The FDA, Facebook and Pharma. A lot of PF'n around!

Social Media is all the rage, unless you're in the pharmaceutical industry and waiting while the Food and Drug Administration figures out rules as to what Pharma can and can't post using Social Media.

Right now the FDA's policy is "Hurry up and wait" for a policy. There is a line, but it's a blurry one so Facebook at least, is trying to clear it up. 

Gnerally,  the pharmaceutical industry has been hesitant to get into Social Media, fearing that if they develop successful strategies using the medium, the FDA will come a long and change the rules after the game has started.

Some companies using Facebook want the ability to delete comments from their posts. Facebook says that's not the way it works. If you post, you live with the comments which could be good or bad. (Note to Pharma: Engage your critics)

Frankly, it's all very confusing. Pharma too often gets a bad rap, and Social Media would be a great way for for the industry to share its story, about the huge amounts of money it spends on research and the very lengthy clinical trials involved before a drug can even get to market. The industry jumps through more bureaucratic hoops than acrobats at cirque du soleil.

The best way to make people aware is to make them--aware. Meanwhile the FDA fiddles and faddles which leaves me flabbergasted. The Pew Internet & American Life Project reports that 8 out of 10 Americans go online for health information. Websites like our own client, Chemo101.com provide valuable and well researched information. Knowledge is empowerment.

Social Media is a great way to both educate and engage readers. It's way past time for the FDA to either lead or get out of the way.

Brian Olson
Founder/Consultant

Conversation Starters Public Relations

If you don't want to be quoted, don't say it.

Most of us have seen pictures of a ship launch. It's a grand affair. It starts with the smashing of a champagne bottle on the bow of the ship, then it gracefully slides down into the water and as it floats on that water we hear the sounds of applause. Everything goes according to plan.

Imagine however, if the ship just continued to slide into the water, then went under the water. It's what may have happened to the Newt Gingrich Presidential Campaign. It started out with fanfare, both traditional and social media announced the launch then the message that followed may have sunk the ship.

As Alexander Burns writes in Politico, the campaign is now fighting for its life.


Loose lips do indeed sink ships. It all started during an interview between Gingrich and David Gregory on NBC's "Meet the Press." Gingrich called his own party's Medicare reform plan "Radical." It was one of many gaffes and the response from his own party for both immediate and brutal as outlined in the Burns' Politico analysis. "Main Street" in key battle state Iowa didn't think much of it easier as seen in this video that went viral as the sharks circled the political waters. Gingrich broke Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment of politics.

I've talked before, and will talk now that it's not the communication pipeline that matters, but what you put into that pipeline. If the content is bad going in, it's even worse coming out. And as Burns points out, the campaign was caught flat-footed in trying to respond. No crisis management plan.

Whammy followed by whammy. Which makes it a double whammy.

The Gingrich campaign found out the hard way that bad news spreads at the speed of light these days. What's most surprising is they didn't seem to understand that going in.

Content dear friends. It's all about content. If your crisis management plan is back-pedaling, you only go backwards. If you don't want to be quoted, don't say it.

What you say can, and will be used against you. Over and over and over.....

Brian Olson
Founder/Consultant
Conversation Starters Public Relations

We trust, but still need to verify.

I have no doubt the Bin Laden is dead. I also don't care to see a picture of him with his head blown off. But I at least, want independent verification that he is indeed--dead.

By deciding not to release photographs of the body, the administration has made murky became murkier.A few Senators thought they'd seen real pictures which turned out to be fake. It can only get worse.

As one story said, there are no pictures but thousands of words. Herein lies the problem.

At the very least, why not invite a non-partisan panel of members of Congress and the media to look at the pictures and the DNA evidence?  They, alongside the President, could then speak to us and confirm everything and put the whole thing to rest.

There are conspiracy theorists, who regardless of what they see or won't see, still won't believe it. But after all we've gone through as a nation since 9-11, we need more from the administration that to take their word for it. By having independent observers in, we don't compromise security of any kind and no one needs to be allowed to take copies of the picture with them.

We've seen too often pictures of the planes flying into the twin towers. Every news story about the decision not to show pictures of a dead Bin Laden shows file pictures/video of Bin Laden when he was alive. So we keep on seeing Bin Laden over and over.

It's nice of the President to go to Ground Zero today. 

But in this case, trust comes up short. 99.9% isn't enough. 100% proof. Please.

Brian Olson

Conversation Starters Public Relations

How did you get THE news?

Like we did on 9-11, we'll remember where we were when we got the news of Bin Laden being killed. Unlike 9-11, the way we got the news was far different.

We actually got the word at our house in a decidedly analog way. We were watching a show via DVR and got a phone call about it from our daughter. We quickly switched to live TV, then pulled out our iPad and smartphone.

It turns out the story actually broke on Twitter as someone who was living near the Bin Laden compound start tweeting when he first heard the sounds of gunfire and helicopters.

The tweet heard 'round the world.

The speed and huge amount of posts on Facebook and Twitter was phenomenal. As the President's address was pushed back more and more, Social Media became the source for news with reporters posting even before their stories cleared traditional broadcast. I heard a report this morning that Twitter traffic about Bin Laden peaked at 3-thousand posts per second.

One network posting on Facebook confirming  Bin Laden's death had hundreds of "Likes" within seconds of being posted. A few minutes later the post had over 20-thousand.

The most telling proof of the power and speed of Social Media came from footage shown as people got the word at a baseball game.  Fans checking their phones got the news, and the word quickly spread. It must have been weird for the players on the field to understand why the" USA!" chants began.

Was there misinformation? Yes. But most of what was posted was solid and backed up when we heard the President's remarks. Through it all, we shared ideas, shared posts and spread the news just like we told friends about the attacks on 9-11. Although back then it was by phone and e-mail.

One constant are the images from both events. For me it was the video of the 2nd plane hitting the tower. Sunday night it was people gathered in front of the White House singing our national anthem.

But how we got the news 10 years ago versus now changed and empowered us. We were part of the conversation, we helped spread the news.

Brian Olson
Founder/Consultant

Conversation Starters Public Relations