'Round the Sphere: Pharma TV DTC Ads Offensive to Women?

While I was away in London this week, Richard Myer over at World of DTC Marketing sent me a copy of an email message he received from a reader of his blog who complained the that recent Evista TV ad, which shows menopausal women standing around wearing only towels, was "extremely offensive:"

I have been searching for who I should contact about the ad for Evista. I have seen it several times and want to say it is a very offensive ad. There are many women who have only a sheet wrapped around them.

This ad is very unbecoming and unnecessary to advertise medication. It once again adds to the lack of respect that the media has for women. Many of us are working for the dignity of women and ads such as this one destroys our efforts.

You can read Rich's take on this in the recent post entitled "Evista Ad Offensive?" I leave it up to you if the ad really is offensive to women.

No sooner than I was back home than I saw an unbranded fibromyalgia "disease awareness" ad by Pfizer. I definitely found this one disturbing in that it presented images of a bruised woman that looked very much like the battered woman syndrome posters and ads I have seen. See my post over at Pharma Marketing Blog entitled "Battered Woman Imagery in Pfizer's New Fibromyalgia Ad." Here's what I said about this ad:

"The whole thing smacked of desperation on Pfizer's part to sell more drugs and represents DTC advertising sinking to a new low in exploiting women's fears!"

Are these ads part and parcel of how pharma marketers view women or wish to appeal to their fears? I have noted previously that women were not portrayed very favorably in ads -- see "Women Need More Love, Less Drugs." Come to think of it, the ad I talk about in that post is another Pfizer ad -- a branded Lyrica ad!

Lilly's Taurel Warns Off "Would-be Pundits"

Rich Myer over at World of DTC Marketing -- which has had a recent facelift (very nice) -- emailed me a link to an OpEd piece in the WSJ written by Sidney Taurel, CEO of Eli Lilly and Company (saint Taurel seen on left). The piece was entitled "The Media on Drugs" -- a title I find unfortunate in the context of discussing the "ethical" drug industry.

Mr. Taurel chided the media for perpetrating unfounded rumors, innuendos and unsubstantiated facts about Lilly's motives for halting two clinical trials for the drug prasugrel. As Myer says "But Mr. Taurel takes it a step further and feels that the media should try and understand the data so that they can report the whole story."

Taurel also took a shot at "would-be pundits" (ie, bloggers) and said "If you have not had firsthand exposure to the scientific results or specialized knowledge under discussion, then qualify your comments if you must make them at all."

BTW, have you heard this one?

Why don't drug company CEOs write blogs?

They do. It's called the Wall Street Journal OpEd page!

While we poor "pundits" must roll our own presses on the Internet, Taurel merely drops a note to WSJ and instantly reaches millions of readers! Now that's what I call Media on Drugs!

In any case, I suspect that Taurel was merely offering an excuse for his own failings to manage the media. This was pointed out by a commenter on the CNBC site and quoted by Myer:

"I think Taurel is shooting the messenger. Lilly had to know that the original story about the halted clinical trials was going to break. And, if so, it had a golden opportunity to try to get out in front of it and do some spin control. For example, offer up high-level executives to reporters immediately. Put out a more detailed statement than the one it released. The company might argue that its hands were tied because of the pending embargo on the larger clinical trial results which were soon due to be presented at the American Heart Association meeting and published in 'The New England Journal of Medicine.' But I suspect that given the extraordinary circumstances--the news of the two smaller studies being halted and the steep $6 billion decline in LLY's market value because of it--that the company might have been able to convince AHA and/or NEJM to loosen up a little and let its officials discuss at least some of the results in an open forum, pre-embargo."

Duh!

How About this for an Innuendo?
Not only that, but I find the timing of the halting of the two trials peculiar. It was done a mere 10 days prior to the embargo date. Couldn't Lilly have waited until AFTER the embargo was lifted and avoided this whole brouhaha? After all, Taurel claimed that Lilly "received no reports of safety concerns from them." Or did they? Let the rumors continue! Long live the pundits!

'Round the Sphere: RLS Videos. Creepy, Crawly, Weird, and Wired!

It all started innocently enough with a post by Ed Silverman over at Pharmalot. On Tuesday, Ed called our attention to a Consumer Reports video critique of the classic "Creepy, Crawly" Requip Restless Leg Syndrome (RLS) TV ad (see "Debunking TV Ads: Installment #1").

Although Ed's post was published about 12 days after CR first uploaded the video on its web site, I think the post woke up the sleeping RLS Foundation, GSK, and their PR minions who set to work debunking the debunkers.

