Despite Its Social Media Expertise, J&J Fails to Use It Effectively to Communicate to Consumers

Johnson & Johnson's (JNJ's) has earned accolades from industry pundits for its social media expertise (see Dosie Awards, for example). Yet it's handling of the McNeil Consumer recall of children's medicines seems weak in general and very weak specifically with regard to the use of social media to reach out and engage consumers on the issue.

As reported in the Wall Street Journal, "Some parents say the recall has weakened J&J's reputation for quality. The recall has also prompted a congressional investigation of the company's handling of consumer complaints and the adequacy of the FDA's inspections. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has asked J&J Chief Executive William Weldon to testify at a hearing on May 27" (see "FDA Widens Probe of J&J's McNeil Unit").

The only response from JNJ via social media after issuing notices about the recall back in early May was a 253-word blog post by JNJ CEO Bill Weldon on JNJBTW (see "To All Who Use Our Products -- From Bill Weldon") and a series of Tweets from Marc Monseau, JNJ's Director of Corporate Communication, linking to that letter (see below).

Meanwhile on other blogs like Bnet, Weldon is accused of being clueless (see "Tylenol Recalls: CEO Weldon Is Either Clueless or Lying, and Neither Will Play Before Congress").

Thanks to PharmaGossip for Photoshopped image of Bill Weldon

Social media is often touted by drug industry experts as a tool to be used to "manage the conversation" or, at least, to participate in the conversation. But JNJ is not engaging or participating as much as I think it could or should. To his credit, Monseau has approved and published on JNJBTW blog several negative comments from moms, docs, and former JNJ employees, but Weldon has not responded or continued the dialogue.

NOTE: As Monseau points out in a comment to this post, he has responded to readers in relation JNJBTW posts on this topic (see "McNeil Announces Voluntary Recall"). Edwin Kuffner, MD, Vice President of Medical Affairs at McNeil Consumer Healthcare, has also responded to comments, but mostly to tell consumers to contact their doctors about problems with medications. What I was looking for, I guess, are further posts to JNJBTW keeping readers apprised of progress that J&J is making -- especially from the CEO. The last comment by Monseau on May 4 was "I apologize that we are not able to provide you with more answers at this time. As dr. Kuffner explained, we are continuing to investigate these issues and we have shared as much information with you that we can." Read into that what you want, but the news stories continue and the JNJBTW blog has been silent on these latest stories.

To recap: I feel that the issue deserves more than a single 250-word post by Weldon on a blog. It leads me to believe that Weldon's appearance before Congress will be as engaging and forthright as was Goldman Sach's and the oil industry's.

BTW, after I posted "Trouble in the House that McNeil Built: Why Drug Company Silos are Useful", I was quoted in an AdAge article:

"Deep down I do believe that J&J is keeping its stellar reputation partially due to the fact that it is siloed into many different operating units. It does seem to go out of its way to link the J&J brand to baby products and mom rather than Rx drugs, some of which have nasty side effects and even nastier marketing practices. That's why Marc Monseau always -- I mean always -- prefaces his public statements saying that J&J is not a pharmaceutical company, it's a health company. Imagine a bizarro Oz where the wizard behind the curtain is actually an evil wizard who appears to be doing good things. Of course, I'm not saying that J&J is evil; it's just another drug company" (see "What's Ailing J&J -- and Why Isn't Its Rep Hurting?").

Equation Proves that Broadcast DTCA Only a Minor Contributor to Growth in Rx Drug Expenditures

In an equation that Einstein would be proud of, researchers at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) supported by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality have "proved" that "the expansion in broadcast DTCA may be responsible for about 19 percent of the overall growth in prescription drug expenditures over the [period between 1994 and 2005], with over two-thirds of this impact being driven by an increase in demand as a result of the DTCA expansion and the remainder due to higher prices." The researchers based this on an analysis data supplied by IMS fed into this equation:

The equation denotes that the market price (P) is a function of promotion, time until patent expiration and the number of drugs in the therapeutic class. Hey, I'm not going to get into an analysis! Ed Silverman over at Pharmalot already did a great job explaining the research (see here).

