Big Pharma and Google Sidewiki: A Sink or Swim Situation?

How It Affects Marketers and What You Can Do About It

Posted by Adam Cohen on 10.15.09 @ 08:57 AM

Adam Cohen

For many companies, dipping their toes into the social-media water is reminiscent of the backyard pool in late spring. The cold water stings your feet. You hang out on the first step for a few minutes until you get used to the cold. Another step and that sting is back, but you're on your way to a fun day of swimming in the sun. Well Big Pharma is still learning to swim, and Google just came along trying to shove them into the deep end.

Last month, Google launched a product called Sidewiki, an extension to the Google Toolbar. With a short download (and a recent version of Firefox or Internet Explorer, with Google Chrome coming soon), anyone can comment on any website and respond to other comments. Pharma companies, concerned with everything from brand perception to adverse event reporting, are now put in a situation where they need to take action or they risk losing control of their brands' online presence -- or worse, having the FDA perceive Sidewiki entries as an integral part of a brand site.

The possibilities of Google Sidewiki are far reaching, and it could be some time before it is adopted broadly. Sidewiki could ultimately fail to resonate with consumers who are overwhelmed by the "noise" of a forum where literally anyone viewing a website can participate. The fact remains, however, that comments are already happening. In November, the FDA will be conducting public hearings about social media "intended to help guide FDA in making policy decisions on the promotion of... prescription drugs and biologics and medical devices using the Internet and social media tools." In the next two months, Pharma companies need to decide what action to take.

Pharma Brands Are Already Getting Wet
Potentially damaging comments are already appearing on the home pages of Pharma sites. Here are some examples:

Amgen: The first and only comment showing on Amgen's site is a post from a blogger covering the pharma industry, including a link to "The Amgen Files" on the author's site. The Sidewiki comment mentions an unidentified whistleblower filing a lawsuit accusing Amgen of illegally marketing two of its well-known drug products.
Pfizer: In a similar fashion, another industry blogger has posted the first comment on Pfizer's Viagra.com regarding his blog post, claiming a recent 15-second TV ad in Canada is a "reminder ad," forbidden by the FDA in the U.S.. He also tests the adverse-events reporting arena by claiming that not only did Viagra not work, it caused his arm to fall off. (Let's be glad it wasn't worse and caused other body parts to do the same.) Other bloggers have followed suit.
Sanofi-Aventis and Bristol-Myers Squibb: The same blogger who posted on Viagra's site dropped by Plavix's site on a deeper landing page, posting a link to his blog post about how the FDA sent warning letters regarding a paid search engine ad for Plavix in April 2009. S-A's Ambien CR site was also commented with more blog links and criticism over the use of actors without disclosing they are not actual patients.

Grab Your Floaties
What can Pharma brands actually do? Waiting until the November FDA hearings doesn't seem prudent (guidance may not come for months -- if ever), nor does waiting on the sidelines. There are four steps recommended for Pharma brands:

Verify your site with Google Webmaster tools. IT folks or SEO agency help may need to be involved, but this process allows the website owner to "own" the first entry displayed within Google Sidewiki on each page, and enables future alert tracking to new comments. Google hasn't yet released the ability to do this for an entire domain (each page must be registered separately) but I'd expect this functionality to come soon. Nationwide Insurance (a Rosetta client) has done an effective job at claiming the first entry.
Prepare a content strategy. Develop approved messaging now since that could be a lengthy process at most Pharma companies. Pre-approved comments could be used as disclaimers, provide instructions for adverse event reporting, or provide a concise statement of indications and fair balance.
Determine when to engage with comments. Ignoring them is not recommended, but there are pros and cons to pre-emptive comments and reactive comments. Make sure that there is internal alignment between regulatory, PR, IT and marketing on the approach.
Explore alternate solutions. Unproven methods are popping up including using JavaScript to disable Sidewiki on pages (not approved by Google, of course) and adding SSL-certificates to block Sidewiki from pages. There are SEO implications to keep in mind for existing inbound links, so weigh the pros and cons carefully.

