, and in fact, the internet café is in the middle of the exhibition hall.
You might recognise the format of this useful congress offering: friendly chap serving coffee from a space-aged looking machine, high bar tables and stools and wireless inter-web access, sponsored by a well known pharma company. It is all very convenient, clean, packed full of people, and totally free, helping everyone at the congress get on with whatever they need to do; fuel up with caffeine, chill for a few moments while resting their ‘congress feet’ or catch-up with their mates that they haven’t seen for a while.
As I sit here I am getting hot under the collar and it is not because I have now worn a tie for three consecutive days, although the ‘noose’ doesn’t help. No, while I meet my liquid stimulant and podiatry needs (and scan my BlackBerry) I overhear the conversation of a group of doctors which makes me feel simultaneously sad and angry. Now I don’t advocate eaves dropping, but these three docs sat themselves at the same table as me, coffee in hand and started chatting. So as much as I try not to listen I cannot help it.
I won’t go into the details, but basically they were annoyed at the high level of pharmaceutical company support of the congress, including the branded lanyard attached to their badges. They couldn’t understand it and they didn’t like it, they decided it was excessive.
Now I happened to recognise one of the docs, he is an eminent medic and an absolutely brilliant presenter. I know this because I went to a diagnostic company satellite symposium yesterday where he was a speaker. The group then went on to discuss some brilliant new high-tech gadget they had been playing with on a device company stand and they then compared which device company was taking them out to dinner that night.
So that is why I feel sad and a bit angry. Why, why, why does this happen? Why does the pharma industry take so much flack? The docs didn’t bat an eyelid about speaking for, the exhibition stand of, or the appropriate level of hospitality from a device company – and so they shouldn’t – but why the differential in judgement between commercial ventures, whether they make life-saving medicines, diagnostics, hospital beds or plastic tubes?
I’ve worked for pharma and device companies for more than a decade now, helping them with their healthcare communications. I’ve seen no difference between them in what or how they do what they do to promote or educate, whether that be for medicines or devices. They are both important business sectors that provide enormous benefits to all of us.
I’m not sure how to react or where direct my energies to address the palpable mistrust of the pharmaceutical industry, which seems to have been growing over the last few years. How do we get pharma on an equal footing with devices?
Jon
13. Apr, 2009
Neil, the mistrust will end, when the pharma companies open up. They are closed brands, closed companies, still engaging in very traditional means of push marketing.
Their communications will have to change and align to the world of instant communication and transparency which the web allows. Until that happens, people will not understand what really goes on and the mistrust will grow.
neilcrump
14. Apr, 2009
I don’t think instant communication is the main issues here. Pharmaceutical companies come in to contact with their stakeholders in multiple ways, online is just one of them. I doubt that the opinions and attitudes doctors hold about pharma companies are primarily formed by their online experiences: healthcare professionals engage with the industry in more obvious and direct ways: rep visits, advisory boards, educational events, congresses and most importantly (probably), how they find patients respond to the medicines (and if this is concordant with what the companies are saying about them). Of course the web plays a role, but rushing head first in to ‘instant communication’ without considering some very important issues (pharmacovigilance, commercially sensitive information, the risk of off-label discussion to name but a few) is not going to help anyone. Instead, we need to ask where the mistrust comes from. Here, I agree that the issue is one of ‘traditional’ vs. ‘modern’ approaches. In the modern world, tthe key is to ensure that companies are communicating, via whatever medium, in a way that adds-value for the audiences and is discursive rather than dogmatic.
On the second point of transparency, as I’m sure you are aware, the pharmaceutical industry works to guidance on promotional activity such as the EFPIA and ABPI Codes. Transparency is at the very core of this guidance and this is the ideal that pharmaceutical companies and their agencies work toward – both in marketing and communication outreach. In fact, the HCA has provided even further guidance on the later. My post was specifically about how healthcare professionals react to our industry and most will be aware of these guidelines that we work towards. There is, of course, a job for the ABPI here – to continue to communicate the high standards that our industry works towards and to engage in dialogue with the medical profession. This dialogue should utilise online and ‘traditional’ means of communication as the situation requires.
To look at it more broadly, we can talk about a general mistrust of the pharmaceutical industry across society. This is interesting as recent research from Ipsos MORI suggests that 49% of the public are favourable to the pharma industry and only 12% are not; this would indicate that Joe who blogs does not think the industry is as closed as insiders like us might assume. We need to build upon this and communicate to the public about the great work our industry undertakes, whilst being mindful of ethical issues.
There’s no lack of appetite for open dialogue, we just need to make sure we do it right. Unconsidered action could negatively influence important policy decisions, such as the ‘pharmaceutical package’ going through the European Parliament. This package has the potential to reshape how our industry can interact with patients, so let’s make sure that we continue to engage in appropriate ways that continue to build trust.
As for the doctors that I talked about in the post, there clearly is mistrust among certain groups, and this was evident in the recent Royal College of Physician’s report. Let’s bring our collective heads together and figure out what needs to be said, and via what mechanism, to rebalance the reputation seesaw.