To recap, back in September, Google introduced a downloadable sidebar that allows a Mozilla Firefox, or Internet Explorer, user to leave their comments on any Web site – appropriately named “Sidewiki.” To add method to its madness, Google’s algorithm sorts these comments by relevance, not by date. In a nutshell, the Sidewiki has the potential to transform every Web site into a social media platform. It pairs the voice of the consumer with the voice of the brand, side by side in your browser… and, with an “opt-out” feature not yet available from Google, it is a company’s responsibility to determine the best possible way to approach the online “voices” coming from the metaphorical peanut gallery.
With the introduction of Sidewiki, came the justifiable concerns from the FDA and pharma companies. Pharma’s branded Web sites are populated with highly regulated drug information, which presents a serious problem when Sidewiki is thrown into the mix.
Now that consumers can share their experiences – both good and bad – how should pharma companies react? We know that the companies can’t run from the sidebar of comments glaring back at their site visitors, so should they hide from them? Or, should they take a more engaging approach, and listen to the voices they can’t turn off? Whether pharma likes it or not, people are going to talk, especially when said people are driven health consumers armed with the power of the internet.
But what if patients take to the public Sidewiki to do their Adverse Event (AE) reporting or to share off-label side effects? An adverse event is any change in health or unanticipated side effect that occurs during or after a “pre-specified period of time” after treatment has completed. The FDA currently has a system in place for AE reporting, but with the introduction of Sidewiki, pharma companies run the risk of patients publicly airing their dirty laundry, so to speak.
For starters, pharma companies should have in place a social media policy, detailing how their employees will approach the variety of comments on Sidewiki. Pharma companies have three choices in their plan of attack: ignore, monitor or engage.
Our advice: treat Sidewiki like a Wikipedia page. If a user posts blatantly wrong or misleading content, the company should have the right to correct the misinformation (Note: On October 8, the issue of pharmaceutical brands and adverse events surfaced on the Google Support Forum – including threats to investigate legal ramifications and infringement). However, even if pharma doesn’t yet have control over revoking any incorrect comments, Google’s algorithm should push these inappropriate comments to the bottom, away from the site visitor’s eye. If this isn’t sufficient enough, a pharma rep could add the company’s own, factual corrections to Sidewiki. However, if pharma companies decide to participate in the Sidewiki “conversation,” they negate the “I didn’t know it was there” stance these companies may want to take on the issue.
The best strategy for pharma to employ is monitoring the conversation, and when appropriate, engaging offline with a user and working with him or her to reconcile a poor experience with their product. What Pharma absolutely does not want to do is pretend that sidebar doesn’t exist. The technology is there, we cannot ignore it; like any other social media site, the conversations will happen about your brand with or without you. Isn’t it best to at least listen? Without listening, companies are essentially working in a bubble.
If I’ve learned one thing working in digital communications – especially as a product of Gen Y, where social media communication is as normal as breathing – it is this: consumers appreciate interaction with brands.
On Twitter, where most customer service communication takes place, this is the norm. Whether it’s a simple reply thanking a consumer for tweeting a good experience or, a (more private) direct message, asking why the consumer’s experience with was sub-par – consumers appreciate it. And the companies that use social media in this way, are generally the companies that succeed offline, as well. It is online communication like this that puts a voice behind a brand, and in turn, creates brand enthusiasts.
Authenticity in communication is key, and Google’s Sidewiki is giving pharma yet another chance to listen, and maybe even join the conversation. Granted, for Pharma, liability and regulation are obstacles, but a simple social media policy would be a step in the right direction.
Sidewiki provides the FDA and pharma with a tool to potentially revolutionize the way the industry communicates with consumers and health care professionals. However, social media tools are essentially worthless and a potentially big waste of time and energy without strategy and thought behind using them… The FDA Social Media hearings on Nov. 12 and 13 will help inform how pharma companies use social media tools (be sure to follow @SpectrumScience, we will be live-tweeting throughout the hearings). The FDA Social Media hearings come at a pressing time with the recent introduction of the Sidewiki, which will undoubtedly advance the way we provide and manage accurate and balanced prescription product information on the Web.
