The #Powerof1Million changes everything

Last week, I got an email from 23andMe announcing that they had “genotyped more than one million people worldwide,” and that I was number 85,552. Big news for a company that has weathered a lot of ups and downs, particularly in November 2013 when the FDA demanded that they stop providing health information.

As number 85,552, I had signed up prior to the health information shut down, so I was privy to my health information. Luckily, as it turns out, my health information didn’t contain any earth shattering news. My ancestry results however were a big surprise.

Even with my unexpected genealogy results, my 23andMe results didn’t have a big impact on me personally. However, professionally, as a health care communicator, I believe that the fact one million consumers are willing to be genotyped is a big deal.

As their press release states, “Today, 23andMe has the world’s largest database of re-contactable individuals who have consented to participate in [genetic] research.” Talk about empowered consumers.

And 23andMe is just one of the many emerging services and products aimed at putting more health information into the hands of consumers. Consider the Scanadu Scout, a device that sends blood pressure, heart rate, temperature, and blood oxygen levels to a consumer’s iPhone.

I believe that the colossal amount of health information now available to consumers ups the ante for health care communicators in three ways:

The ability to explain complex health information in simple ways is even more critical than ever before. Having a commitment to health literacy built into a company’s DNA will be the cost of doing business in our data rich world.

Factoring in the consumer’s emotional increases in importance. Understanding the impact health information can have on a person’s emotional state can be the difference between effectively communicating and sending a consumer into a downward spiral of fear and confusion.

Helping consumers turn knowledge into action is vital. Providing concrete next steps to help consumers act upon what they have learned turns reams of data into potentially lifesaving information.

As health care communicators, our ability to help consumers process the avalanche of health care information coming their way can make a real difference in people’s lives. For a robust understanding of what is coming down the pike, read Eric Topol’s latest book, “The Patient Will See You Now.” The book is a veritable canon on the trends in personalized medicine. As 23andMe’s #Powerof1Million announcement makes clear, the future is closer than we think.

Overcoming the DTC Fear Factor

FDA gets on the “Less is More” bandwagon

The “Less is More” approach is gaining traction in health care. Fear is what often causes people to gird themselves with potentially unnecessary health care interventions: fear of getting it wrong, of missing out, of being criticized, of dying. Atul Gwande details the bravery required to challenge the medical status quo in his recent book Being Mortal. Gwande does a great job of debunking the myth of “more care is better care” when it comes to end of life treatment.

Now “Less is More” is being applied to health care communication. The FDA is overcoming the DTC Fear Factor and casting aside unnecessary risk information with the intent to drive superior patient comprehension. The FDA has issued draft guidelines that require less, not more, risk information in the Consumer Brief Summary portion of DTC print ads. PharmaGuy provides a comprehensive (and as always, entertaining) review of the proposed guidelines in his February Newsletter.

But the FDA is not using the editing pen wily-nilly. Knowledge born of research, is taking the edge off of their DTC Fear Factor. Upcoming research includes a study on the risk information presented in television ads. The objective is to see whether listing only the most actionable risks leads to better comprehension than the usual mind-numbing laundry list.

Certainly the FDA has reason to fear getting the level of risk information wrong. As Daniel Carpenter, a Harvard professor who studies the FDA posits in a Health Affairs article, the FDA is driven by it’s “desire to safeguard its reputation for protecting the public’s health.” The FDA’s “Less is More” approach certainly has its critics. Public Citizen criticized the FDA for its proposed August ’14 guidelines on how pharmaceutical companies should present risk information to physicians

This new “Less is More” approach to risk information demonstrates that the FDA is willing to undergo reputational risk to do the right thing for patients by presenting the information in a way patients can understand and act on. There is substantive evidence that links lack of patient understanding with negative health outcomes.”

So what is the likelihood of pharmaceutical review committees embracing the “Less is More” philosophy regarding risk information? Certainly the new review FDA guidelines will help, but as anybody who has sat through a review committee meeting can tell you, there is wide latitude in how FDA guidelines are interpreted. Many opt for the most conservative approach.

My guess is that review committees won’t get over their DTC Fear Factor anytime soon. There is just too much reputational risk. And it is hard to blame them. The media’s knee-jerk reaction is to attribute any misstep to a nefarious motive on the part of Pharma.

Overcoming the DTC Fear Factor will require Marketing Departments to do the hard work of proving that using fewer and simpler words to describe a product or disease state results in better comprehension. Just as the FDA Researchers helped their Reviewers get over the DTC Fear Factor with data, Pharma marketers will need data to bolster the courage of their Review Committees with solid research.