That same day (Nov. 13) I received a comment from an anonymous Pharma Marketing Blog reader notifying me that the RLS Foundation had that day sent an e-mail to its members urging a boycott of CR. The Foundation also wrote a letter to CR. I posted a note about this turn of events on my blog the next morning (see "RLS Foundation (aka GSK?) Calls for Boycott of Consumer Reports Over Ad Spoof").

Since then, I have received numerous comments to my post in defense of the RLS Foundation. All say the same thing: it's a real independent patient organization (as opposed to an "astroturf" organization founded by GSK and BI) and RLS is a "real" medical condition. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

I have reason to believe the initial comment and some of the others have been orchestrated by buzz marketers who have not flawlessly executed the "Posing as a Consumer on Social Networks" Web 2.0 trick (see "Web 2.0 Pharma Marketing Tricks for Dummies").

Last night (Nov. 14) Wired Science aired the video "The Business of Disease" on primetime TV (PBS). The main attraction was a demonstration of an RLS simulator "designed as an awareness piece for the physician community ... so they will have a better understanding of the science" (see "RLS Simulator: Weird Wired Science").

BTW, the Wired Science video is real journalism as opposed to the CR video. The WS piece includes interviews with physicians and marketing experts, including my friend Rich Myer over at World of DTC Marketing blog. Thanks to my recommendation to the Wired Science people, Rich was interviewed at his home where he had this to say about the role of marketing:

"Creating a need, that's what marketing is all about," said Myer. "If people don't know they have a need, create a need."

Amen, brother!

Mack and Meyer Clash with Publisher Over "Journalistic Integrity"

It all started with a simple, innocent post about doctors prostituting themselves to pharmaceutical companies (see "Pimp My Doc!") and a little offhand remark therein about the fabled "separation of church and state" at medical journals. Specifically, I wondered how an editor could shrug off $750,000 in lost advertising revenue because of remarks she made out of publication. Imagine what would happen if she dared publish her remarks!

That lead to a piece by Christiane Truelove who, as a trade publication editor, says she tries to live by the dictum "Buy our Space, not our words" or something to that effect (see "Christiane Truelove of MedAdNews Says 'Buy Our Space, Not Our Words'").

That lead me to explore the whole church and state thing more closely in a follow-up post to my blog: "Trade Publications Must Be More than Drug Industry Cheerleaders!"

That's when the proverbial sh*t hit the willing fan!

In my post, I quoted World of DTC marketing author Rich Meyer, who had some unkind criticism of DTC Perspectives (an industry trade publication): "This trade magazine is such a joke that nobody in the industry really takes it seriously. It's news is shallow and outdated and, judging from the list of the top 25 marketers, its selection criteria is based more upon relationships within the industry than what anyone has actually done, or has not done."

But Rich didn't get angry email from Bob Ehrlich, the publisher of DTC Perspectives. I did!

I won't quote what Bob said, because it was a private email (Bob refuses to submit comments to my blog posts like everyone else who really wishes to engage in constructive dialogue). Suffice it to say he was mad, defensive, and said he will never read my blog again.

So much for my tough love approach of trying to offer constructive criticism and open a dialogue about how to improve the utility of trade publications to industry readers.

My mistake was suggesting to Bob that instead of shooting the messenger, he should contact Rich Meyer if he was that upset about the quote. And contact Meyer he did!

Meyer has chosen to quote some of what Ehrlich said in email to him in his post "Attack from industry trade publication," in which you will find some choice words.

Meyer thought Bob needed some TLC: "Wow someone obviously is drinking too much caffeine and is in dire need of some great sex to relieve the tension."

Let's step back from the juicy stuff for a minute and look at the issues.

#1: How to Have/Not Have Constructive Dialog/Dialogue with a Blogger
Don't write him/her personal email messages to get your point of view across. Coin of the realm in the Pharma Blogopshere is reader comments that everyone can see and respond to. That's the kind of dialog we want! Speaking of dialog, did anyone listen to my podcast "Blogs vs. DTC: What's Best for Consumers?" which featured Bob Ehrlich as a guest? It was all about him and his views, which I compliantly set him up to deliver. I guess that "offer of dialog" was nothing more than chopped liver!

