A blog exploring pharmaceutical relationship marketing, emarketing and innovation with a focus on rare disorders.
SirenWired
The convergence of rare disease, digital communications, and pharmaceutical marketing communications

#SocPharm Tweetchat Transcript 8/11/2010

Posted by | 4:47pm on Wednesday, August 11, 2010

:
Welcome to the marketing & social media pharma chat (#socpharm). Plse start w/intros & why u are interested in this. 8/11/2010 19:01

:
I’m Eileen, work for Siren Interactive, relationship marketing for #raredisease therapies & I heart all things interactive. #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:03

:
@ here from novo nordisk. #Socpharm 8/11/2010 19:03

:
We’ll assume that all tweets within #socpharm are your own and not your employers (unless you specifically declare them) 8/11/2010 19:03

:
Rich Meyer emarketing pioneer #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:04

:
Frieda Hernandez here from Siren Interactive. Interested in all things #Socpharm #fdasm #hcsm #raredisease #epatient #epharma 8/11/2010 19:04

:
I’m Rob…been in digital for over 10 years. Now working in managed markets. #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:05

:
#socpharm RT @: craig engesser in transition from big pharma 8/11/2010 19:05

:
RT @: RT @: 11 months of research on consumer ehealth http://liten.be//WOGdh #socpharm #hcsm via/by @ 8/11/2010 19:06

:
Tina Chiodo, clinical research consultant. Interested in social media for pharma and clinical trial activities. #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:06

:
Robin from PharmaVOICE – looking to learn all things social. #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:07

:
Tonight’s 1st topic was easy: what do we think of the FDA ltr to Novartis re Facebook widget/metadata? (http://bit.ly/a8Df70) #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:07

:
The FDA is run by scientists and as thus they have a hard time understanding marketing and the Web #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:09

:
Although only changes in metadata are needed to comply it still signals a conservative approach to SM #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:09

:
T1: What are black box drugs to do about metadata if their url is brand name? Can’t do reminder ads… #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:10

:
I thought it was less about facebook than about proper posting of info. Facebook was just the location. #Socpharm 8/11/2010 19:11

:
@ I agree with your blog — “It’s the Message NOT the Medium” #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:11

:
@ Agreed, it was about the message NOT the medium. #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:11

:
T1: It’s a clear reminder that the basic rules of fair balance, claims, etc., must be observed no matter what the medium #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:12

:
They can still amend metadata to not include brand name including the URL which can be a redirect #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:12

:
@ I think they understand mktg which is why they are being so conservative.Fair balance in limited space big challenge #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:13

:
There is some kid some where creating a program that will resolve the meta data leak. #Socpharm 8/11/2010 19:13

:
The FDA wants metadata submitted to them, doubt many (any) did in the past. Should we all bombard them with it now? #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:13

:
@ They dont understand how people are using health information or logic behind #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:13

:
@ Good idea, but certainly not ideal. #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:14

:
A late hello #socpharm! I’m Lexie @ Ketchum. I ♥ laser beams, smart doctors, & helping people be social & feel better. 8/11/2010 19:14

:
@ Thanks for popping in — see you next time! #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:14

:
@ That’s not their concern…it’s the labeling/balance at issue. Agree with friedah03 re basic rules #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:15

:
@ If its what they want then give it to them it cert will have marketers scrambling #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:15

:
I think there is more meta data submission than you think. #Socpharm 8/11/2010 19:15

:
@ It is as outdated as the FDA is relevant the logic is NOT there #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:15

:
@ There are a lot of other issues the FDA should be concerned with #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:16

:
Anyone submit metadata to FDA in the past as part of website submission? #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:16

:
@ I think so…as per our moderator…message not medium! #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:16

:
@ Yes we submitted metadata with Cialis.com and Prozac.com #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:16

:
Also metadata had to go thru MLR review before going live #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:17

:
Really? I’ve submitted metadata to FDA since 08. RT @ doubt (m)any did in the past. Should we bombard FDA w/ it now? #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:17

