Categories
Pharma Marketing

Gamification in Pharma Marketing Explained with Examples

Gamification in pharma marketing is one of the hot topics of recent years. In this article you will learn what is gamification, see the examples of gamification used in pharma business (both marketing gamification and education gamification). We will also show the potential of social gamification, and try to show how to insert gamification into your app, website and other digital activities.

What is Gamification? Definition not only for Pharma Marketing.

One of the simplest and most appealing definition of gamification is: 
[box type=”info” align=”aligncenter” ]”Gamification is the use of game design elements in non-game contexts” [Source: Deterding, S., Dixon D., Khaled, R., and Nacke, L. From game design elements to gamefulness: defining “gamification” (2011). Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, ACM, New York.].[/box]

What does it mean?
“Gamification” refers to
 
[starlist]

  • the use (rather than the extension) of
  • design (rather than game-based technology or other game-related practices)
  • elements (rather than full-fledged games)
  • characteristic for games (rather than play or playfulness)
  • in non-game contexts (regardless of specific usage intentions, contexts, or media of implementation).

[/starlist]
 
Game design elements can be divided by the level of abstraction, starting from using game interface patterns (ie. using badges or leaderboards), to game design methods (ie. value conscious game design).
 

game design patterns

game mechanics

game principles and heuristics

game models

game design methods

badge, leaderboard

time or resource limitation, player turns

clear goals, recognition of different game styles

Mechanics-Dynamics-Aesthetics (MDA), Core elements of gaming experience (CEGE )

Playcentric design, value conscious game design

 
Most applications of gamification in pharma marketing nowadays limits use of  game design elements to the first three levels. It is relatively easy and a no-brainer to add some badge or status to the user profile in hope that it would increase activity or completeness of the data provided. On the other hand, using game models and designing user journey with conscious application of game theory may bring the highest level of engagement and the best conversion rates.
As we mentioned “game theory” it is worth to explain this term as well. Basically, game theory is a study of how people make strategic decisions. The foundation of modern game theory is a classic 1944 work Theory of Games and Economic Behavior by mathematician John von Neumann and economist Oskar Morgenstern. Game theory tries to explain and provide mathematical models for decision making process. Using game theory in real life is difficult as the world does not provide to players full information, and “utility” or the prize in the game does not have to be considered equally by players. Still for the digital marketer game theory provides useful models to make some actions more attractive for users than others.

How to Apply Gamification in Pharma Marketing Campaign?

There are six essential elements of gamification that you can use to improve your key message delivery.
 
[checklist]

  1. Playful design. Going through your campaign should be attributed to the world of play, not work. Your audience should be attracted to the message because it is enjoyable for them, not because you paid them or they were ordered to participate. It is easier said than done, but you should make an effort to provide user with the environment that is not connected with daily work routine, use positive stimuli or feedback whenever possible etc.
  2. Clear rules. Every game has its rules, and going through your message delivery should have it too. There has to be clear logic in how user goes through it
  3. Defined objectives and intermediate goals to meet. Put within the message some smaller tasks that can be quick-wins for users, as well as a  big hairy goal to be rewarded for at the end of the journey.
  4. Competition. It does not have to be based on other players, it can be competition against time. Still leaderboards, badges and points are one of the easiest tricks that encourage participation and accomplishing tasks. On the other hand, this competition should not be too hard, unless you want players to drop-off frustrated early in the game.
  5.  Rewards. Provide a constant feedback in form of the rewards for accomplishment of the task (to encourage progress) or just staying in the game (to maintain user-retention).
  6. Continuous challenge.  Achieving each next step in the game should be bit harder. Otherwise the game would be boring. You do not want to make the tasks too hard either. Thus the best option is to make sure that level one prepares user for level two. If you properly match achieved skill with the next challenge the game will have a “flow” that will keep your users fully engaged.

[/checklist]
 
Looking at the list above, you probably noticed, that gamification as a concept must be embedded in the campaign even before the content is created or the channels and technologies of content delivery are selected.

Gamification in Pharma Marketing: Can We Do It?

