Would the TV crews turn out for a match between teams in the lower leagues?
Would the very serious daily expert analysis of the state of the game, by the ageing sporting warriors, bother to consider Pharmaco teams?
Thinking Pharma’s Scorecard for web based digital communications from the top five brands published by the top five revenue earning Pharmaco’s left many un-answered questions. (See Thinking Pharma – Scorecard Blog)
Pfizer’s Lipitor site was clearly the best of the uninspiring.
Novartis’s Diovan and AstraZeneca’s Nexium came in second.
Followed by Advair from GlaxoSmith Kline. The Seritide site, from GSK and the Lovenox site from Sanofi-Aventis raise the question –
“Why did they bother?”
Is the implication that digital communications, in particular Pharma brand web sites, have no valued role to play – ergo it’s not worth making the effort?
Or, is this a circular argument where brand sites don’t work because they represent little value and are therefore ignored by Pharma Clients?
And, we are only talking web sites.
What about digital communications in terms of technologies such as the new forms of videoconferencing or the opportunities presented by ‘realtime’ communications?
If brand sites are where the action isn’t - where is it?
Who’s responsible - the players, the coach, the team, the management or the governing body?
Can the status quo change?
Are the relatively minor brands from organisations in the lower revenue ……
Are the relatively minor brands, from organisations in the lower revenue earning pharmaceutical companies seizing the digital communications opportunity?
Sadly, a cursory glance suggests that this is not where the answer lies.
More and more and more text; lots of telling; and at worst - aggressive selling.
No reflection of need, engagement or empowerment.
Why? What is the answer? Where does the responsibility lie?
Once upon a time as the digital communication industry ‘expert’ on the selection panel for a significant, government sponsored, initiative I experienced an insight. Cultural institutions, art galleries, museums etc were asked to partner with digital agencies, to create communications product. Broadening accessibility to national treasures, a catalyst for the digital industry was the rationale.
The thirty or so ‘prizes’ were tantalisingly large. Many partnerships applied. Few, if any, exhibited an understanding of the opportunity the medium could create.
Irony - after an hour of explanation my fellow judges, public servants, politicians and academics, the digital thoughtware elite, Got It.
Presented with astute questions from my colleagues the digital industry response was: “We know what we are doing – just give us the money!”
Once upon less of a time, on a different continent, as ‘Chief Judge’ for a national digital communications awards program, physical violence was not far away when my judging peers agreed that if entries were not at least reflective of world-class norms then we should not award prizes.
Industry Reaction – “You can’t do that. Where’s our prizes. We paid to enter?”
Was there a theme?
Could it be that the agents that Pharma utilise in strategising, planning, creating, executing and deploying brand digital communications are still looking for the easy prizes?
Or are the media agencies just caught in the conundrum of: “No one pays for creative! No one listens to our advice! Pharma just aren’t interested! As long as we all ‘tick the box’ then…”
Where’s the problem? Where’s the solution? Where’s the leadership?
Where’s the THOUGHTWARE? Where’s the new game?
(Tomorrows Blog: Is Pharma Too Big for Digital Communications?)
Comments