However, conducting research brings along its own “Fear Factor.” What if the language causes consumers to overestimate the efficacy or underplay the risks of the product? So why bother? In the past, trying to boost outcomes by improving communication comprehension was a “nice-to-have,” despite the compelling health literacy case.

But now, the Affordable Care Act makes reimbursement dependent on outcomes and patient experience. So ensuring patient comprehension is critical to the financial viability of Pharma’s direct customers: physicians, hospital systems and health plans. So follow the dollar. Customers care, so pharma marketers should care too.

Complexity is easy in Pharma communication, just go to the label. Eliminating the DTC Fear Factor in Pharma will take hard work. However, in health care, the “Less is More” train has left the station. Time to put fear aside, join the FDA and jump on the “Less is More” bandwagon.

Tom Brady and Atul Gawande: Designing a Different End Game

Tom Brady and Atul Gawande, two Bostonians with wildly divergent careers, both take the same approach to designing a different end game; they flout the conventional wisdom to achieve their objectives. For marketers wanting to change the trajectory of their brand, company, industry or career, these two prominent Bostonians show the power of doing things differently.

Tom Brady, the New England Patriots quarterback, has always been vocal about wanting a different end game, one that would keep him playing high-level football in his 40’s. So according to a recent New York Times Magazine article, Tom defies conventional training practices designed at building strength in favor of those that create more pliable muscles. He credits his unique training practice with sparing him from career ending injuries, ultimately enabling him to win 4 Super Bowls (so far).

Atul Gawande, Boston surgeon and best selling author, challenges the more medicine is better medicine dogma that runs deep in our American cultural veins. Gawande addresses the literal “end game” in his best-selling book Being Mortal, to propose a radical new approach on appropriate care in our last years. Rather than doing everything possible to ensure maximum patient safety and longevity, Gawande contends that instead, a doctor’s role is to ensure that people leave this earth in a way that respects their values and priorities.

To do this, physicians and family members need to understand what constitutes quality of life from the patient’s point of view. In one example, Gawande tells of a daughter’s surprise at her father’s definition of quality of life as “being able to eat chocolate ice cream and watch football.” Her father had been a professor emeritus so she assumed he would not have wanted to live unless it was as a fully functioning intellectual. It was this knowledge that helped her make an entirely different choice for her father when faced with a life and death decision by her father’s surgeons.

I wasn’t so lucky with my father. The idea that more medicine, more effort, is not always appropriate was a totally foreign concept to me for most of his illness (and most of my life). So the poor guy cycled in and out of the hospital to rehab a number of times, getting weaker with every visit. By the time a palliative nurse friend of mine, helped me to see the light, it was too late. Having made the decision to bring him home after our post-dinner talk, I received a call the next morning that he had died in the Rehab institution.

While I can take comfort that my father seemed to enjoy all the attention he received at the Rehab facility, I often wonder if he would preferred a different ending. With my 88-year old mother, I have an opportunity not to make the same mistake.

The lessons of Gawande’s Being Mortal and Tom Brady’s historic Super Bowl victory transcend their individual career choices. Their work is testament to the truth of Einstein’s definition of insanity–doing something over and over again and expecting a different result. These two different men offer the same valuable lesson about the need to challenge the status quo to achieve a different result.

In the pharmaceutical industry where my company, extrovertic, does most of its work, there is a lot of organizational dogma about how to drive sales. It includes “HCPs write prescriptions, not patients,” or the time honored “the sales representative call is the best way to reach physicians.”

I know a lot of talented and progressive marketers who are confronting these doctrines on a daily basis. It’s hard work to be the one constantly going against the grain. But the experiences of Tom Brady and Atul Gawande are proof that a successful end game is worth the fight.

The Orphan Impact: Small drugs drive big changes

Seems everybody’s talking orphan drugs these days. No wonder, according to EvaluatePharma’s 2013 Orphan Drug Report, orphan drugs are estimated to reach 15.9% of total worldwide prescription sales by 2018. But the orphan drug impact goes beyond sales numbers. I believe that the patient centricity blossoming in the rare disease divisions will eventually spill over into the primary care divisions of pharmaceutical companies.

With the big blockbuster primary care drugs, development success lay primarily with company research departments. The halls of Pharma echo with stories of researcher heroics—how the lone scientist kept a molecule from hitting the drug dustbin only to become the next blockbuster.