Pharma marketing approach to gamification is somehow ambivalent. On the one side, gamification is a buzz word that flies around industry conference rooms. We see some examples of gamification in pharma marketing that worked or not, we also tend to call gamification activities that were just games, and we are bombed by the agencies who can name every product gamification as long as Big Pharma is going to pay for that.
But when we flip the coin, there is this other side. In general it is not very inline with regulatory compliance to even think about “games” or “playfulness” in the context of life and death. Which is the usual context of pharma marketing. Even if you think about CME – your patient does not have three lives to lose in case his pathologist did not score well a cancer on the tissue sample.
The questions remains: “Can we do gamification in pharma marketing? And shall we?
At K-message we believe, that pharma marketing not only should implement gamification, but it has an obligation to do so. This is especially because of the purpose of the pharma marketing job – we work to deliver the best possible treatment to the suffering patients. And if we have any means that can possibly help us in this task, ignoring it is equal to negligence.
There is only one thing to keep in mind, the gamification, as every other marketing tactic in our toolbox, has to be implemented by in a professional way. It means it has to be done by a specialist, after careful consideration of all the campaign elements that we are going to gamify,  and with a solid smart objective behind it.
While researching for this piece we encountered many examples of pharma marketers being misguided. It is very important to remember
[box type=”warning” align=”aligncenter” ]Gamification is not “making a game”. Yes, even if this game is an application for the iPad.[/box]
Gamification is use of game design elements in non-game contexts. If it is a game only, it is not gamification. It is just a game.
This common mistake makes plenty of examples of apparently successful gamification in pharma marketing just a gimmick.

Good and Bad: Examples of Gamification in Pharma Marketing

 

It is a pharma marketing game but not a gamification!

A famous SYRUM from Boehringer Ingelheim is not a gamification. It is just a brand image campaign and way to get access to user profiles in Social Media. Game elements are not used in out of game context, it was a game used to attract users. By the way, the imagery and general tone of SYRUM makes us question whether this campaign is targeting appropriate audience.

Syrum Logo © 2012 Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH.
Syrum Logo © 2012 Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH.

Social Gamification in Pharma R&D

In the same time Boehringer Ingelheim has properly used gamification in their Predicting a Biological Response competition made with Kaggle. In the contest with a $20,000 awards poll participants were looking for a model to predict mutability of new, previously unseen compounds.
 

Kaggle -  Boehringer Ingelheim Study
Kaggle – Boehringer Ingelheim Study

Similarly to Predicting a Biological Response, a good example of gamification that supports pharma R&D is a Cell Slider. This application was Cancer Research UK and Zooniverse. This simple app presents a snap of a tissue, blood cell or irregular sample with cancer. Users are able to classify samples. So far game uses breast cancer samples. The yellow stain indicates levels of a protein found in cancer cells called the oestrogen receptor (ER).
Click to Cure - Cancer Research UK and Zooniverse Cell Slider
Click to Cure – Cancer Research UK and Zooniverse Cell Slider

The job that would take months or years of work of trained pathologists is now crowdsourced. So far almost 2 million images were analysed and classified. Game provides a constant feedback and challenge varies depending on the sample. If user has a profile created, elements of game design are applied, including results saving.

Gamification in Pharma Marketing DTC

Another good example of gamification in pharma marketing is GoMeals, a set of applications developed for sanofi-aventis U.S. by specialized digital pharma marketing agency Intouch Solutions. GoMeals is created for people living with diabetes and promotes Sanofi’s diabetes drug Apdira.
 

GoMeals® Application for Healthy Living
GoMeals® Application for Healthy Living

 
The app, available on the web and for smartphones encourages users to make healthy choices with features for eating healthy, staying active and tracking blood glucose levels. GoMeals allows patients to see how their daily habits impact their diabetes. It also provides HCPs with the ability to see how their patient is actually doing. GoMeals uses game design elements providing users clear reports on “burnt calories”, intake from their meals, and glucose readings.
Another example from Sanofi is a gamification of diabetes tracking targeted to younger audience. A Monster Manor is a game for children with diabetes type 1, that encourages users to track their glucose levels. It is integrated with BlueLoop glucose tracker application. The app is created for Sanofi by Ayogo Health agency.
IPhone Monster Manor - Ayogo.com
IPhone Monster Manor – Ayogo.com

Every time children enter their BG information into the BlueLoop app they are rewarded with a “piñata” to crack open in Monster Manor. Piñatas are items with all sorts of fun inside, from “Beanz” that will help children collect more monsters, to “Gold” that will buy their monster new pets. Note that contrary to BI’s SYRUM this game has an effect outside of the game, as we gain better tracking and insights into the patient, so the whole game design was used in the context of diabetes tracking.

