Envisioning 2.0

Please note that a version of this post appeared on the blog HealthCareVox.

Early last month, I announced that I had launched a new initiative called the Path of the Blue Eye project.  It is designed to foster greater collaboration and knowledge sharing among people in the health marketing communications field.  It was a risky move, but it appears to be paying off.

We are still in the early days of the project, but I’m very pleased that nearly 200 people from companies and organizations like Johnson & Johnson, AIDS.gov, Novartis, Shire, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, OrganizedWisdom and Digitas have joined the movement via Facebook, Twitter and e-mail.

In addition, we launched a blog, titled Walking the Path, and invited people from across the health industry to contribute.  Once again, I have been delighted by the response.  In addition to myself, five well-regarded experts, including Jane Sarasohn-Kahn, David Harlow and Nedra Kline Weinreich, have agreed to develop content for the Weblog.

What does all of this activity suggest?  Well, it means that the Path of the Blue Eye project is getting stronger each day.  It’s real, serious and here to stay.

However, as I expected, it is taking a lot of work.  In addition to fulfilling my client responsibilities, we are building a collaboration hub and forging partnerships with a range of organizations.  Something’s got to give.  Today I’m announcing that as of this post I will no longer be writing Envisioning 2.0.

As you can imagine this was a difficult decision.  I started writing this blog in January 2006 when the health blogging world was a lot smaller than it is today.  I have been (and remain) hugely appreciative of all those who have diligently read, commented on and shared my content over the years.  You all played a big role in helping make Envisioning 2.0 what it is today.

Read the rest of this entry »

A few months ago, I mentioned an initiative that I’ve been working on that’s been stretching me to the limit and beyond.  Today, I’m pleased to announce that the Path of the Blue Eye project has been officially launched.

The goal of this initiative is to bring people working in health marketing communications together.  I’m trying to help to break down the silos that exist between industry sub-segments (e.g., PR, advertising, digital marketing) and geographic regions.

I’ve decided to launch the project a bit differently.  Once you go to the Website you’ll understand what I mean. Some may react negatively to the approach, while others will think it’s interesting. Whatever your reaction, know that  I believe so strongly in what I’m doing that I don’t mind literally going for broke in order to grab people’s attention and interest them in working together toward a common cause.

Together, we are stronger.  Not only will we be better prepared to serve our clients and others, but the general public will benefit as well.

I hope you decide to join me on this journey.  Learn more about my thinking on this project by visiting the official blog.

kmmad

This post is very much off topic, so feel free to skip it.  However, if you stick around, you might benefit from a very useful resource.

Early this year, I came across a very powerful manifesto written by Hugh MacLeod.  MacLeod produces those Gaping Void cartoons you seen all over the blogosphere, and perhaps in real life.  In the manifesto MacLeod wrote about what it takes to be truly creative: a lot of hard work and fear.  I’ve turned to this manifesto many times over the past six months.  Whenever I doubt myself or what I’m doing, I reread key passages.  It helps me stay grounded.

So, when I heard that MacLeod was writing a book based on the manifesto, my ears perked up.  Now, I wasn’t (and am still not) sure whether I’ll buy the book, as I’m not sure if it will be significantly different from the manifesto and his blog posts on the subject of creativity. I have to take time to read the sample blog chapters before I make my final decision.

However, if the book is anything like the manifesto or his blog posts, I’m sure you’ll get a lot out of it.  Check out the book (it’s on Amazon) and read the free chapters.  Even if you don’t decide to buy the book, be sure to read the manifesto.  MacLeod hits it right on the head.

Recently, the FDA launched a taskforce and blog designed to make the agency’s decisions more understandable and open to the public.

This is a good move.  The FDA has been under incredible fire in recent years around how it decides to approve drugs (Are politics rather than science influencing decisions?), how it regulates drug marketing, its advisory boards and other issues.

This is a great first step for the agency.  So, if you’re concerned about the FDA and want to help make it more transparent, go over to the blog and make your voice heard.

Story Source: Pharma Blog Review

In a scathing report, Consumers Union estimates that more than 1 million people have died over the last decade due to preventable medical harm.  The newly released report, To Err is Human — To Delay is Deadly,” suggests that since the Institute of Medicine’s influential 1999 report on medical errors, “98,000 people die each year needlessly because of preventable medical harm, including health
care-acquired infections. Ten years after To Err is Human, we have no national entity comprehensively tracking patient safety events or progress.”

While some hospitals have made great strides in the effort to reduce medical errors and the U.S. government has taken steps to limit reimbursement for preventable medical events, the nation still has a long way to go.  Consumers Union is recommending that we develop a nationsl system for tracking medical errors.  The organization suggests that concerns about malpractice lawsuits due to reports of medical harm may be overstated.

To learn more about the Consumer Union report, please click here.

Over the past few months people on both sides of the ideological divide have been debating whether comparative effectiveness – relying on clinical studies to determine whether a medical intervention is more effective than another – is appropriate and can help reduce rising health expenditures.

This week’s edition of the Health Wonk Review features an article by BNet’s Ken Terry in which he says both sides are being disingenuous.  Using the example of virtual colonoscopies he writes:

“[M]edical ‘advances’ of lesser value will continue to be advocated by those who profit from them. When, as a result of comparative effectiveness research, payers have to decide whether to cover a particular type of back operation that has not helped patients any more than conservative therapy, they will undoubtedly find themselves locked in a political fight with surgeons who stand to lose income if nobody can afford the procedure. So we should not expect too much from comparative effectiveness research, as it’s now conceived.”

