KISS MAH GRITS!

February 14th, 2012

Rx Entertainment: Paula Deen and diabetesSomewhere Anthony Bourdain is smiling, a vindicated man.  A recovered junkie and ex-smoker, the No Reservations host would not be a man to gloat about serious health consequences suffered as a result of hazardous self-inflicted behavior, but he must be gratified that the cosmos (and the blogosphere) finally got something right and corrected a misconception.

In my office, I am gagging, a disgusted woman.   A twenty year veteran in the PR trenches of the pharmaceutical industry, my mission in life is to find and match appropriate and credible celebrity spokespersons who suffer from health issues in real life with pharma products and medications that can cure or ameliorate them.  I’ve struggled with the decision to write about this topic since it has been fairly exhausted in the media but given celebrity/pharma endorsements are in fact, what I do all day, every day, I concluded I had to at least document my view for the record.

In all my years on this beat I have never seen a bungling of a celebrity campaign as the depraved Paula Deen roll-out for Victoza, Novo Nordisk’s diabetes drug, nor have I seen a bigger rat dropped at the feet of the pharma and PR industries as a result of this baleful and ill-timed partnership.

On the January 16 Today Show, Food Network star Paula Deen stumbled out of the Type 2 Diabetes closet three years after her diagnosis and then immediately revealed that she’d inked a deal with a “very reputable pharmaceutical company.”   The little ole coinkidink of the admission of Paula’s health status coming on the same day her wallet gained a few million pounds was not lost on the public.  The news caused a storm of controversy.   Outrage over Paula’s hypocrisy was fast and furious, especially from fellow diabetics, who criticized Deen, the patron saint of the deep fryer, for promoting the kind of fat-rich, sugar-loaded, carb-heavy diet that is associated with Type 2 Diabetes.   How could a person continue to advocate, through her highly successful cooking shows, the execution and consumption of recipes not just unhealthy to diabetics, but potentially deadly to them?  Skillet fried apple pie?  Cheesy ham and banana casserole?

Where’s the responsibility here, especially when you consider that there are lives at risk?  Or is the message ‘eat whatever you want and just take our drug and all your problems go away?’  How could Novo not anticipate the backlash created, and in my opinion easily anticipated, by this unholy alliance? And by the way, where was Novo’s PR agency that launched the campaign during this whole fiasco?  In a collective sugar coma after one of Paula’s home cooked meals?   There are times you just have to tell your client, “NO!  This is wrong.   It won’t work and we can’t get behind it.” Although I understand taking this position was probably difficult if not in point of fact impossible, since this same agency surely spent countless hours inscribing memos and gathering Q score data to sell their client on this idea in the first place!  Hats off to Paula’s long-suffering publicist who finally had the guts to walk away from a campaign she didn’t believe in.

My favorite sound bite from the campaign thus far came two days later on January 18, when Deen went on ABC’s The Chew.  When asked if she was compensated for her Victoza campaign, Deen replied, “Naturally I am being compensated, my children are being compensated, because we, like everybody else we have to work.”

Excuse me?

It has been reported that Deen made upwards of 24 million dollars in 2011 alone.   I can’t imagine that advising Paula to play the “I need to make a living card” was part of a campaign “message” track undoubtedly painstakingly developed and rehearsed by Novo, Deen, and their PR teams.   Amazingly, Deen goes on to say that the moment to reveal her condition was determined by her higher power (“in God’s time” is how she put it).   As Eric Webber writes in AdAge, “That’s a particularly cynical dodge.  As if Deen didn’t really have a say in the matter.   Since she made her announcement at the same time as revealing her endorsement deal, I guess God’s messenger came in the form of someone from diabetes drug maker Novo Nordisk bearing a lucrative contract.”

What was Novo thinking?

I make my living pairing celebrities and pharmaceutical companies. Yes, we’ve been under fire many times in the past but, all in all, the marriage between pharma and celebrity endorsements has settled comfortably into the media landscape as a mainstream strategy and effective marketing tool.   Until now.  The Paula Deen campaign for Novo may have just defined the moment that pharma celebrity endorsement campaigns “jumped the shark” and, in so doing, jeopardized our industry, celebrity credibility, and my livelihood!   I agree with Webber completely when he states, “It’s the kind of thing that gives our industry a black eye — the reputation that we’ll do anything, sell anything for money. Situations like this though, that smack too much of blatant opportunism, run the risk of eroding the confidence of spokespeople for any brand.”

