U.S. Government Cracks Down on Pharma Marketing
Two major pieces of news emerged over the past week that will likely have far-reaching implications for the way pharmaceutical companies market in the U.S. online.
By on Apr 9, 2009Two major pieces of news emerged over the past week that will likely have far-reaching implications for the way pharmaceutical companies market in the U.S. online.
(1) DDMAC Search Engine Marketing Warning Letters
For the first time, FDA's DDMAC (Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications) has issued warning letters to pharmaceutical companies addressing pay-per-click or paid search advertising. And we are not talking one or two letters. It was 14 letters, with a grand total of 48 drugs mentioned.
This goes beyond making an example out of someone ti is making it abundantly clear what the rules are. And honestly, in my opinion, that is not necessarily a bad thing. But there are some things that are concerning to me (read on). The letters on FDAs website can be found here: http://bit.ly/qnc4T, and heres an article from the Wall Street Journal on the topic: http://bit.ly/17WYb
(2) FTC Targets Bloggers
Also the FTC (Federal Trade Commission), a US agency responsible for consumer advertising regulation and protection , is expected to adopt guidelines that would hold companies liable for untruthful statements made by bloggers and users of social networking sites who receive samples of their products. Heres the full story from the Financial Times: http://tinyurl.com/c3c3ul
>> Weighing in on Paid Search <<
On the one hand, its good to finally have some guidance on pay-per-click advertising. Search engine optimization and paid search campaigns are still underutilized by pharma, and perhaps part of that is because it has always been a gray area for regulatory reviewers.
Upon review of the letters, it becomes clear that mentioning a product name in a URL counts as a product mention, and FDA is not comfortable with that mention not being accompanied by fair balance. The mention must also be accompanied by the generic name.
Looks like the use of unbranded sites and vanity URLs will become even more important. Not a big surprise. But from now on when it comes to branded search campaigns, certainly the everyone else is doing it and getting away with it argument no longer applies. Everyone just got a warning letter.
>> Implications for Mobile & Twitter? <<
Another point, though, that is concerning about the search marketing letters is that they may have ramifications for other short-form online communications vehicles. I am thinking about mobile text messaging and also Twitter. Right now, several pharmas are testing out Twitter by posting headlines with links to press releases. Sometimes, those headlines have drug names in them.
I have also seen agencies that work for these companies boldly (perhaps boastfully) tweet about website launches on Twitter. Think hey we just launched product.com check it out. Innocent enough. But what if that drug is a black box? Is the Tweeter responsible? Theres no room for fair balance in those 140 Twitter characters.
>> FTC Gets Heavy-Handed <<
So now the FTC is apparently starting to care about what consumers say about products online, especially if the consumer received a free sample. As explained in the Financial Times, If a blogger received a free sample of skin lotion and then incorrectly claimed the product cured eczema, the FTC could sue the company for making false or unsubstantiated statements. The blogger could be sued for making false representations.
I definitely support the blogger disclosing that he/she received a free sample. But is it not then their right to free speech to be able to blog about what they thought of the product? Will FTC care as much if the review is equally false, but negative?
If the FTC ruling sticks, perhaps the FDA will follow suit and impart similar rules on the pharma industry. If a physician passes along a much-needed free sample to a patient, and that patient then happens to post on a community board that the medication worked well for them then will it be the pharma, the physician, AND the patient held liable?
>> Concerning Trend <<
The trend probably isnt surprising considering all the talk from Washington since the new administration stepped in. But I would be lying if I said it wasnt concerning.
Now, I have never been crazy about politics in general, and I tend to stay out of the discussions both online and offline. But my husband is a well-educated and passionate Libertarian. I mentioned these incidents to him and his reply was, Welcome to the realities of big government. Its ever-expanding bureaucracy in action. Hes right.
>> Closing Advice <<
A bit of advice: Make sure your digital, social media, and/or search engine marketing agency is pharma-savvy. Unfortunately, youre going to need that much more flexibility, understanding, and creativity to get your messages to market.
>:< >:< >:< >:< >:< >:< >:< >:< >:<.
Wendy Blackburn, Intouch Solutions, a digital marketing agency specializing in pharma
Web: www.intouchsol.com
Blog: www.intouchsolutionsdigital.blogspot.com
Twitter: www.twitter.com/wendyblackburn
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/wendyblackburn