Credibility? We don't need no credibility !

cred
A while back we conducted two days of research with people who have diabetes. The subject of credibility seemed to come up again and again when discussing their informational needs to help them decide on treatment options. It comes down to this: people want clear and concise information on the product, its side effects and want promotional information to be separated from medical information. (DUH!) Well as the battle over Avandia, and now Actos, intensifies some publications are theorizing that GSK may have manipulated data to meet marketing objectives. From an editorial in today's New York Times:

One disturbing possibility is that Glaxo has designed tests that have the effect of meeting the company’s marketing objectives while minimizing risks. The F.D.A. may have allowed itself to be outmaneuvered, approving designs that won’t fully answer key safety questions.

Can you blame them? What are people supposed to think about big pharma? What type of track record does the industry have? Which comes first, patients safety or profits?

This is going to have a broad range effect on DTC advertising. DTC may be effective in communicating brand awareness but pharma marketers had better start believing that consumers are going to do a LOT of research before deciding on treatment options. Even the credibility with HCP's is starting to get tarnished as news stories about physicians taking money from drug companies to promote or talk about their products become more frequent.

Still that are a lot of DTC marketers who will shrug their shoulders and continue with DTC programs as if nothing has changed. They won't acknowledge consumers increased power and knowledge due to the Internet...they won't bother to listen to what consumers are saying about their product on BLOGS, CHAT ROOMS, or VLOGS. To them it's all about pushing a message to a mass audience and not worrying about the ROI of campaigns. You see data can be manipulated in so many ways.
|