I am sure Novo thought — or convinced themselves during endless internal meetings – that putting Deen’s two sons, Jamie and Bobby, along with their new book (and Cooking Channel TV show) “Not My Momma’s Meals,” out on the campaign trail would help spin Big Mama’s deal favorably but consumers are not stupid.  Since this story broke, rumor mills reports that even her sons tried to talk her out of signing on as the new Novo diabetes spokes model.  Of course these rumors started just days after we all learned that Deen’s publicist jumped ship as a result of her client’s bad decision. My cynical side tells me both Bobby and Jamie could be behind this latest batch of rumors as they too try to run for cover from this debacle.

Only time will tell how Novo Nordisk plans to reconcile the contradictory messages Paula Deen will be sending while whipping up her famous Brunch Burgers (a hamburger concoction with a patty, bacon and fried egg sandwiched between two glazed doughnuts) on the Food Network and serving as headline spokesperson for the Novo “Diabetes in a New Light” campaign.   Because if a public spokesperson’s public behavior doesn’t matter, why not just make a deal with the ghost of John Candy?

“Like” it or Not: Pharma Must Get Off the Sidelines and Embrace the Social Media Movement

June 21st, 2011

The social media sites Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have clearly established themselves as game-changing components in the way 21st Century consumers get information. So why does big Pharma continue to drag its feet when it comes to making a full-on commitment to utilize these sites as a global marketing tool?

Clearly, pharmaceutical manufacturers know the social media digital universe is important. Discussions weighing the pros and cons have been in heavy rotation in online articles, chat sessions, workshops and even conferences dedicated to this very topic over the last few years. But despite ongoing collateral encouragement to take advantage of these dynamic new media channels, Pharma’s steps have been logistically awkward and creatively unremarkable.

Sure, “vanity” pages exist on Facebook for this drug or that disease state. Companies now routinely distribute their video news release footage via YouTube and to its credit, Astra Zeneca did, in fact, host a first-of-its-kind Twitter conference in February 2011. But the conference was to put it kindly, a bit of a dud. Indeed the reason could be that the subject matter, “How to Raise Awareness about Helping Patients Save Money Through Prescription Savings Programs” probably bored everyone to tears and as a result AZ only increased its Twitter followng about 1%. But with dwindling pipelines and blockbuster products going off patent every few months, can Pharma really afford to cling to outdated traditional advertising and pr channels that simply don’t have the inter-generational reach or relevance of Facebook, Twitter or YouTube?

The interconnectivity of the internet is what users expect in all quarters of our economy. The traditional doctor patient relationship has not been replaced but it has been transformed by a patient’s ability to easily source medical information on the internet. Consumers are certainly more likely to trust an anonymous Tweeter or Facebook ‘poster’ who has experience with a medication than the FDA boilerplate that comes with a pharma advertisement or the tiresome brand websites that companies continue to pump out. To allow patients to share their wisdom via open commenting on a Facebook wall, even if some of them are revealing contra-indications, really is the way to “put the patient first.” A mantra that pharmaceutical brand teams have been “claiming” they have already been doing for decades — but do they really? On August 15, 2011 Pharma Facebook pages will lose the ability to control whether or not someone posts on a wall. This new policy will definitively force Pharma’s hand which I believe is a very good shift in the dialogue.

I understand the reluctance; there are legitimate concerns, expenses, and risks associated with an Rx product engaging in social media sites – controlling the brand, monitoring the site 24 hours a day, class action lawsuits, etc. But what’s being lost in the traditional cautiousness and regulatory fog of this industry sector are the huge pluses that will benefit not just the consumer but the manufacturer.

Pharma must throw attention and money at everything that is ‘said’ to ensure they are inoculated from medical malpractice, malfeasance, and false advertising. An in-house Dr. Killjoy would have to say “this is an off-label use or unfounded claim that GlaxoSmithKline in no way endorses or encourages.” A thorough cost-benefit analysis is the functional equivalent of opening Pandora’s Box. The actual value of social media to Pharma is as unproven as Pharma’s culpability or efficacy with regards to the drug’s page. Is it worth a manufacturer’s time to respond to everybody with a Twitter account? When @janedoe tweets “I took a Xanax and it made me hook up with a stranger and now I’m pregnant.” Or some crackpot commenting, “I just took Viagra and it made me cheat on my wife.” Rogue sites exist already, like gypsy cabs on the internet. They operate like little communities harnessing the collective knowledge of patients who have personally experienced a disease. Forming proper communities that create an atmosphere of empathy, support, and connectedness really is the way forward.

As it stands, Pharma is spending BILLIONS settling lawsuits for off-label drug use promotion and sexual discrimination in the workplace cases anyway – a little remedial number-crunching might suggest that a corporate resolution or two designed to curtail these high risk and mendacious shenanigans in the interest of reallocating monies for what is already clearly the most valuable global marketing of the future might be a savvy move to bust.