Terry has a very interesting perspective on the comparative effectiveness question.  When a procedure or medication is less painful or provides a better quality of life should that be considered when deciding which one is worth paying for?  In addition, as I discussed a few weeks ago, will comparative effectiveness research be doomed from the outset if we continue to conduct studies that do not include people from varying racial and ethnic backgrounds?

Clearly, there are no simple answers to this debate.  However, we are clearly benefiting from having a broad conversation about the benefits, drawbacks and scope of comparative effectiveness research.

For many years, pharmaceutical companies and advertising agencies have been producing text advertisements that link to Websites promoting medications.  Generally, advertisers used what what was dubbed the “one click rule” – i.e., if information about the risks associated with a medication was included via a hyperlink, they would be fulfilling requirements to post information about prescription medication side effects.

No more.  Recently, the FDA issued 14 warning letters to various pharmaceutical companies demanding that they start including risk information in text advertisements.  According to the New York Times:

“When the Food and Drug Administration sent letters to 14 major pharmaceutical companies late last month, the warning was strong. The companies’ search advertisements — the short text ads that run beside Google results — had to start including risk information about each drug or else be rewritten or removed.”

Today, attendees at a panel with the FDA at the Direct to Consumer National Conference expressed disappointment (via Twitter) that the FDA was not more forthcoming about the warning letters.  In addition, Peter Pitts who is working for the Public Relations firm Porter Novelli said (in a comment he left on the Wall Street Journal blog):

“Guidance? What guidance? DDMAC letters should help companies understand what “in compliance” means. These letters do not. In fact, they make things more muddled. After all, “sponsored links” are by no means a new phenomenon.”

Ken Johnson, senior vice president at the industry trade group PhMRA had this to say: “Rather than regulate through warning letters, FDA could help patients and serve the public health by initiating a public dialogue and FDA guidance outlining clear standards.”

While industry executives are perplexed by the new warning letters, one can look at this situationa as a glass half full.  Demands on the FDA to issue clear and unabigious guidance on Internet and social media marketing will only increase.  I understand that people inside FDA are open to dialogue.  In my opinion it can’t happen fast enough.

Last week, on April 1 of all days, I received an e-mail from the Disinformation Company, a television, book and film production company about a new film it is releasing, titled: “Killer at Large.”  I get lots of pitches in my e-mail inbox, and generally ignore them, but this one caught my eye.  It seems that the producers of the documentary are arguing that obesity is as serious as terrorism.  From the release:

“When asked what the most pressing issue is in America today, former Surgeon General Richard Carmona responds: ‘Obesity, because obesity is a terror within. It is destroying our society from within and unless we do something about it, the magnitude of the dilemma will dwarf 9/11 or any other terrorist event that you can point out to me.’”

Clearly, using the terrorism angle is a good way to cut through the clutter.  As advertisers like to say: Carmona’s quote has stopping power.  However, while the strategy may capture people’s attention, will it turn people off to the very important message the documentary is trying to convey, that 75% of Americans may be obese within ten years?

As for me, I found the reference to 9/11 distasteful. What’s your take?  Is this pitch brilliant or distasteful?

Image Source: The Disinformation Company

Today, my e-mail box has been burning up with astounding news from the FDA regarding social media marketing.  In a press release, which is starting to be widely distributed online, the FDA is said to be developing draft guidance on social media marketing! First, my mouth fell open in shock.  Then I remembered what day today is, April 1.  Here’s the “release”:

“New FDA Draft Guidance Aims to Improve Health Information Obtained via ‘Social Media’ Websites

The Food and Drug Administration today issued a draft guidance document designed to improve communications to consumers and health care practitioners about health conditions and medical products that they obtain on ’social media’ Websites such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and online bulletin boards. The guidance is the result of FDA research and policy development, and was influenced by the success of the recent social media based peanut recall program (see http://tinyurl.com/d3lvag).”

This is a clever ploy by my fellow blogger John Mack of the Pharma Marketing Blog to drive traffic to his Website and get folks buzzing about the new “guidance.”

I took some time to call one of my contacts in the FDA’s media relations department today about this release, Rita Chappelle.  She is aware of every FDA release that crosses the wire.  She told me: “We have not issued any releases today.”  Check out the FDA’s newsroom to confirm her statement – as of 1:30 p.m., Eastern.

Also, careful examination of the “release” reveals that the telephone number listed regarding media contracts is incorrect.  In addition, FDA always provides specific contacts on all releases who can field media requests.  Finally, the FDA does not use TinyURL links in its official communications.

So, stop distributing this release to your colleagues.  You’ve been had.  April Fools!

I’m always on the look-out for interesting marketing campaigns using digital technology, especially mobile phones. This is why I was happy to come across a new mobile campaign launched by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America designed to augment the impact of their teen and parent-targeted anti-drug campaign.  According to Media Post:

“The pro bono effort uses banner ads from two ongoing interactive efforts–the teen-oriented “Check Yourself” and the parent-aimed “Time to Talk”–reformatted to work on mobile platforms. Once they are at the mobile WAP sites, parents can sign up to receive their first “talk tip” via text message, and teens can use the Check Yourself site to examine their relationship with drugs and alcohol and share the site with friends via text messaging.”

Because the campaign will run for three months, we can expect to receive information about it’s impact fairly soon.  To learn more about the campaign, please see this MediaPost article.