That sounds very negative, doesn't it? But consider that a patient-advocate consultant, who was hired by a conference organizer to arrange a patient-focus group for a
pharma marketing event in Phildelphia next month, says nearly all of the people who were approached to participate have nothing nice to say about the pharmaceutical industry.
The focus group, which will be held live at the conference, is supposed to have three real patients, who will help industry attendees "reach, engage, educate, and retain patients. Patients across three therapeutic areas gather to share their stories from diagnosis, to research of the disease, to how they communicated with their physician and ultimately chose their treatment."
But Trisha Torrey, a former marketing consultant who bills herself as Every Patient's Advocate in hopes of helping others navigate the healthcare system, relates that everyone who responds sees the industry through a prism of experience with a particular drug, good or bad. And if that experience was somehow unpleasant, well, forget it.
"Getting people to complain isn't difficult," she sighs. "I believe invitations were seen by nearly 2,000 people, mostly by people who have signed up for my blog. And, in the e-mails I received, people are taking out their virtual baseball bats and swinging them at the industry. There were a lot of beefs to share. Unfortunately, I"m not finding any positives whatsoever. And I'm finding that's translating into a trust issue."
And the anger, she tells Pharmalot, often extends to doctors and pharmacists, too. So she's redoubling her efforts and casting a wider net, because she would like to have a cross-section of opinions that would help the attendees. "No one likes to hear negative information," Torrey points out, "but we all know that sometimes such information can be the most helpful. I'll find who I need, but I just want don't want the people attending this conference to feel like they were bashed. There should be something useful."
6 Comments
I, unfortunately, have to agree with Ms. T’s perspectives on this and admit I am not surprised by her experience. In the past three years PhARMA has managed to erode the (relatively) quiet peace it had begun to enjoy with the public and with policy makers since the mid-1990’s. True, no one will ever extol unrequited love for this complex and invaluable industry, but that fact that the admiration of this sector, both as a respected business and science enterprise has eroded so far and so fast is distressing. The public- image safe harbor PhARMA and, to a certain extent BIO, were able to achieve after some bad years in the late-80’s and early 90’s as successful, well governed, well managed and science based industries that bring value to society is gone. Since PhARMA and BIO executives publicly began to manage their companies the way other hard-nosed, we-can-never-like-them-industries do they lost the tenuous perception of beneficence and social value that insulated them.
I also agree with Ms. T’s observation, and will reinforce it from personal experience, that this industry has also lost what little basis for collegial respect it had from physicians, pharmacists and nurses. These professionals are people and they too see only the hard-as-nails bottom-line-focused actions that get reported on by the press. The skepticism against industry even in its efforts to comply with new rules, regulations and attitudes about continuing professional education that were foisted on them is amazing to hear when you move as a former industry executive among colleagues in the trenches.
It will be had, harder than it was in prior environments, for pharmaceutical industry to recapture it safe-harbor. And that is a shame, because at its core these companies bring a lot of technologic good to people and have done this through decades of very difficult business environments. But industry must try to regain this high ground. Instead of stressing fiduciary responsibility, layoffs and cutbacks in professional support they need to bring the social good that they do to the fore and then do more of these sorts of things. It will be a tough row to hoe but pharmaceutical innovators need to do this with more vigor then ever before.
If they don’t they, or they are not successful in doing so, they, along with a fatally cynical public, may just cause the demise of a research intensive industry that has brought incalculable benefit to society and could bring incalculable benefit to our children and grandchildren.
Based on Harris Polls, the serious decline in public trust in pharma began in 1997 (with the advent of massive DTC advertising, among other things), and bottomed out in 2004. There have been some signs of come-back in the last couple of years, but they are tentative at best.
The industry itself has tried every public relations approach in the book to try to combat this. But that may be the point - it is so patently (so to speak) public relations. One of the smartest things I've read on this was from LaMattina, then at Pfizer. He suggested that the best strategy for the industry might simply be to shut up for a while. Otherwise, it only comes back as more pie in the face.
People are taking out their virtual baseball bats and swinging them at the industry.........
And this surprises her,...PLEASE!! She's a Marketing Consultant,not a Patient Advocate.
The Industry deliberately, with blatant disregard for human life,Withheld vital information, concerning the use of antidepressants in children and adolescents.They knew children were going to "DIE",and they didnt give a damn.......They were only concerned about PROFITS.
A little "HONESTY" and "FULL DISCLOSURE" can go a long way.. It could even improve consumer confidence...
This is coming from a marketing consultant???? When marketing folks in especially big pharma, and more specifically Pfizer, start lying about their products, how can they expect trust?????
Some good comments -- although a bit of clarification here...
I am no longer a marketing consultant -- my work has all been patient advocacy for quite awhile. I was contacted to participate in the Pharma Conference because of my work as a patient's advocate; in fact, the conference producers didn't know I'd ever worked in marketing until I told them.
Further -- when I did work in marketing, it was totally unrelated to pharma. My work was with small businesses and service industries. Pharma was not a world I knew anything about, except through my own experience. And my reasons for becoming a patient advocate were entirely unrelated to anything having to do with drugs.
All that said, it is no surprise to me that people want to swing their virtual baseball bats -- not at all. What IS a surprise to me is how difficult it is to find people with positive feedback. But then, in the world of advocacy I live in -- those who are satisfied aren't the ones who seek an advocate anyway.
Trisha Torrey EveryPatientsAdvocate.com/blog
"But then, in the world of advocacy I live in"
Its never a rosey pcture is it.....So why be prejudicial to the patient or their caregiver when seeking individuals for focus groups.
Why the Hypocricy?.......
I can understand why GSK would not want me to participate,but what is your excuse?....
An advocate, is an advocate. Once a Marketer,always a Marketer....