But in orphan drugs, the heroes are as likely to be individual patient family members as researchers. In some cases the drug literally starts with patient families. Thanks to advances in digital technology and social media, orphan drug patient families play a major role in every aspect of bringing a drug to market, going far beyond traditional advocacy roles. Now individuals are able to leap tall barriers with a click of a mouse to accomplish superhero feats formerly reserved for massive organizations like the NIH and pharmaceutical companies.

Consider the role of patients, families and organizations in:

Disease discovery: Matt Might, a father whose son had a disease entirely unknown to science, leapt over barriers of scientific self-interest to find other patients and give his son’s illness a name.

A well-known blogger in his field, Matt’s post about his quest helped identify patients like his son across the globe. In the New Yorker article, which describes Matt’s disease naming odyssey, a Duke geneticist, who worked with Matt, sums up the new patient paradigm with this quote:

“It’s kind of a shift in the scientific world that we have to recognize—that, in this day of social media, dedicated, educated, and well-informed families have the ability to make a huge impact…Gone are the days when we could just say, ‘We’re a cloistered community of researchers, and we alone know how to do this.’ ”

Research direction: John Crowley funded individual scientists to fill the treatment void when he learned his daughter had Pompe disease. Ultimately John ended up partnering with one scientist to form a company that eventually was folded into Genzyme. And while his story is certainly one of the most dramatic (to the point of being the subject of a major motion picture starring Harrison Ford), John’s ability to drive the course of scientific discovery is becoming more commonplace in the rare disease space.

Product approval parameters: In June 2014, the Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy (PPMD) patient group, submitted the first ever-patient advocacy-initiated draft guidance for a rare disease to the FDA for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Patients, through organizations like the PPMD, are now directly driving how Pharma should be conducting their research.
Because of the outsized role patients and their families play in bringing a drug to market, building strong patient relationships is a key marketing investment for orphan drug marketers. For example, Biogen Idec, deployed over 15 community managers to support people with living with hemophilia even before they had an approved product.
There are already signs of an “orphan drug spillover effect” on primary care marketing. Consider Sanofi’s community manager position in their Diabetes franchise. Or more recently, that Sanofi appointed a Chief Patient Officer. And this I believe, is just the start of the orphan drug effect.

Soon the patient centric tactics of Rare Disease marketers will be highlighted in “marketing excellence” meetings all over Pharma. Then questions will come during marketing plan presentations about “why can’t primary care teams start building patient relationships like their rare disease counter parts?” And before you know it, the small seeds of patient centricity will finally blossom throughout Pharma.

Patient Shopping in Our Lifetime?

This was the one of the final questions asked at a recent Elsevier conference where I was a speaker. The panel charged with answering this question was largely pessimistic. Panelists felt that the byzantine system of setting prices for both medical procedures and pharmaceuticals made it unlikely that consumers would ever get the cost data required for effective shopping behavior. They couldn’t imagine that anyone in the industry would step up to the challenge of making prices more transparent.

There is certainly reason for their negative outlook. For example, a recent study by Verilogue and Duke Medical Center found that when oncologists discussed  breast cancer treatment options with patients, costs were only discussed in 20% of the cases. If patients can’t get information on the costs and outcomes of various medical and drug treatments, then they can’t make the appropriate trade-offs.

In my opinion, the Elsevier panel was right and wrong.

Right because strides towards increased pricing transparency won’t come from within the industry. But wrong because change will be instigated from outside the industry—by government, non-profit organizations and entrepreneurs unencumbered by the war wounds of fighting vested health care interests.

Here are a couple of examples that provide me with hope:

  • On the non-profit side, there is the Minnesota Community Measure Up coalition. They created the Minnesota D5 program, which provides effectiveness scores for treating diabetes by individual clinics/HCP offices.
  • Newer health care services like Counsyl, a genetic testing company, have actually built cost transparency into their business model. Counsyl has developed a proprietary tool that allows patients to calculate their exact costs once their particular insurance policy is factored in before they sign up for the service.
  • Iodine, a newcomer in the cost and rating business for drugs, has developed a very easy interface to help consumers start evaluating the cost/quality trade-offs for different medications.

Information will drive true shopper behavior.  Contrary to popular belief, patients can make educated choices. Patients don’t reflexively opt for latest and the greatest medical solution. As reported in the New York Times, a recent study in the Annals of Surgery, found that parents actually made the cost effective choice regarding appendectomies for their children.