Yes, the social media frontier is mercurial and still changing – just because there are red flags today doesn’t mean Pharma shouldn’t be a part of the game as it evolves, instead of waiting for it to evolve in its’ favor. Pharma needs to step up to the plate and be its own agent for real change. I say, stop relying on disgruntled consumers on one hand and an anemic regulatory agency on the other. Design the trail, shape the dialogue and develop new legal tools and regulatory policies that will fashion the rules of your own engagement.

After Two Decades, Pharma Ads Need a Dose of Creativity

September 27th, 2010

Every now and then a commercial comes along that is so wildly creative, entertaining and successful in terms of branding (or even re-branding) a product that I find myself deep in the throes of ad envy.  Few would argue that the commercial for Old Spice body wash is just such an ad.  After its debut in this year’s Super Bowl, the Mustafa spot took the internet by storm, generating over 3 million hits on You Tube and simultaneously doubling sales for Old Spice.

So now, look at your typical pharma commercial, now back to Old Spice, now back to your pharma commercial, now back to Old Spice…

Why do the ad campaigns for over the counter products have all the fun?  Why can’t pharma commercials push the envelope of creativity?  Of course I am mindful of and indeed extremely sensitive to the challenges the pharma industry faces in order to market products that ameliorate painful ailments and combat serious illnesses direct to consumer.  (Obviously, it would be incredibly inappropriate to be farcical about a cancer medication.)   And in addition to the challenge of de-stigmatizing the condition, pharma ads need to communicate, in a benign and matter-of-fact manner, the availability of the drug.   They also have to market their message and product from Marin County to suburban Omaha, to different income levels and political persuasions.  Trying to offend no one is hard to do.

And then there’s the herculean hurdle that all claims made in pharma ads have to be vetted by the FDA.  The FDA rules governing the advertisement of pharma products are so strict that pharma manufacturers give seminars about what can and cannot be said in their ad campaigns.  Nothing can be claimed that has not been proven by clinical studies.   It’s heavy lifting that perfume or body wash commercials don’t have to tackle.  Old Spice is only claiming that if you use their product you (or your man) will smell differently that you already smell.  A few years ago, a birth control pill tried to tout certain beneficial side effects (clear skin) in the company got slapped for it.  It even took years for the FDA to allow Bayer to legitimately claim that a daily dose of aspirin may help prevent heart attacks.  So as pharma advertisers are already facing intense scrutiny from the FDA, why flirt with a higher level of oversight creative risk-taking might engender?

It’s been over twenty years since the FDA approved direct-to-consumer advertising, and to my mind, the ads all seem to follow the same super-cautious format.  Actors and actresses playing “regular” people are identified as sufferers of an affliction along with a pharmaceutical product that cures or controls it.  And then while a voiceover recites a laundry list of side effects (which may include but are not limited to hair loss, loss of libido, heart palpitations, skin eruptions, may cause hallucinations or erratic behavior, may lose taste for bitterness, etc.), the sufferers, now relieved of pain, are liberated to engage in pleasant banal activities such as hiking, scrapbook-making, window-shopping, meeting friends for lunch, etc.

The conventional wisdom seems to be that because the pharma marketing niche has to conduct itself with such regulated care and caution, anything quasi-provocative could be problematic with the FDA – a huge downside.  So where does that leave us?  With ads that are the metaphorical equivalent of airplane food – which is to say they’re not piquant, they’re not tangy, or tasty; they’re just there – exclusively for the people who have the condition.   At least the playing field is level for pharma ads.  Viagra’s direct competition, Cialis, doesn’t enjoy any more creative latitude.

Since there’s so little color advertisers can add to the palette, a surefire strategy to stand out in the crowded field of pharma campaigns is to use a celebrity.  Although the use of “real” patients has been the recent trend in DTC marketing for pharma companies, I don’t think these ads are very effective.  I still tune in when I see Claire Danes and or Sally Field.  Excitement generated by a celebrity is hard to quantify or measure but the amount of hits I get on my website for celebrity campaigns far outnumber hits for non-celebrity ads.   A celebrity brings their unspoken reputation and whatever prior association a viewer has with them.  A celebrity, even using the neutered language of the FDA requirements, gives a big bounce to the product – more than an unknown actor playing an unknown “real” person could ever deliver.  (A recent exception would be the fabulous Novalis ad that should win awards for casting and soundtrack).

Would Owen Wilson be more effective in an ad for Abilify than an unknown?  Absolutely.  Would Michael Douglas generate more interest in a medication than a real “real” person?  Of course.

