Pharma’s Digital Scorecard

“Well Pharmaco, we have just received your Report Scorecard from Thinking Pharma.”

“Thinking Pharma appears to have taken a keen interest in your ability to work in the digital communications domain.”

“Now Pharmaco, we understand that this scorecard is meant as an encouragement to excel.”

To enable you to rise ‘above the pack’.

To do a great job for those who should depend upon you.”

“As you know Pharmaco the Thinking Pharma’s Scorecard is not meant as a replacement for your monthly Organisational Scorecard which focuses upon providing a basis for the strategic vision you have for digital communication.”

“So, you aren’t going to find:

• Goals – Definitions of success
• Measures – Metrics to measure success
• Targets – Quantative outcomes we want to achieve
• Initiatives – Activities designed to realise those targets”

“Rather, Thinking Pharma have identified areas of Web 1.0 and 2.0 you are embracing, and that give you the opportunity to perform and realise the potential of the medium.”

(See Harte-Hanks for a more traditional approach)

“Pharma, let’s have a look at the Thinking Pharma Scorecard and review it’s implications before we see how well you performed in the Thinking Pharma League Table.”

“Pharmaco, draw your own conclusions!”……

Thinking Pharma’s Digital Communication Score Card for Pharmaco

Thinking Pharma’s Digital Communication Score Card for Pharmaco
#	ISSUE	SUMMARY	SCORE
1	Clear Target	o     Interestingly, some sites make their US consumer target clear, others don’t. o     Physician or Patient focussed – the distinction is blurred. Only useful for the ‘Expert Patient’ and ‘Worried Well’. o     Would a Physician really use this as a source of ‘Prescribing Information’? o     Pre or Post Diagnosis or Compliance Patients – little or no distinction.
2	Appropriate Objective	o     Focus is on telling patients about the treatment and relevant health education. o     In one case – confronting the brand competition and generics. o     Not empowering just “aggressively” sales orientated. Does this actually work?
3	Usefulness	o     Can I take this information and easily transfer it into everyday practices. o     Are we dealing with information or has it been converted to knowledge? o     The only examples are ‘Questions to ask your Physician’ & ‘Are you at Risk’ surveys.
4	Need Satisfaction	o     On a simplistic level there is recognition of need. o     A reminder of what the physician said at the consultation; and/or what you would find on the PIL. o     The only real need satisfied is that the information is all in one place.
5	Interactivity	o     Some good navigation, some very poor navigation. o     No Thoughtware or Content Interactivity.
6	POV Consideration	o     Only simplistic ‘Expert’ POV is used. o     The video testimonials are shallow attempts at a POV treatment of content. o     Nexium.net does acknowledge ‘Carers’.
7	Use of Models	o     No thought models could be discerned. o     Given the clear ‘selling’ agenda of the web sites this is perhaps surprising?
8	Media Choice	o       Good use of video for testimonials. o       A great deal of text that appears not to consider the reading age of the user. o       Animations and pictures could be much more extensively utilised. o       Sound?
9	Decision Making Frameworks	None.
10	Communication Tactics	Apart from the testimonials each of the sites adopted a somewhat authoritative telling approach. Just what is required?

11	Communication Engagement (Web 2.0)	Some examples such as ‘Tell us your story’ and ‘Questions to ask your Physician’ but little else.
12	A Story Worth Telling	As a visitor to one of these Pharmaco web sites would you recommend it? Did you think it was valuable? Did it empower? Did it create a ‘buzz’? “As a source of information - yes”. “But why would I tell others about the site?”
13	Stage of Life Consideration	None
14	Telling or Empowering	Telling. Telling. Telling. ‘Questions for Physicians’ and ‘At Risk Test’ are the only examples of empowerment.
15	Promotional	A number of sites had ‘Free Trials’ etc. Relevant only to the US market. Very Sales! “But we know ‘couponing’ works!” If I am already prescribed the treatment are there not more useful and empowering ‘freebies’?
16	Knowledge – ‘Can Do’	Questions for your Physician o       Well represented but not necessarily comprehensive. o       Questions are often slanted towards treatment reinforcing answers. o       The health management content is very shallow.
17	Layout & Usability	Some sites are good, given their sales orientation e.g. Lipitor. Some very poor e.g. Lovenox
18	Data Collection	o     Diovan asks you to register for their ‘BP Success Zone.’ Interestingly, additional information is available to Non-US patients and physicians. o     One of very few explicit examples. o     Has anyone heard of an appealing value-proposition which encourages information exchange?
19	Links & Associated Sites	There are examples of links to third-party bodies such as associations or societies. Hardly tapping into relevant digital conversations?
20	Re-Visit Potential	Would you come back to these web sites? If playing Trivial Pursuit - Yes. Apart from that – Unlikely.

The Thinking Pharma Scorecard is based upon the Top Five selling Pharma Brands in 2007. These brands come from the Top Five revenue earning Pharma companies.

http://pharmexec.findpharma.com/pharmexec/data/articlestandard//pharmexec/302008/531367/article.pdf

• Pfizer – Lipitor
• GlaxoSmithKline – Seretide/Advair
• Sanofi Aventis – Lovenox
• Novartis – Diovan
• Astra Zeneca – Nexium  

The Thinking Pharma Scoring System:

	Pharmaco embraces this concept very successfully
	Pharmaco is utilising this concept but its execution could be improved
	Pharmaco embraces the concept but could develop its utilisation
	Pharmaco show signs of embracing this concept
	Pharmaco shows no signs of embracing this concept

(Tomorrows Blog: The Pharma Digital Communications League Table)