Gamification for CME

In the field of CME (Continuing Medical Education) gamification is seen as one of the ways to retain interest of the HCPs. One of the examples is Septris a web-based mobile application focused on Sepsis education. Created by Stanford University School of Medicine,  Septris may be used on iOS, Android and from desktop web browser. To achieve its learning objectives it introduces a game in which user is diagnosing and treating virtual “patients” while learning about Sepsis.

Gamification in Pharma Marketing: Looking Forward

As listed above there are good examples of gamification in pharma marketing. We can all learn from them, but there is still a big room for improvement. Gamification in pharma marketing goes hand in hand with mHealth, and as mobile healthcare grows there will be more of game design elements in pharma marketing campaigns.
Current focus of pharma marketers is on gamification in direct to consumer (DTC) marketing. Indeed gamification as a tactic can be very efficient in increasing patient compliance to the prescribed treatment.  However this focal point has to change, as regulatory and compliance rules out such application outside of U.S. market for any branded activities.  Disease awareness and prevention campaigns will always be worth the effort, but our prediction is that gamification may be more and more used in self-detailing and CME. So far we could not see any good example of game design application in e-detailing.
We really hope that in 2014 we will start to see first integrated campaigns with e-detailing, self-detailing combined in one “gamified” design. At the end, if we want HCPs to self-detail themselves should not we make it a playful and rewarding experience?

Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Pharma Marketing

Disease awareness campaign for Alzheimer Netherlands: Chocolate Christmas Bunny

Every December we can see plenty of ads with Santa Claus theme in the copy. One of the best this year is a disease awareness campaign for Alzheimer Nederland. Created by Dutch agency N=5 (Creative Director: Lukas van de Ven;  Art Director: Hans Bolleurs;  Copywriter: Paul Bakker) intensive image reminds the public what is a daily experience of people suffering Alzheimer’s disease.

#paashaas disease awareness advertisement for Alzheimer Nederland by N=5
#paashaas disease awareness advertisement for Alzheimer Nederland by N=5

The ad quickly went viral on Twitter and made hashtag #paashaas [Easter bunny] a trending topic in the Netherlands by 5th of December. According to the N=5 it already gathered more than 900,000 impressions, which is a great result for a low-cost disease awareness campaign for such a difficult topic as Alzheimer’s disease in 16,77 million population.
 
 

Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Pharma Marketing

Top 5 most expensive pharma marketing failures since 2010

Pharma marketing costs the most when it is not compliant to the regulations. Any unlawful or improper marketing campaigns in pharmaceutical can result in fines counted in billions of dollars. A report “Pharmaceutical Industry Criminal and Civil Penalties: An Update” by Public Citizen ranks the largest settlements by drugmakers, and shows these companies paid out 74 settlements to the tune of $10.2 billion from Nov. 2010 to July 2012. Public Citizen’s report does not include recent Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary, Janssen Pharmaceuticals settlement regarding Risperdal, Wellbutrin and Avandia misleading promotion.
Basing on the report of Public Citizen and U.S. Department of Justice data, K-message.com has compiled a list of top 5 most expensive failures of pharma marketing that resulted in heavy fines.
1. $3 000 000 000 – on 2nd of July 2012, GlaxoSmithKline LLC (GSK) has agreed to pay total 3 billion dollars to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from the company’s unlawful promotion of certain prescription drugs, its failure to report certain safety data, and its civil liability for alleged false price reporting practices. There were three brands that GSK promoted against the law.

fix_me
Paxil (Photo credit: ~!)