We’ve seen some more bold moves in over the counter products like the Dove Men’s Care “Journey to Comfort” campaign or the Old Spice bodywash ads. I respectfully challenge the pharma industry to tug on the leash the FDA is holding with an iron fist and strain for every inch of creative ground it can.

And now this little piggy will cry “wee wee wee” all the way home.

Celebrity Endorsements In an Era of Sin and Redemption

August 4th, 2010

Rx Entertainment: Tiger Woods and celebrity endorsementsLast week, in my daily troll through the Sports Section (yes!) of HuffPo, my eyes ground to a halt at the headline “Tiger Woods & Kobe Bryant: America’s Favorite Sports Stars.” I have to say, even for my jaded peepers, this news item was somewhat a shocker. Perhaps even more shocking was how the non-stop coverage of Tiger Woods’ seemingly endless catalog of debauchery almost completely eradicated the memory that Kobe himself was accused of sexual assault at a Colorado spa six years ago. (Rob Lowe’s “scandal” seems so quaint now. What’s that compared to cheating on your pregnant wife and salacious text messages with a dozen or so female escorts?) And while these famous athletes with tarnished reputations remain at the top of the list, Harris Interactive, the market research firm that conducted the survey, went onto report that squeaky clean golfer Annika Sorenstam and figure skater Michelle Kwan dropped out of the top ten. What is going on? Rx Entertainment: Kobe Bryant and celebrity endorsement

One of the first punitive repercussions a celebrity experiences in the wake of a scandal is the loss of product endorsements. Tiger was dropped by almost everyone but Nike, and Kobe lost lucrative deals with McDonald’s and Coca-Cola, for whom he had been starring in Sprite commercials at the time of the spa incident. Today, Kobe Bryant has endorsement deals, Coca-Cola among them (for Vitamin Water), totaling $48 million. Have consumers collectively determined a “virtual” statute of limitations on amoral and/or criminal behavior as far as celebrities are concerned?

When it comes to product endorsement, a critical factor is the time horizon between sin and redemption. Pharma and healthcare companies tend to be more conservative than, say, Nike. In my experience, three years seems to be the average amount of time it takes for the public to “forget” about a scandal and embrace the new and improved celebrity. In 2007, an extremely popular male comedian on an Emmy-winning prime-time show was a considered positively toxic following his DUI arrest. Today, I am literally signing a contract for his upcoming pharma pr campaign.

No one would argue that Robert Downey, Jr.’s restoration into the public’s good graces is complete. Why? Because he did the work. He performed his way out of a paper bag. He didn’t just beg for forgiveness. He showed up on movie sets on time and delivered brilliantly. Over the course of a few years, he earned back the trust of studios that would soon employ him and restored their faith in his abilities. Further, his commitment to his own conversion was also apparent by what he didn’t do. He didn’t get busted for driving erratically with drugs in his pocket. And he didn’t deliver racist rants in between threats against his ex-girlfriend. Which brings us to Lindsay and Mel. In my opinion, one is rehabilitate-able. The other? Not so much.

Rx Entertainment: Lindsay Lohan and celebrity endorsementAll Lindsay Lohan has to do when she gets out of court-mandated rehab in three months is borrow Downey’s roadmap for redemption. Get sober. Do the work. And I would also recommend she get over whatever is compelling her to be an anemic blonde and go back to being a gorgeous, healthy, and brilliantly talented redhead with freckles. And although the public is a lot more lenient and willing to exonerate and pardon celebrities who flirt with tawdry behavior there are certain things that are still taboo. Racism, Mel Gibson, is one of them.

In my opinion, for better or worse, the public has become more forgiving of the flaws and moral lapses of our celebrities thanks, in part, to the very “gotcha” media coverage that exposes and then disseminates images and evidence of their unseemly deeds. Twenty years ago celebrities didn’t have to worry about nosy eyewitnesses with cell phone cameras. Today, if you’re Britney Spears and you want to dash out for Taco Bell and a Natty Light, you risk someone aiming their blackberry and in an instant your balding scalp and bad hair extensions are circumventing the globe at the speed of an electron. With this kind of over-saturation of celebrity coverage, the public has become, to a certain extent, blasé. I’m not saying scandals don’t matter. They do. But they seem to matter less, and definitely for less time.

The intersection of Madison and Vine can be tricky but flaws and moral lapses of celebrities actually make them more human, and hence, more relatable to consumers. The smart marketer knows this and should not run away from a celebrity’s human-ness. After all, they’re just like us. Isn’t that what we’re selling to the public?