When parents were told that both conventional and laparoscopic surgery yielded the same results, but that conventional surgery was far less expensive, two-thirds of parents chose the less expensive conventional surgery. 31% said that the information they received was the primary driver in their decision and 90% liked having a choice.

Pharma companies are going to have to learn how to market to health care shoppers rather than patients. This means that not only will pharmaceutical companies have to include cost in their outcomes studies with payers, they will also have to convince health care shoppers that their drugs represent a good value for the money.

And much like restaurants and hotels, Pharma companies will have to regularly monitor the various patient quality and cost rating systems to make sure their medications are fairly portrayed. A bad rating will have a direct impact on revenues, as consumers fail to start or stop using a medication, based on a rating they saw.

Pharma companies will need to include these products ratings from patient sites in their analyses of sales results. I predict that these analyses will show a direct correlation between consumer ratings and revenue. And when that happens, it will be the dawn of the era of the true health care shopper!

How design thinking can elevate the patient experience

Finding purpose in the mundane

What could be more boring than the traditional patient pamphlet?

Many times patient pamphlets are created without the most important ingredient, the patient. The traditional pamphlet is generally a collection of information that the health care marketer wants to impart to the patient. Little thought is put into what the patient wants to know. And even less thought is put into how the patient wants to physically interact with the pamphlet.

A little design thinking could change all that. One of the key principles of design thinking is purpose. Every element should have a customer-focused reason for existing. This requires a deeply rooted understanding of customers and how they interact with a particular object. It is this understanding that can transform the mundane into the marvelous.

One of the best examples I have ever seen is the in-room collateral for the Wanderlust Hotel in Singapore that I stumbled upon at an American Institute of Graphic Arts (AIGA) exhibit. The design team from Foreign Policy Design had a profound understanding of the prototypical Wanderlust guest. The type of guest who checks into the Wanderlust hotel is “curious and interested in discovering, engaging and immersing in new experiences.” They have a desire for personal growth through exploration.

Based on this understanding, the designers reinvented the “almost-useless conventional in-room directory” into a more useful travel tool. The in-room directory was morphed into an itinerary, full of useful local information including “area maps, train and bus maps, local shops and restaurants as well as thoughtful blank pages for notes and sketches.”

The reimagined in-room directory led to a redesigned check-in procedure. As the AIGA exhibit notes detailed, the itinerary “improved the check-in workflow, converting a laborious and dreaded check-in process into something fun, a talking point.”

This proves that one small design element can trigger a cascade of changes that lead to an improved overall brand experience. And the business results? The hotel has been featured in core travel publications including Travel & Leisure, has appeared on almost 500 blogs, and its room occupancy rates have risen.

And no wonder, “Creating a unique customer experience is one of the best ways to achieve sustainable growth, particularly in industries that are stagnating,” according to the consulting firm ATKearny. In industry after industry, higher customer satisfaction has been shown to drive sales and profits.

So back to the patient pamphlet. What is its core purpose? What is the problem that the pamphlet (or for that matter, the website, app or DTC ad) is trying to solve? What other problems does the patient have? Is there a role it can play there? How should it be redesigned?

What happens if the patient pamphlet is reimagined as an itinerary for better health, rather than merely a way to convey basic product information? Could infusing a higher-order purpose into a pamphlet set off a cascade of changes in all marketing activities?

Bad Mom, Wonderful Woman: A Tale of One Health Plan

Improved patient experience. As a health care marketing professional, I see the topic everywhere. As a patient, though, it is often nowhere to be found. Here’s my Tale of One Health Plan. One day, one health system, two appointments, two dramatically different patient experiences. In one visit I was a “A Bad Mom,” in the other, “A Wonderful Woman.”

Bad Mom, Wonderful Woman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First the “Bad Mom.” At a Children’s Center” in an affluent hospital, my 15-year old daughter and I entered what looked like beige food court in a mall, little booths for each pediatric specialty ringing the room. Threatening signs dotted the walls cautioning against letting your children bounce on the furniture.

I approached a booth with a simple question. “What time was my appointment?” I had made the appointment for 3 pm but had received a confirmation call for 2:45. Asking one of the Booth Ladies, I was told, “I don’t know when your appointment is for, just sit and wait for the doctor.” This patient experience told me that the hospital’s time was more important than my own and that I could not be trusted to come to an appointment on time.