  • The first, Paxil was unlawfully promoted for treating depression in patients under age 18, even though the FDA has never approved it for pediatric use. NB. Paxil, as other antidepressants, included on its label a “black box warning” stating that antidepressants may increase the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior in short-term studies in patients under age 18.
  • The second brand included in the settlement was Wellbutrin. From January 1999 to December 2003, GSK promoted Wellbutrin, approved at that time only for Major Depressive Disorder, for weight loss, the treatment of sexual dysfunction, substance addictions and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, among other off-label uses. 
  • The last brand involved was Avandia. In this case GSK failed to include certain safety data about Avandia, a diabetes drug, in reports to the FDA.  Since 2007, the FDA has added two black box warnings to the Avandia label to alert physicians about the potential increased risk of congestive heart failure, and myocardial infarction (heart attack). [Source]

2. $ 2 200 000 000 – on 30th of August 2013, Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary, Janssen Pharmaceuticals settled for 2.2 billion dollars in total multiple civil and criminal cases arising from allegations relating to the prescription drugs Risperdal, Invega and Natrecor, including promotion for uses not approved as safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and payment of kickbacks to physicians and to the U.S. largest long-term care pharmacy provider.

English: Risperdal (United Kingdom packaging)
English: Risperdal (United Kingdom packaging) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

  • Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., a J&J subsidiary, promoted the antipsychotic drug Risperdal to physicians and other prescribers who treated elderly dementia patients by urging the prescribers to use Risperdal to treat symptoms such as anxiety, agitation, depression, hostility and confusion. The medicine was approved at the time only to treat schizophrenia. Risperdal was also promoted for use for elderly, children and individuals with mental disabilities, against repeated FDA warnings (Until 2006 Risperdal was not approved for use in children for any purpose). For all this groups drug posed certain health risks that J&J was aware.
  • Similar allegations were made regarding to the newer J&J antipsychotic drug, Invega.  Although Invega was approved only for the treatment of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder, the government alleges that, from 2006 through 2009, J&J and Janssen marketed the drug for off-label indications and made false and misleading statements about its safety and efficacy.
  • J&J and another of its subsidiaries, Scios Inc., caused false and fraudulent claims to be submitted to federal health care programs for the heart failure drug Natrecor.  In August 2001, the FDA approved Natrecor to treat patients with acutely decompensated congestive heart failure who have shortness of breath at rest or with minimal activity.  Government alleged that, shortly after Natrecor was approved, Scios launched an aggressive campaign to market the drug for scheduled, serial outpatient infusions for patients with less severe heart failure – a use not included in the FDA-approved label and not covered by federal health care programs. Scios had no sustainable evidence to support medical necessity of these outpatient infusions. [Source]

3. $1 500 000 000 – on 7th of May 2012,  Abbott Laboratories Inc. has agreed to pay $1.5 billion to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from the company’s unlawful promotion of the prescription drug Depakote for uses not approved as safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration.

depakote
depakote (Photo credit: JTony)

  • Abbott admits that from 1998 through 2006, the company maintained a specialized sales force trained to market Depakote in nursing homes for the control of agitation and aggression in elderly dementia patients, despite the absence of credible scientific evidence that Depakote was safe and effective for that use.   In addition, from 2001 through 2006, the company marketed Depakote in combination with atypical antipsychotic drugs to treat schizophrenia, even after its clinical trials failed to demonstrate that adding Depakote was any more effective than an atypical antipsychotic alone for that use.  The FDA approved Depakote for only three uses: epileptic seizures, bipolar mania and the prevention of migraines. [Source]

4. $1 200 000 000 – on 11th of July 2012 a judge in Arkansas ordered Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary Janssen to pay more than $1.2 billion in fines on Wednesday, a day after a jury found that the companies had minimized or concealed the dangers associated with an antipsychotic drug Risperdal. For details of the allegations see number 2 of this list. Risperdal case generated also other, smaller fines in Texas ($158 million), South Carolina ($327 million) and Louisiana ($258 million). [Source]

5. $950 000 – on 22nd of November 2011, an american pharmaceutical company Merck, Sharp & Dohme has agreed to pay $950 million to resolve criminal charges and civil claims related to its promotion and marketing of the painkiller Vioxx® (rofecoxib).