I'm just in awe of this equation, which to me looks suspiciously similar to an equation used by Villanova scientists that proved that DTC spending does not impact Rx prices (see here, where you can see a T-shirt with the equation on it).

The authors of the Villanova study concluded that "DTC advertising has no effect on the price of drugs" whereas the authors of the NBER study conclude that "while DTCA is significant, it has not been the primary force driving the growth in overall prescription drug expenditures."

Should Google Allow Pharma an Exception to Its Ban on Redirect URLs? (UPDATED)

Back in April 2009, I suggested that FDA might go after pharma marketers for using paid search redirects in Google Adwords (see "The Next FDA Concern May be the Use of 'Redirect' URLs"). Such ads use visible URLs such as "flaccidmember.com" but, when clicked, lead to viagra.com or cialis.com. Such an is considered to be "unbranded" and beyond FDA regulation. That is, it can say "Stay harder longer with this treatment for erectile dysfuntion" and lead directly to the branded website.

The problem with that strategy is that Google's Adword policy forbids the use of redirect URLs -- for most advertisers. It appears that Google was making an exception for the pharmaceutical industry (see "Redirect URLs in Adwords: Who Knew What When?").

Last week I thought Google may have rescinded this exception. Tyler Ransburgh of What's Your Digital IQ Blog wrote about his problem using a redirect URL in a pharma ad. "I work in pharma," said Tyler, "I have an exception to the rule. Right? Well, I reached out to Google to get an answer on why I am getting caught in this web" (see "Google blocks Pharma paid search redirects")

When Tyler did reach out to Google, here's the reply he got:

"In response to advertiser and user feedback, and in an effort to provide relevant results and a high quality experience for our users, we have made the decision to no longer allow certain exceptions to our display URL policy. Please note that this amendment to our policy applies to all advertisers, regardless of previous exceptions for, or acceptance of, any campaigns. To provide a quality experience for our users and partners, the display URL policy will be strictly enforced."

I'd like to think that my blog posts were part of the "feedback" that Google considered.

Since then we've gotten some feedback indicating that Google has NOT changed its policy regarding pharma's use of URL redirects in Adwords. See this Pharma and SEM Marketing Blog post by SEM Dave Anderson who indirectly received this comment from Google: "Our policy has not changed: pharmaceutical manufacturers continue to have an exception to allow a URL redirect, which is not currently recognized by our automated system." Which seems to directly contradict the comment received by Tyler Ransburgh from a Google Adword support team person who advised Tyler to "be assured that you have reached the appropriate AdWords support team for your AdWords related concern and I’ll be unable to escalate your issue further." Tyler, you see, had asked to speak to this person's supervisor and was rebuffed!

I also received an email from Aaron Stein, someone who claims to be part of Google's PR department. I present the full email message:

Hi John,

This is Aaron Stein from Google PR. I noticed your post this morning and wanted to reach out to you because it is not accurate. If you do a search for cholesterol you'll see that our policy has not changed. I've attached a screenshot to show this as well.

If you wouldn't mind, can you add a correction to your post with the statement below? Happy to chat further about this.

"Our policy has not changed: pharmaceutical manufacturers continue to have an exception to allow a URL redirect, which is not currently recognized by our automated system. All pharmaceutical manufacturers' search ads campaigns continue to run, unchanged, today."

Thanks John, I'll be in touch.