At 2:43, after eventually learning my appointment was for 3 pm, I decided to dash to the hospital coffee shop on the floor below. When I came back at 2:55, my teenage daughter was nowhere to be seen. Going back to the Booth to ask about my daugther’s whereabouts, the original Booth Lady didn’t even look at me, but told her companion Booth Lady, “I told the mother to wait for the doctor. This patient experience told me I wasn’t a person, but an individual filling a role, and doing it badly at that. Bad Mom, Bad!

Contrast this to my mammography later that day. Not only was I greeted by a friendly woman, I was given thorough instructions reinforced on a patient handout. I was then whisked away into a spa-like changing room, complete with honey colored wood lockers, thick terry robes and ethereal Spa music playing in the background. To top it all off, I got a bracelet commemorating breast health awareness month when I left. I was a “Wonderful Woman.”

Yes, this was the same health system. But no one had bothered to think through how an individual person might experience it’s different parts in her different roles: parent, patient and parental caregiver. I know a unified patient experience is possible.I increasingly use another health system in my area, the Summit Medical Group. The receptionists are uniformly friendly, even when you as the patient screw up. For example, one of the receptionists noticed I missed an appointment in another department and made a call to have them squeeze me in so I wouldn’t have to come back again. That patient experience told me I was an important individual whose time was valuable.

Now the medical care I receive in both systems is excellent. But if I needed a new doctor, I would go to Summit Medical Group. And I am not alone in judging a system by it’s support personnel. According to PwC Health Research Institute, 60% of consumers said staff attitudes are a key factor in evaluating their provider experience. The lesson here is to make sure the patient experience is understood and designed from the patient’s perspective. And that starts from the moment the patient picks up the phone to schedule an appointment.

Encyclopedia Britannica: the Playbook for Pharma Business Model Evolution

You can’t actually buy physical encyclopedia anymore. That’s what makes the Encyclopedia Britannica story so relevant for Pharma. The company blew up its 244 year-old business model to adapt to the changing marketplace. In the HBR blog post entitled, “Encyclopaedia Britannica’s President on Killing Off a 244-year-old product,” by Jorge Cauz, the company president tells the tale of how the company evolved from a reference product business into a “full-fledged learning business.”

Their evolution involved….

  1. Moving to a digital product. Encyclopedia Britannica offers now is a complete online suite of educational support products as well as an online store of DVDs, books, online reference books and software. 
  2. Shifting focus to an institutional customer group. Over time, Encyclopedia Britannica’s core customer group evolved from individual consumers to school systems.
  3. Switching to a new sales channel: Encyclopedia Britannica’s most painful transformation was to eliminate the 2,000 person sales force in favor of direct marketing. 
  4. Bringing in new skill sets.  As Encyclopedia Britannica went digital, they found they needed a different editorial staff that could convey information using multimedia and interactivity.
  5. Continuing evolution.  Encyclopedia Britannica did not stumble upon their magic business formula out of the gate. Encyclopedia Britannica tried CD-ROMs, an online version of Encyclopedia Britannica, selling subscriptions, free ad-supported consumer encyclopedias and a learning portal before developing their online education business.

 

So how can Encyclopedia Britannica’s transformation guide Pharma’s increasingly urgent need to transform it’s business model? Here are some thought starters:

  1. Recalibrate your customer investment portfolio. Calculate or estimate what percentage of your brand’s business is really driven by institutions such as payers and hospital groups versus individual physicians. Are you truly matching your investments to opportunities?
  2. Evaluate your sales channels. If your customer focus is shifting, shouldn’t your sales channels change too? There is no question that pharma has reduced the size of the field forces it employs. The real question is whether the industry has been aggressive enough in embracing multi-channel marketing.
  3. Double your digital. According to a study by Publicis/Razorfish Healthcare, 35% of HCPs feel sales reps should use iPads. Isn’t it time to break the print habit? Develop a strategy to help motivate your marketers and sales people to increase their digital adoption curve.
  4. Assess your workforce. Seems to me that the evolution of pharma into a more patient focused business would require an infusion of new abilities. For example, adding customer service and compliance experts to your staffing model.
  5. Allocate a sacrosanct budget for innovation. Here is where pharma marketing and sales have really missed the boat. In most marketing departments, there is little focus on keeping up to date with customer preferences and technological advances. A more structured approach needs to be taken to a) figuring out what are the most promising communication and service innovations and b) identifying appropriate pilots.

Thank you for letting us share!

Dorothy

3 steps towards multicultural marketing

Amping up the spend on multicultural marketing is a no brainer given the expected flood of multicultural consumers into the health care market. However despite the rational arguments for investing in multicultural consumers, my fellow attendees at the recent Multicultural Health National conference in Washington D.C. felt selling multicultural investment in a pharmaceutical company is still an uphill battle.