:
@ Agree. FDA has probably killed more patients than helped over time, but their existing by law is labeling/fair balance #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:17

:
@ @ Thanks for clarifying that for me. #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:17

:
I’ve done so at 3 different companies. I think its pretty standard. #Socpharm 8/11/2010 19:18

:
@ If pharma wants to participate and has “shareworthy” content, must find a way to comply with rules #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:18

:
Real Q: What content would visitors want to share with others..my guess disease state and safety with could have own URL’s #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:18

:
@ This is true but their illogic is astounding #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:18

:
@ Yes, I’ve submitted it internally just not to FDA as standard. But will be now!! #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:18

:
@ yes. I’ve never NOT submitted metadata for MLR or FDA (DDMAC) ha. late nights! cc: @ #memories! #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:19

:
While at Lilly we also received letter from competitor because we used their brand in metadata #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:19

:
@ Any thoughts on Google’s policy on meta elements? It’s not a big deal to them. It doesn’t use meta keywords in search. #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:20

:
There is a huge difference between submitting and submitting for approval #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:20

:
Good question: was the content on Tasigna shareworthy? #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:20

:
@ Really? I thought you could as long as there was content on the site to justify. #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:20

:
@ agreed. unbranded disease education/awareness content or a well executed cause-marketing campaign #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:20

:
@ They are going to be amending their search for pharma I believe lots of $$ at stake #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:21

:
@ In #raredisease space we see #epatients sharing info about support & tools #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:21

:
@ aka not Tasigna product website content. #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:21

:
@ Once got a cease& desist ltr from competitor that we were showing PPC ad against their brand name (perfectly legal) #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:21

:
@ We stopped & then they starting showing their PPC ads against our brand name :) #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:21

:
@ Has Google stated that officially? #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:22

:
@ While not part of search, they are displayed in organic..aren’t they? That’s the next area FDA will hit, IMHO #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:22

:
@ @ no – we’ve never been allowed to use competitors’ (generic or brand) name in metadata #socpharm #SEO 8/11/2010 19:22

:
That is real issue I dont think many pharma product sites have a lot of content that is share worthy #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:22

:
@ No but I am good friends with Google insider who works on health and they are working on it #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:23

:
@ Thanks for the input! #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:24

:
@ Yes – and they probably will go that route. Still, the whole thing smacks of 1990s view of Web ;) #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:24

:
@ Just checked the site again (re: share worthy content) . IMHO – no. #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:24

:
@ For meta elements? #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:24

:
@ But if you are talking overall treatments & the competitor name is one of them why couldn’t it be in metadata? #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:24

:
@ Yes #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:25

:
@ Can you please explain what you mean by Google’s policy on meta elements? #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:25

:
I believe a broader issue is how many pharma comps are going to withdraw further from SM because of the letter #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:26

:
@ unless it’s an unbranded disease state microsite, Merck viewed it as a bad business practice & legal risk. #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:26

:
@ Absolutely agree, assume that this was FDA telling us to watch out for organic search #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:27

:
@ Agreed…1990s seems current when jurisdiction is based on a 1938 cosmetic act ;) #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:27

:
What do you guys think about the omission of metadata all together? Safer? Esp. in the instance of black boxed products? #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:27

:
@ Here’s the simplest explanation from Google’s head of Web spam – http://bit.ly/cQaZm6 #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:27

:
@ Metadata is needed to prop index some sites you should not omit #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:28

:
@ No not safer because the engines will just pull the first few lines of text which could make it worse. #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:28

:
@ I think the letter has bigger implications for metadata than for SM #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:28

:
@ and I think there will be a slew of horrible attempts at unbranded metadata for branded sites #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:29

:
@ It does indeed #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:29

:
@ I see yr point but engines can (and do) do that currently, esp for longtail or when the meta descr. aren’t relevant #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:30

:
@ Need some metadata (but it’s not nearly as important as 10+ yrs ago). I’d keep as simple/minimal as possible for now. #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:30