Aaron Stein
Google | Global Communications & Public Affairs

The question, however, is Should Pharma Advertisers Use Redirect URLs in Search Engine Ads? I ask you help to answer this question in a NEW survey, which asks your opinion of this practice. It asks specifically to indicate your level of agreement/disagreement with the following statements about Pharma's use of paid search engine ads:

• Regardless of search engine rules that may allow pharma advertisers to use redirect URLs ("vanity URLs"), pharma should ONLY use display URLs in ads that ACCURATELY reflect the landing page URLs of the websites being advertised (ie, pharma should obey the rules established for all other advertisers).
• Pharma advertisers should be allowed an exception to search engine rules regarding redirect URLs because FDA regulations prevent them from displaying a drug brand name in short ads, even when the brand name is only part of the display URL.
• Redirect URLs should NEVER be used by pharma advertisers because they mislead the consumer into believing that the links will take them to independent disease information websites, not branded drug sites.

Results of this survey may be summarized in Pharma Marketing News. After you answer a few short questions, you will be able to see the summary of all responses to date. No comments or other identifying information is included in the summary.


Your comments are confidential (anonymous) unless you specifically provide your contact information at the end of the survey and allow us to attribute comments to you personally.



Take the survey Now!

Will FDA Cite this Vyvanse Web Image as Off-Label Promotion?

If an image is worth a thousand words, then this image found on the Vyvanse Web site home page is shouting off-label promotion.

Is it a coincidence that this image, showing a woman ("Fran") with a measuring tape and a dress, evokes weight loss, which is one of the common side effects of Vyvanse and similar stimulant dextroamphetamines?  (Vyvanse is a "prodrug"; it gets converted to stimulant dextroamphetamine in the body). Thanks to "Chad" who pointed this out to me via the "Contact Us" link above.

Other drugs have been promoted off-label for weight loss. Just yesterday I reported that Johnson & Johnson was fined $81.5 million for misbranding and illegally marketing Topamax for weight loss, among other things (see "Trouble in the House that McNeil Built: Why Drug Company Silos are Useful").

Compared to the Topamax off-label case, the Vyvanse off-label imagery is pretty subtle and perhaps only people like me (and "Chad") would even think it was more than a coincidence. Images in direct-to-consumer (DTC) ads, however, are carefully chosen by pharma marketers and the FDA does pay close attention to them as part of the overall message. An example is the shrinking planet Avodart ad that received an FDA letter because the image showed too much shrinkage (see "FDA Warns GSK About Enlarged Avodart Ad Imagery"). Other critics have even pointed out things like the speed of flapping bee's wings in some DTC ads (see "Ruth Day and the Bees Repeat Performance at House DTC Hearing").

These days, the FDA is paying more attention to subtleties in Rx drug promotions. For example, FDA recently sent Novartis warning letters about two unbranded Web sites that it said illegally promoted Gleevec even though the brand name was not mentioned on the sites (see "FDA Warns Novartis Over Gleevec Internet Sites").

Maybe the FDA reads this blog and will take a look at the Vyvanse Web site. If it decides to send Shire a letter, it may not happen for several months, by which time "Fran" may have been replaced by "Frank," a trucker having a late night meal at a truck stop. Pretty stimulating image, eh?

Pharma Marketing Meets Social Media: Can the Two Co-Habitate?

I am taking a short vacation in Miami and will be chairing the Pharmaceutical Marketing Innovation Summit, May 10 - 12, 2010 at the Doral Golf Resort & Spa. I will also be making the following presentation at that conference.

Pharma Marketing Meets Social Media: Can the Two Co-Habitate?

View more presentations from Pharma Marketing Network.

Trouble in the House that McNeil Built: Why Drug Company Silos are Useful

Marc Monseau, head of corporate communications at Johnson & Johnson (J&J or JNJ) and contributor to the JNJBTW Blog, often says that JNJ is not a pharmaceutical company. He likes to think of it as a healthcare company.

But I think of JNJ as a pharmaceutical holding company, by which I mean it holds several separate pharmaceutical companies under its corporate umbrella. Each one a "silo" of sorts.

The advantage of this type of organization is that the Johnson & Johnson name and brand remain untarnished among consumers even when one or more of its "units" breaks the law or fails to protect consumers from tainted products.