The data supporting the business building opportunity of multicultural marketing keeps getting stronger. However, the funding for multicultural marketing programs within Pharma still seems to be managed according to the LIFO accounting principal, last to be funded, first to be cut. This has to change.

It is estimated that over 40% of the 33 million newly insured Americans by the health care exchanges will be multicultural consumers. Additionally, there are a multitude of ACA initiatives aimed at the different health care stakeholders designed to better serve the multicultural consumer including:

  • Patient Surveys: There are Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) surveys specifically designed to assess the cultural competency of providers. It now matters that consumers feel respected and actually understand what the HCP is telling them. Materials in multiple languages will no longer be a “nice to have.” Your payer and HCP customers will demand them.
  • Multicultural HCPS: ACA expands initiatives to increase racial and ethnic diversity in the health-care profession. Companies will need to have plans for communicating to an increasingly diverse HCP universe.
  • Government Offices:  ACA elevates key multicultural health organizations within important governmental offices such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). That means these multicultural organizations have more power to put policies in place that effect drug coverage and marketing.

As the marketplace shifts to better serving multicultural consumers, so should pharmaceutical marketing departments. Here are three ideas on how to get started:

  • Consider reviewing the CAHPS cultural competency questionnaire and brainstorm how your product and service offerings can benefit the patient experience.
  • Partner with an institution to help them raise the cultural competency of their staff. For example, The Cleveland clinic has a multi-faceted approach to building cultural competency from physician education to forging ties to the community.
  • And last, but not least, protect your multicultural investment. How about a new accounting principle? FILO anybody? First In, Last Out.
Thanks for letting us share,
Dorothy

How to write health care copy that people will actually read

Learning from the halls of journalism

This is the seventh blog post in a twelve part series that transforms ideas from the marketing world at large into practical plans for pharmaceutical marketing in the time of health care reform.

Ever wonder why a patient pamphlet doesn’t grab you like the first sentence of a New Yorker health care article? I believe that it boils down to intent. Pharma copy is written from the point of view of “I have important information I need to tell you.”  Journalistic copy starts from the premise of “I need to capture your attention.” 

The goal of a news story is to get eyeballs on words. The goal of a pharma pamphlet is to impart information that the patient may or may not really want to read. Or in the worst case, just fill the legal obligation to provide the information.

I wanted to explore what would happen if by taking more journalistic approach to developing patient education copy. So I gave a journalist friend of mine some pharma copy. In this case, the copy concerned addressing people’s thoughtless comments. I was curious to see the differences in how it would be written, particularly the opening sentences. Even after removing the expletives, you can see how much more engaging the copy written by a journalist is.

And the difference goes beyond the first sentence. Below I have taken a common journalistic framework—Who? What? When? Where? How? Why? — and used it to extrapolate the differences between marketing and journalism.

The journalistic model of copy writing requires a significant shift. At the end of the day, it is about holding your information to a higher standard—patient engagement. Or as Tony Rogers in his About.com Guide to journalism says, “So when making the rounds of your beat, always ask yourself, “How will this affect my readers? Will they care? Should they care?” If the answer is no, chances are the story’s not worth your time.”

 

The key concept to extrapolate here is the need to interest and entertain your reader. So here are a couple thought-starters on how to export this idea to development of pharmaceutical information, particularly in the patient space.

  1. Define for your agency “what good looks like.” Gather a few examples of how your product and/or disease state has been covered in the popular and not so popular press. I am riveted by anything that Jerome Groopman writes. Look for good examples of science made accessible. Look for health care storylines that grab people. Compare that to your copy.
  2. Evaluate what is most/least compelling on your website. We have tended to discount “the click” in pharma. But “eyeballs on the page” is the metric used by online media evaluate the success of their endeavors and determine what gets covered in the future.
  3. Hire a freelance journalist to have a “whack” at your copy. Your procurement friends will love you as journalists are about half the cost of pharmaceutical copywriters. And many do a very good job at explaining difficult scientific concepts or MOA’s.

So take a look at your copy. Would you read it if you didn’t have to?

Check back next Tuesday for the eighth post in the twelve part series, “ How to Jay-Z DTC. In this post I explore Jay-Z’s three-part formula for grabbing attention to create more cost effective and impactful DTC campaigns.

Thanks for letting us share,

Dorothy