  • Rofecoxib
    Rofecoxib (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

    Merck’s criminal plea relates to misbranding of Vioxx® by promoting the drug for treating rheumatoid arthritis, before that use was approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA approved Vioxx® for three indications in May 1999, but did not approve its use against rheumatoid arthritis until April 2002.   In the interim, for nearly three years, Merck promoted Vioxx® for rheumatoid arthritis, conduct for which it was admonished in an FDA warning letter issued in September 2001.  Additionally Merck representatives  made inaccurate, unsupported, or misleading statements about Vioxx’s cardiovascular safety in order to increase sales of the drug. [Source]

 

Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Pharma Marketing

How to attract seniors into Medicare Plan? Use digital channels!

Digital health has no age limit. According to the recent research, seniors are keen to use digital channels to manage their healthcare.

Seniors in the Internet

Accenture research reports that Medicare consumers are frequently (at least once daily) online. Ninety-one percent are using email frequently and 73 percent frequently search the Internet. Nearly one-third frequently login to Facebook or other social media sites.

This data comes in par with the Pew Internet & American Life Project. According to this research,  Internet use rates tripled among seniors (65 and over) and doubled among 50 to 64 year olds between 2000 and 2012. The highest growth in Internet use among all age groups during this period was among seniors 65 and over.

Broadband for Seniors kiosk
Broadband for Seniors kiosk (Photo credit: Mosman Council)

eHealth and Digital Channels for Seniors – Reality versus expectations
The 2013 Accenture Consumer Survey on Patient Engagement covered more than 9,000 adult consumers in nine countries, including about 200 US seniors. It shows that 67% of Americans 65 and older say that accessing their medical information online is very or somewhat important.
Overwhelming majority (83 percent) of US seniors thinks that they should have full access to their electronic health records, but only 28 percent actually does today. Similarly, 70 percent of survey respondents said they believe it’s important to be able to request prescription refills online, but only 46 percent can do that today.

In addition, according to the Consumer Survey on Patient Engagement, 62 percent of seniors believe it is somewhat or very important to be able to book appointments online. Over half (53 percent) say it is somewhat important or very important to email with providers, what is sadly possible only for 15 percent of surveyed seniors.

Baby Boomers and GenX-ers are getting older, too.
It is not only Accenture that points out an increasing importance of digital channels in healthcare for the seniors. Global Social Enterprise Initiative at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. and Philips conducted a study for Aging Well: Next Generation Tech Roundtable.
This survey results are based on responses from a sample of 1,200 Americans aged 34 to 67, weighted to reflect a nationally representative profile of baby boomers (those born between 1946 and 1964) and GenX-ers (those born between 1965 and 1976).
By 2020, an estimated 118 million Americans, or almost 40 percent of the country’s population, will be older than 50. This generation moving into this next phase of life has embraced technology and believes in its ability to help keep all of them healthy and living independently as they age.
A majority (73 percent) of all respondents declared a preference for aging at home, and almost all (more than 90 percent) said being independent and having access to quality healthcare would be important to them when they reach retirement.

Baby boomers and GenX-ers use technology frequently. Nearly seven out of ten respondents (69 percent) report a high level of comfort with technology. The level of comfort increased among younger respondents, with 75 percent of GenX-ers reporting a high level of comfort, as compared with 62 percent of “leading edge” baby boomers, or those born before 1955.

Two-thirds (67 percent) of both baby boomer and GenX respondents said they would be willing to spend between $25 and $499 per month on technology if it would help keep them at home as they age, and 13 percent said they’d spend more than $500 per month for such technology.

According to Bill Novelli, a professor at the Georgetown University McDonough School of Business in Washington, D.C., and member of the Philips Aging Well Think Tank, these results reveal a huge opportunity for the healthcare industry as older people are far bigger consumers of healthcare than younger people.

Unfortunately looking at their parents experience, in the Philips/GSEI study as both Gen X and boomers feel that their aging parents (age 60+) are not utilizing technology as well as they could.

  • 53 percent of boomers and Gen X believed it would be a good thing if their parents used technology more with 45 percent stating that it will help them stay better connected with friends and family.

  • Boomers and Gen X want their aging parents to utilize monitoring technologies, such as home health monitors (45 percent) or security systems (43 percent). However, only 17 percent are using home health monitors, and 12 percent have a security system.