One such unit or division is McNeil. There's Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical LLC and Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, which markets and sells Rx products such as Topamax. And there's McNeil Consumer Healthcare, which markets and sells over-the-counter products such as children's Tylenol, Motrin, etc.

Both of these J&J/McNeil "units" are in the news these days. Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical and Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals were fined a total of $81.5 million for misbranding and illegally marketing Topamax (see "J&J to Pay $81 Million, End Federal Cases on Topamax"). Topamax is approved only for treating epilepsy, but BNet author Jim Edwards, points out that the J&J companies "promoted Topamax for such a wild range of conditions [eg, weight loss], based on such thin evidence, that it was impossible not to notice that many of them were off-label" (see here).

Meanwhile, McNeil Consumer Healthcare has been cited AGAIN for bad manufacturing processes. I wrote about this in the past -- see "Social Media Vs. Social Responsibility: J&J Fails Crisis Management 101." McNeil apologized back in January, 2010 and is now apologizing again AFTER FDA issued a report (here and here).

Although news stories mention the J&J name in headlines, when all is said and done, the J&J brand image among consumers will remain unsullied for the most part, IMHO. Which suggests that "silos" works! Other drug companies may not have the same corporate structure as does J&J, but they are just as "siloed" -- by brand! So, consumers remember Vioxx, but often forget that it was marketed by Merck, which lately gets a lot of kudos for Gardasil.

I'm not sure what the point of this is other than that drug company silos can be a useful strategy. Of course, siloing also can lead to failures to communicate (see "Is Your Brand a Digital Genius or a Feeble-Minded Idiot?").

Is Your Brand a Digital Genius or a Feeble-Minded Idiot?

When it comes to digital IQ, some brands are geniuses and some are feeble-minded idiots, according to the "L2 Digital IQ Index" for pharmaceutical brands, a first-of-its kind measurement of the digital competence of 51 pharma brands across eight therapeutic categories.

The index was created by think tank L2 in partnership with media agency PHD Network. They evaluated pharmaceutical brands’ digital presence across four criteria: Platform (40 percent, including site effectiveness and brand translation); Off-Platform Messaging (25 percent, covering digital marketing efforts such as online and mobile advertising); Search Engine Optimization (20 percent, based on visibility on top search engines); and Social Media (15 percent, defined by presence on popular 2.0 platforms). Each brand was scored against more than one hundred qualitative and quantitative data points, and assigned a Digital IQ ranking of Genius, Gifted, Average, Challenged or Feeble (see press release).

The top ten brands on the index are (ta da!):

1. Viagra (Pfizer)
2. Nexium (AstraZeneca)
3. Chantix (Pfizer)
4. Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo (Ortho-McNeil Janssen)
5. Crestor (AstraZeneca)
6. Tie between Gardasil (Merck) and Yaz (Bayer)
7. Tie between Symbicort (AstraZeneca) and NuvaRing (Merck)
8. Lunesta (Sepracor)

What's interesting is that although AstraZeneca emerged as the industry’s digital powerhouse with four brands in the top ten -- Nexium, Crestor, Symbicort and NuvaRing -- it is somewhat of a "digital idiot savant." Two other AZ drugs -- Tropol-XL and Pulmicort -- have a digital IQ in the feeble-minded idiot zone. This digital IQ disparity among brands within the same company seems standard within the drug industry (see chart below).

Pfizer's Viagra and Chantix are digital geniuses whereas Pristiq and Caduet are feeble-minded digital idiots!

How can that be?

The simplest answer is "brand silos." In an interview yesterday, L2 founder and NYU marketing professor Scott Galloway told me that drug companies are "highly siloed by brand. There's almost no sharing of best practices or competencies within the organization." I hope he's just talking about digital marketing! Which is bad enough.

The longer the bar in the chart above, the more "digitally siloed" is the company. AstraZeneca, it appears is not merely a digital powerhouse, it is also a siloed house!