#2: Don't Confuse Blogging with Journalism
In one email missive, Ehrlich said: "You and John Mack make a good pair- you attack with no thought that fairness is part of journalism, even opinion pieces." This is a wonderful example of a common misconception and I don't mean the misconception that Mack and Meyer make a good pair. Holding bloggers up to journalistic standards is oxymoronic! Blogging is everything that journalism is not and more so. What blogger wants to be "fair"? What does that mean, anyway? I guess I am not being fair here because I quoted Ehrlich "out of context." If I quoted the context then Ehrlich would come across even worse. Therefore, I am being more fair to his image than if I quoted his rant in its entirety! BTW, I started my blog primarily to present my biased view, which is, by definition, unfair! Live with it!

#3: Bloggers are Not Team Players!
It's funny that Ehrlich says me and Meyer make great team. I hadn't teamed up with Meyer until Ehrlich began his rants and raves against us and put us on the same team! Anyone who is a regular reader of this blog knows that us bloggers are often at each other's throats and don't hesitate to put one another down, sometimes in subtle ways and sometimes not so subtle. It's a dog eat dog eat black kitty world out there in the Pharma Blogosphere. But back to Meyer and Mack: We've decided to team up at least on one project: more on that later. Stay tuned!

Pointing Fingers

There's been some interest in the First Ever Pharma Blogosphere Reader Survey from bloggers in the Pharma Blogosphere^TM.

Recently, Rich Meyer, author of World of DTC Marketing (rated as one of the TOP 5 "useful" blogs by survey respondents) suggested that people who have not worked in the pharmaceutical industry should not "point fingers."

Rich was disturbed to learn that according to the survey, "BLOGS critical of the pharmaceutical industry are viewed more credible than BLOGS supportive of the industry. ...unless you have worked in the pharma industry there is no way that you can sit on the fence and point fingers at people inside the house." (See "Unless you have been there don't point fingers".)

The blogs that Rich says in "no way" should point fingers at pharma include:

• Pharmalot
• PharmaGossip
• Pharma Marketing Blog
• BrandweekNRX

Of these, only PharmaGossip meets Rich's criteria for the right to point fingers. PharmaGossip is supposedly written by an industry insider. However, the author is anonymous and there is no way to confirm that he/she is an authentic "insider." But I take the Insider (aka "Jack Friday") at his word.

I think it's incredible for Rich to make this kind of statement. First, any one has a right to point fingers and some of the best finger pointing may be done by "outsiders," such as Democrats in Congress pointing fingers at the Bush administration.

The press (of which we have freedom of here in the USA) is another good example of outsiders pointing in. Pharmalot and BrandweekNRX are two "critical" blogs written by reporters and they are doing a wonderful and critically acclaimed job of pointing fingers.

Of course, the "finger pointer uber alis" is Peter Rost of Question Authority. Rost used to be on the inside but now he is on the outside, so I guess he's OK in Meyer's book.

Meyer plays the "pharma is unique card": "Working in the pharma industry is unique and unless you have spent time on the inside I don't believe that you can understand the environment in which we work."

OK, let's have some sympathy for the environment in which these guys work. But that is no excuse for premeditated abuse of laws, regulations, guidelines, and ethical marketing practices, which are plain for anyone to see, inside or out.

P.S. Meyer relates he has seen a lot of wrong committed inside the tent by fellow pharma people. His blog is a good example of how someone on the inside can take a critical look at this situation and I applaud him for doing it. I also applaud his company, which Meyer doesn't name, for not terminating or muzzling him.

Who Loves Ya Baby? The TOP 5 Blogs According to Industry Readers

As many readers of the Pharma Blogosphere^TM blog know, back in February we hosted the First Ever Pharma Blogosphere reader survey. A sampling of results of this survey have already been published on this blog (see "Industry Bias in the Pharma Blogosphere" and "Pharma Blogosphere Survey Results - Who and Why?").

The full results of the survey will be published in the April, 2007 issue of Pharma Marketing News and presented at the Spring 2007 Healthcare Blogging Summit 2007 being held in Las Vegas on April 29. (I better get my ass in gear to get ready for that!).

In this installment I present some data showing the top 5 pharma blogs ranked by survey respondents who said they were employed at pharmaceutical companies. Recall that blogs were ranked according to Readability (layout, ease of reading and finding information), Usefulness (for keeping readers aware of the issues), and Credibility (accuracy of information). The results are shown in the following slide.

Note: N=43 industry readers; shows top five blogs in each category; only blogs with more than 5 respondent ratings were considered.

Some Take-aways
Only three blogs -- In the Pipeline, EyeOnFDA, and Pharma Marketing Blog -- made the "Industry Top 5" in each category. Props to In the Pipeline for being #1 in Usefulness and Credibility, and #2 in Readability!