  • 40 percent of boomers and Gen X said their parents think technology is “too hard” to learn. Respondents point to the fact that the time involved in learning to use a device and fixing potential problems discourages use.

Call for action for the healthcare industry

“Just as seniors are turning to the Internet for banking, shopping, entertainment and communications, they also expect to handle certain aspects of their healthcare services online,”

– said Jill Dailey, managing director of payer strategy, Accenture Health.

“What this means for providers, and health plans is that they’ll need to expand their digital options if they want to attract older patients and help them track and manage their care outside their doctors’ offices. As the digitally engaged senior patient population continues to grow, healthcare systems need to consider the role the Internet can play in making healthcare more convenient for patients of all ages at every touch point,”

– Dailey added.

“For people to live independent, fulfilling lives in their own homes and communities as they age, technology must continue to become easier to learn and use while also being better integrated with adjacent technologies, including patient care,”

– said Bill Novelli, distinguished professor of the practice, Georgetown University McDonough School of Business, and member of the Philips Aging Well Think Tank.

Conclusion

Healthcare providers who want to attract and retain older customers have to keep in mind growing importance of digital channels, eHealth and mHealth solutions. They are important not only as marketing tools, but also as a technology that curbs costs and helps people live better lifes while they are older.

Current status quo leaves a lot to improve. Both Accenture and Philips/GSEI research show that the demand for new technologies comes from current seniors and two generations that will become senior by 2020.

 
 

Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Pharma Marketing

FDA asks 23andme to stop marketing of unapproved test and device

After months of negotiations, FDA finally lost patience and sends a warning letter to Google-backed 23andme, a genome testing company. 23andme was marketing its saliva based genetic test device and the test (Personal Genome Service) itself without an obligatory marketing clearance.

23andMe
23andMe (Photo credit: brendanlim)

 

What FDA’s letter means

The letter is very direct and harsh and its tone, reminding Mrs. Anne Wojcicki, the founder of 23andme, that FDA really tried to help:

More than 14 face-to-face and teleconference meetings, hundreds of email exchanges, and dozens of written communications, we provided you with specific feedback on study protocols and clinical and analytical validation requirements, discussed potential classifications and regulatory pathways (including reasonable submission timelines), provided statistical advice, and discussed potential risk mitigation strategies

The letter is the final warning. If 23andme fails to cease its marketing activities and provide a plan to align itself to the regulatory demands, FDA will start a regulatory action without further notice. These actions include, but are not limited to, seizure, injunction, and civil money penalties – FDA warns.
At K-Message, we usually praise innovation, courage and development of new ways of dealing with complicated problems. 23andme could be a hero of our story. But Mrs Anne Wojcicki‘s approach is hard to support.

FDA’s concerns

FDA’s main concern is, as specified in the letter, a potential risk of negative impact of the often alarming test results coming from PGS. False positive or false negative from the PGS may affect actions of the people. Someone who was falsely informed that has high risk of breast cancer (BRCA mutation), can undergo prophylactic surgery, chemoprevention, invasive screenings and last, but not least will suffer tremendous psychological stress.
On the other hand, false negative may lead people from the risk groups to ignore prevention at all. Another dangerous part of 23andme service is informing about personal reaction to the drug. It produces a risk of “self-managing” therapy and lowering adherence to the therapy prescribed by real HCP. Such non-compliance may lead to serious risk of illness, injury and even death, as in the FDAs example of wayfarin, popular anticoagulant or “blood thinner“, which may cause internal bleeding if overdosed.

Problems with 23andme technology

23andme technology is far from being bulletproof. The assumptions it bases on, the links between particular genes and diseases are not really mapped and confirmed in regular clinical trials on big samples. Even Mrs. Wojcicki admits, that her goal is to gather a test sample big enough to  falsify the assumptions on which results are presented to the patients.
But it is not only about state-of-knowledge about human genome as today. Even the software that generates PGS results can mislead patients, as described in this personal story “My deadly disease was just a bug”. It also happened, that 23andme simply mixed the samples and 96 of its users recveived data od someone else, who just had a bad luck to have his/hers saliva on the same testing  plate.
It does not make Mrs. Wojcicki any more apologetic though.