The Water Might Be Fine...
Ultimately Sidewiki is an unproven, disruptive technology that has accelerated the risks many Pharma companies have by avoiding social technologies. Hopefully the FDA will drop by in November as a "lifeguard." Just don't ask me to name who is David Hasselhoff.

Adam Cohen is a partner at Rosetta and leads the search, online and social media business unit. Rosetta's Healthcare practice has developed a point of view on Google's Sidewiki and Its Implications for Pharma Brands.

7 Comments

By jpalau | PHILADELPHIA, PA October 15, 2009 10:39:58 am:

I recently wrote a piece on how Google has the ability to put in these policies that have a negative impact on brands and there really is nothing you can do about it.

One really important fact to keep in mind is that adverse event reporting is only required when the consumer is in direct contact with the company. Sidewiki comments do not qualify as direct communication - hopefully the FDA will understand that as well

http://searchenginewatch.com/3635251

Permalink

By azand | Arlington, MA October 15, 2009 10:44:12 am:

Excellent job Adam! I think the F&DA and FTC are going to be downloading Sidewiki in their Firefox tool bars this week. This is a potential nightmare for pharma or a boon if all parties remain honest (fat chance I know).

Permalink

By jfeitlinger | TEMPE, AZ October 15, 2009 11:14:07 am:

Adam, Awesome article and love the water analogy.

I have been watching Google Sidewiki closely and have been surprised at how few people are using it. I think your reference to the "noise" may be one of the main reasons.

When I first saw it come out I instantly thought of Seth Godin and how he wrote on his blog in June 2006 why he does not allow comments. Google Sidewiki essentially changed that game. You can read that post at http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2006/06/why_i_dont_have.html. I asked Seth (via Sidewiki) to share his thoughts. I will be watching this closely and sharing my learnings via Twitter - http://www.twitter.com/jayfeitlinger

Permalink

By ciafolla | Watertown, MA October 15, 2009 12:16:46 pm:

Excellent article Adam! As you pointed out Google Sidewiki essentially forces Big Pharma to deal with the issues at hand when it comes to social media. In that sense, maybe it is not such a bad thing. With traditional social media tools, pharma companies always have the choice to stay on the sidelines. But with Sidewiki, that choice no longer exists and pharma companies need to consider a proper course of action. I gave some thought to this topic today as well: http://prforpharma.com/2009/10/15/google-sidewiki-forcing-the-social-media-hand-of-pharma/

Permalink

By adamcohen | Boston, MA October 15, 2009 12:49:50 pm:

@jpalau I would hope the FDA doesn't view Sidewiki as direct communication with the company, but the communication is tied to a corporate asset (the website). I think it's a grey area since site owners can claim the first Sidewiki entry. It will be interesting to see if the FDA includes Sidewiki in the upcoming hearings.

Thanks all for the feedback and helpful links. I love challenging the 'no comments' to Seth by using Sidewiki, but imagine the implications to any corporation who hasn't considered the ramifications of open dialogue. The choice for pharma no longer exists (agreed) but so much is unproven or not yet understood about Sidewiki. If anything I hope this provides an avenue for Big Pharma to consider how they can engage customers in different ways. Any one tactic (like Sidewiki) isn't likely to cause the change alone, but hopefully it will get them thinking.

Permalink

By richardameyer | SIMI VALLEY, CA October 15, 2009 04:04:08 pm:

The Sidewiki is just an easier way for consumers to laugh at the marketing efforts of big pharm rather than doing it via other social media platforms. Consumers don't trust the drug industry and blame them, along with insurers, for our healthcare woes even though drug costs are only 10% of healthcare dollars. People are smart enough to know that Sidewiki comments are just that comments and opinions. They may read them but remember there are a lot of stops on the way to collect health information and pharma is just a small piece of the puzzle http://www.worldofdtcmarketing.com

Permalink

By srpatterson | Columbus, OH October 15, 2009 06:34:44 pm:

I find sidewiki to be amazing technology that will draw more users to the Google toolbar but requires a lot of management from site owners as you state. I could see lawsuits arising where companies want control of the content and will not allow Google ownership.
Steve
http://2009taxes.org

Permalink