Surprisingly, Drug Wonks was considered the most readable, but did not make the Top 5 in either of the other 2 categories. I reveal more about that in the upcoming Pharma Marketing News article.

Sorry, Peter, Question Authority -- popular as it might be among all readers -- did not make the "Industry Top 5" in any category! But I will say this: Industry readers thought that Question Authority was more supportive of the industry than did non-industry readers! In fact, it was second on that list (behind Pharma Marketing Blog) of blogs that the industry thought supportive. Perhaps if the survey was done over again today, industry respondents would have a different opinion! Perhaps more closely aligned with a view expressed on CafePharma; namely, "This Rost guy is a Michael Moore crony that is an industry and medical community outcast that has nothing better to do then sit at his computer all day long blogging about things he knows little about, blowing things out of proportion, and surfing porn."

Caveats
Kind in mind that this survey covered only 22 blogs. Today the field is much bigger! Also, several blogs were very new when the survey was run and, consequently, may not have had enough history to be properly judged.

There will be another Pharma Blogosphere Reader survey in the Fall. Stay tuned!

What's Your Mission/Vision Thing?

Blogging is more than getting your personal voice out there and commenting on the news trying to "scoop" the competition.

It's also about promoting a cause, or agenda if you will, that you believe in. I offer these two examples from Pharma Marketing Blog (my blog): my call today for Glaxo to pull its ads from the Imus show (see "Glaxo, Pull Your Imus Ads!") and my call for a Call for a Rozerem Prescription Boycott.

If you want to be totally balanced and unbiased, become a journalist! In fact, more journalists are becoming bloggers because their identities and beliefs are masked under all the journalistic trappings necessary to the success of news media.

Several bloggers in the Pharma Blogosphere have a "mission." My mission, for example, is to promote good pharmaceutical marketing practices and thereby improve the image of the pharmaceutical industry. The mission of Richard Meyer over at World of DTC Marketing is to get pharmaceutical marketers more interested in online marketing and focus TV DTC ads on the appropriate products. Peter Rost at Question Authority has a mission too: to destroy Pfizer! (just kidding). Fard Johnmar at HealthcareVOX has a Web 2.0 vision. Etc, Etc.

What's YOUR mission?

I encourage all Pharma Bloggosphere bloggers to state their mission in a little survey I have created. You can also publish your vision or mission statement in your blog and I will link to it here.

Enter your mission statement in this online form.

Thanks!

'Round the Sphere: Takeda's WaterGate Moment

What otherwise would have been a minor incident for Takeda has the makings of a WaterGate-style scandal, which, IMHO, should result in some rolling heads at Takeda!

And I think many bloggers in The Pharma Blogosphere would agree.

First, Takeda is caught running reminder DTC TV ads although it is a signatory of PhRMA's Guiding Principles for DTC Advertising. This was reported first on my Pharma Marketing Blog (see "Rozerem Reverts to Reminder TV Ads").

Then, they claimed the ads weren't reminder ads at all (see "Takeda: It Isn't a Reminder Ad --- Wha!!!")!

That was too much for me. So, I sent a complaint to PhRMA. Although I did get a "thank you for your comment" letter in the return mail (see "PhRMA Responds to My Rozerem Ad 'Concern'"), it didn't seem to deter Takeda.

In a weird twist to the story, FDA, in a "Notice of Violation" (NOV) letter to Takeda, agreed with Takeda that some of these reminder ads are not reminder ads. In fact, says the FDA, specific "Back to School" Rozerem ads violate FDA regulations.

This story was picked up by the newswire, of course, reported in the Wall Street Journal and subsequently in blogs in this space. See, for example:

• "Back to School for Takeda, Rozerem, and Abe Lincoln!" (Pharma Marketing Blog)
• "Why Johnny Can't Sleep: No Rozerem!" (Pharmalot)

But the real WaterGate moment occurred when Takeda denied any responsibility for the ads:

"Our preliminary review of the situation indicates that no one internal to Takeda was involved in the approval, release or broadcast of the advertisement in question."

This was in an email sent to Jim Edwards of BrandweekNRX (see "Takeda Borrows Cephalon's Excuse for FDA Warning Letter").

This is a literally incredible excuse, never before heard in the annals of the highly regulated pharmaceutical industry. As Rich Meyer over at World of DTC Marketing said:

"Uhhh..you really expect the FDA to believe that and if it is in fact true then Takeda has a hell of a lot more to worry about than an NOV, your business processes are in a serious need of a colonoscopy and someone needs to be held accountable. Frankly in today's business environment this is unacceptable and totally unacceptable for a highly regulated industry like prescription drugs." (See "Rozerem bitch slapped by the FDA").