:
Agreed RT @: @ I think the letter has bigger implications for metadata than for SM #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:30

:
@ @ @ “Minimal as possible” is good advice. “Contextual as possible” is better. #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:31

:
So then when is pharma really going to embrace digital marketing: social media was not going to save them anyway #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:32

:
RT @: @ Heres the simplest explanation from Googles head of Web spam – http://bit.ly/cQaZm6 <=thanks #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:32

:
@ But even if it doesn’t impact rankings the title/description entice people to come to page, impact traffic #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:33

:
Yep RT @: @ @ @ “Minimal as possible” is gd advice. “Contextual as possible” is better. #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:33

:
Everyone knows about Google’s policy on keyword meta tags in search, right? http://bit.ly/cw1m3j #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:33

:
@ – that link is valuable but keywords are only one component of metadata. good meta titles are the most vital #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:34

:
Love @‘s tweet the other day: Words heard ’round U.S. pharma company conference rooms: “What the hell is metadata?” #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:35

:
RT @: Everyone knows about Googles policy on keyword meta tags in search, right? http://bit.ly/cw1m3j #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:36

:
@ Can’t argue with that but: there’s much more influential metadata – the kind that’s *not* on the website. #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:36

:
Excellent! RT @: Everyone knows about Googles policy on keyword meta tags in search, right? http://bit.ly/cw1m3j #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:36

:
Refresher for #digital advertising kids: Keep copywriters in the room when writing metadata! Always! #socpharm. 8/11/2010 19:37

:
Any parting thoughts on this topic? #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:37

:
@ Can u elaborate on that? #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:37

:
RT @ @ tweet: Words heard round U.S. pharma company conference rooms: “What the hell is metadata?” #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:38

:
Both the meta keywords tag and the meta description tag contribute to your search engine ranking #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:38

:
meta description tag influences liklihood that a person will actually clickon the search engine results page and visit your site. #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:38

:
Lol RT @ Love @‘s tweet: Words heard ’round pharma co. conference rooms: “What the hell is metadata?” #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:38

:
Totally agree RT @: Refresher for #digital advertising kids: Keep copywriters in the room when writing metadata! Always! #socpharm. 8/11/2010 19:39

:
how about “we have a website ?” #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:39

:
What about unbranded metadata for product sites? Have these requests come in yet? #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:40

:
Better yet do not silo SEO writers from content writers #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:40

:
Good advice Rich … hi everyone RT @ Better yet do not silo SEO writers from content writers #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:42

:
T2 from @: how do you handle AE reporting for content “sparked” by your brand but hosted on #YouTube? #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:42

:
@ What’s being “said” about a website on other real estate. Think of why PageRank works. #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:42

:
When it comes to digital marketing pharma is still an infant compared to others who have are now adults #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:42

:
T2: @ where is the AE being said/heard? #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:42

:
@ Links to AV reporting on FDA.gov #YouTube #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:43

:
@ if an AE is surfacing on YouTube in reply to a topic sparked by the brand is there obligation & how to report that? #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:45

:
@ So someone is putting a video on YouTube in response to a brand video & it mentions AE? #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:46

:
@ Anytime pharma hears/sees AE (whether at cocktail party or YouTube) they have to report thro their process. #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:47

:
@ Sure! :) #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:48

:
eileen..great ques about AEs and Rx co responsibility!…i think a few doz more lawyers were just hired around the industry!!! #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:48

:
@ As long as it meets the 4 criteria, right? #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:48

:
@ Right, right don’t forget that! #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:49

:
@ The FDA hearings made it pretty clear to me that If AEs surface on sites not owned/sponsored by pharma, it’s not reportable #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:50

:
@ @ T2: We have the obligation to report if we monitor on behalf of brand & AE meets the criteria #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:50

:
@ hmm i thought that the onus came with hosting and curating a conversation where an AE was mentioned. my bad. :( #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:50

:
@ Are you referring to the 4 criteria for a reportable event to FDA? #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:50