Linda Avey and Anne Wojcicki of 23 and Me
Linda Avey and Anne Wojcicki of 23 and Me (Photo credit: dfarber)

Right to know, but what?

The problem is, Mrs. Wojcicki often diminishes such concerns. She said once, that the main concern of doctors is that her service generates “non-billable, educated questions“. When the Agency first warned 23andme together with other gene testing companies in 2010, Mrs. Wojcicki’s line of defense was freedom to know information about your own body.
FDA has nothing against testing itself and having this knowledge available. The problem is that the knowledge has to be true and not misleading. As Mrs. Elizabeth A. Mansfield, director of personalized medicine in the F.D.A.’s medical device division, said to NYT, the agency agreed that people had a right to their genetic information.
The concern, she said, was that 23andMe was also providing interpretations of what that data meant medically. Some commentators, that come more from a tech than pharma tend to see the conflict between 23andme and FDA as “new vs old” clash.
We believe it is not the case this time. It is rather good ol’ regulatory action against dangerous false claim in healthcare, or even quackery. 23andme does not offer substantial evidence to support the reports provided to their clients. Their often misleading information can lead to health risk, and therefore FDA has to intervene. It has nothing to do with freedom of the information, as the information is too often false and affects really important matter.
 

Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Pharma Marketing

Abbott EPD: the first digital marketing only launch in pharma

Abbott‘s Low Dose HRT brand was launched in the first in the pharmaceutical industry digital marketing only campaign. According to the press release published by PMLive, the campaign for based in Basel, Switzerland, Abbott Established Pharmaceuticals Division (EPD) was the first new-product launch to be delivered solely via a digital channel for the pharma industry. We cannot say whether or not it was really the first digital-only launch in pharma, but we understand that Abbott EPD is satisfied by the results.

Русский: Компания "Эбботт"
Abbott logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Campaign reached to 9,000 doctors who engaged with Abbott’s Low Dose HRT brand via British online professional network Doctors.net.uk. This equates to 45% of the NHS population of obstetricians and gynaecologists, and nearly 23% of GPs. Please note that it is not clear whether those were the specializations of the HCPS who received Abbott’s message.
According to Abbott EPG, the brand’s market share has increased and there has been a continuous month-on-month growth in sales in 2013 as a result of the campaign, which included interactive case studies, clinical paper summaries, and an ask the expert section.
The decision to try a digital only product launch via Doctors.net.uk was made following research conducted by Abbott, which found online professional networks can provide a more effective method of engaging with doctors than traditional sales and marketing channels. They enable them to take a more targeted and measurable approach, and to deliver a mix of promotional and educational messages in a way that really benefits doctors’ clinical practice.
More than three million physicians use professional online networks worldwide and statistics from Doctors.net.uk show that 59% of them visit these channels specifically to update their medical knowledge; while 38% do so to get information on new products.
Abbott is already very active in the digital space, and it co-operated with doctors.net.uk  before. 2013 PM Society Digital Media award for the best HCP website was granted for their Femoston Conti Low Dose Microsite made by Doctors.net.uk.
Ajay Mann, Commercial Marketing Manager for Abbott EPD, commented to PMLive:

“The results speak for themselves. The coverage and frequency of the campaign exceed current national call rates by sales reps. What pleases us the most is our increase in market share and continued sales growth. Doctors are coming back to the website, indicating that they find it a valuable resource.”

At K-message we praise courage of Abbott’s digital pioneers. However we doubt some of the claims from the release. In particular, it is hard not to get growth in market share after launch of the product. Even if you sell one dose of the medicine, it will be 100% percent more than nothing. Secondly, we would be very careful with stating a positive impact of sales of any campaign, without a benchmark or a sample. What would happen if Abbott’s launch got traditional detailing instead of digital? Sure the reach of the campaign would be initially smaller and it would reach the target group bit later. After all not every HCP is visited on the regular basis. Nevertheless, we cannot guarantee that those approached by field force would not increase sales more than those who only read a website. We could also imagine, that a combination of digital and traditional would be even more efficient. We just do not know, as it is not clear what would happen with a different set of tools.
To summarize: we believe in the efficiency of digital approach. But we would be far of saying it is the only and the best way to launch a product.

Enhanced by Zemanta