Yes, but don't hold your breath for any accountability. Here are three events we are not likely ever to see:

1. Hell freezing over
2. Resignation of FBI Director Robert Mueller who claims to be accountable for major violations of the Patriot Act
3. Takeda holding itself accountable for its DTC ad campaigns

This Week in the Blogosphere: Gardasil

The following is a sampling of Gardasil sightings in the pharma blogosphere.

Pharma Marketing Blog: In the post "Gardasil: To Be Mandatory or Not To Be Mandatory -- That is the Question," blogger John Mack points out that the Gardasil controversy raised several issues: promiscuity, parents' rights, drug risk vs. benefit, even disease mongering through lobbying. Mack concludes that "maybe it's not a good idea on the grounds of unknown risk to force mandatory vaccinations at this time. Merck, therefore, should back off from lobbying states to make it mandatory." What do you think -- take the Pharma Marketing Blog Poll.

BrandweekNRX: Jim Edwards obviously agrees with Pharmaceutical Executive Magazine that Gardasil is "Brand of the Year." See the post "Gardasil: Brand of the Year? Journalists like Jim could never express their opinions like this in the articles they write for their publications. We know they HAVE opinions, but without the blogs we'd have to infer what they are by reading between the lines. There isn't anything between the lines in blogs -- at least there shouldn't be. Except perhaps in corporate hack blogs. By this standard, BrandweekNRX certainly isn't a hack job! But what about Jim's articles in Brandweek? In his blog, Jim focuses his criticism on the promiscuity issue and puts himself squarely against the religious right. Now that I know his opinion of a major issue for the religious right, can I trust that his reporting on this topic in that publication will be "journalistic" (ie, balanced)? Again, I have to ask: will journalists change blogging or will blogging change journalism?

Pharmalot: This is another journalist blog. It's somewhat more difficult to read where Ed Silverman -- Phamalot's author -- stands on the issue of mandatory vaccination against HPV. I've read his post on the subject -- "The Lone Vaccine State: A Row in Texas" -- and cannot tell if he is for or agin' the Texas mandate that he writes about. Ed does cover all the issues and concludes "the overriding public policy concern here is finding the best way to promote good public health. Unfortunately, any number of state lawmakers may also benefit from industry support as they debate and promote the vaccine issue. That kind of bonus doesn't spawn confidence that the right thing is being done for the right reason. But there's no vaccine for that." From this, I conclude that Ed would vote that Merck should press on for mandatory vaccinations but not through aggressive lobbying (and politician payola).

World of DTC Marketing: In the recent post "A prime example of whats wrong with Pharma (Gardasil)," Rich Myer accuses Merck of putting "profits ahead of good medicine." He's ticked off about the price, lack of insurance coverage, and difficulty that physicians seem to having stocking the vaccine. He makes some good points. But Rich, you got to give the "We try never to forget that medicine is for the people" quote a rest! Seriously dude!

eDrug Search: I love the headline ("Mandatory Gardasil in Texas: Perry’s motives are a bit Merck-y"). I'll have to use "Merck-y" next timeI'm critical of Merck. Anyway, Cary is focused on the ties that Governor Perry has with Merck, which he picked up from News Hounds ("They eat their own - TX Governor Rick Perry under fire from just about everyone for mandatory vaccinations"): "Two of Perry’s former chiefs of staff currently work for Merck, and the mother of one of them is involved in lobbying for this … Has Perry just caved in for Merck? … His former c-o-s is being paid $250,000 by Merck to lobby for this, a Texas state legislator (Diane White Delisi) is pushing for it and working with Merck, and her daughter-in-law is the current chief of staff." Cary could have mentioned that Perry received a $6,000 political donation from Merck when he was running for office. Not that's there's anything wrong with that!

PharmaGossip: Nada about the current brouhaha over mandatory vaccination. Maybe the Insider will have an opinion later. It's always a good idea not to be too far ahead of the pack. You might just say something you regret. But Insider protects his identity very well, so I'm sure he doesn't give a crap about regrets.

Drug Injury Watch: Gardasil is not yet among the Rx products being tracked on this lawyer's(Tom Lamb) blog. Keep an eye out though for future lawsuits -- even class action lawsuits. I wonder if Merck has pit some money aside to deal with that possibility? What do you think Tom?

Drug Wonks: I was hoping that these guys would take up the issue of Gardasil and drug risk-benefit analysis. That would be right up their alley. Haven't seen it though.

That's all for now!