:
T2: We have the obligation to report if we monitor on behalf of brand & AE meets the criteria #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:51

:
@ Yes – it seems to be the magic bullet for online AE’s as far as pharma is concerned, don’t u think? #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:51

:
we were told that we had obligations as employees to report AEs to company regulatory even if we were told AE at a party! #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:52

:
@ The 4 criteria are in effect during “marketing activities” which I’m assuming don’t include cocktail parties #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:52

:
@ AE = an Adverse Event aka bad symptom from an over-the-counter or prescription drug. #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:53

:
@ That was always my understanding. #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:53

:
its a wide and conservative net being cast #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:54

:
@ it was my understanding that phrma employees had to report to their company any AE regardless of mtg all 4 criteria #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:54

:
@ That said, some pharmas I know consider anything that happens at work “marketing activities” – incl social listening #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:54

:
@ what I thought! –> RT @: @ If AEs surface on sites not owned/sponsored by #pharma, it’s not reportable #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:55

:
IMO and data supports that most AEs don’t meet all 4 criteria #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:56

:
AE = you know patient & doc and that they take product I don’t hear lots of docs giving out their DEA or ME numbers on YouTube ;) #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:56

:
always best to check with co/client reg lawyers to be safe….you don’t want to guess #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:56

:
@ I’m sure you are right – I was referring to the company’s responsibility to report to the FDA. Slippery slope? #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:56

:
@ That’s my opinion of course – based on the #fdasm takeaway “The web is too big to police the whole of it” #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:57

:
@ @ For our clients, when we listen online for them (no sites owned by them) we need to be alert for reportable AE #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:58

:
on so many issues, each company has its own view on the written law/reg…..you see one….you see one #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:58

:
@ Note that pharmas will interpret differently if the post on YouTube were captured during a pharma-sponsored listening program #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:59

:
RT @: always best to check with co/client reg lawyers to be safe….you don’t want to guess #socpharm 8/11/2010 19:59

:
Are pharma companies including any mention of social media in their AE corporate policy? #socpharm 8/11/2010 20:02

:
i would bet the corps would argue that policy is so broad it covers soc media…maybe not by name, but in spirit and intent #socpharm 8/11/2010 20:04

:
Thanks all – it was a very interesting and informative chat. #socpharm 8/11/2010 20:04

:
Thanks everyone for another great discussion! #socpharm 8/11/2010 20:04

:
@ @ DRINKS NEED TO HAPPEN SOON!! i’m only going to ePatient provided there’s an engraved iPad in it for me. #socpharm 8/11/2010 20:04

:
Thanks everyone! Enjoyed it. Fastest 60 mins of my day, so far! #socpharm 8/11/2010 20:05

:
@ Sorry, I got distracted. And I don’w what we were talking bout. :) #socpharm 8/11/2010 20:06

:
@ Drinks would be great – Eileen, what about a tweetup at EXL Digital or ePatient? #socpharm 8/11/2010 20:07

:
Thanks @ & #socpharm tweeps. Keeping it real as usual. 8/11/2010 20:07

:
@ No worries, I see you double tweeting as @ too tonight! #socpharm 8/11/2010 20:07

:
@ Triple, actually with @ :) #socpharm 8/11/2010 20:08

:
@ A tweetup sounds like an excellent idea. I’ll check with organizers to see what’s going on & figure something out. #socpharm 8/11/2010 20:09

:
@ That seems reasonable though I think it would be helpful if the policy and training described social media scenarios. #socpharm 8/11/2010 20:09

About Eileen O'Brien

Eileen has more than 16 years of digital healthcare marketing experience. She is an opinion leader on social media and biopharma, and has been invited to speak at industry conferences and quoted in publications.

View other posts from Eileen

Siren Interactive
  • Siren Interactive
  • Rare Disease Relationship Marketing Experts
  • 626 West Jackson Blvd, Suite 100
  • Chicago, IL 60661
  • 312.204.6700
  • 866.502.6714 (Toll Free)
  • www.sireninteractive.com