Today FierceBiotech came out with its annual Fierce 15 list of innovative life sciences companies. We're pleased to congratulate Schwartz client Cerulean Pharma, a leader in designing and developing tumor-targeted nanopharmaceuticals, on their inclusion on the list.
John Carroll, the publication's editor-in-chief, notes: "Making it today means actually meeting that unmet medical need, moving the dial on therapy in significant ways. Bold thinking, diligent progress and great science are key."
We're delighted that Cerulean's progress and promise are receiving recognition, but are almost as excited to see that seven of the 15 companies honored make their home in the Boston area. In addition to Cerulean, Blueprint Medicines, Epizyme, Forma Therapeutics, Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Selecta Biosciences and Tesaro were recognized. Surely, the work and ideas that companies like these contribute to the Boston biotech community are the reason that behemoths such as Pfizer and Novartis have chosen to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to increase their own local presence.
A good day for Cerulean, and a great day for Boston biotech.
Working with medical device, medical tech and pharma companies, social media is top of mind.
Healthcare marketers grapple with timing, resources, and understanding the appropriate/effective mix of social media tactics in a communications program. We counsel our clients all the time and field the questions: How much should we/can we engage? What should we post? Are we doing enough? What are your other clients doing? Some are understandably cautious and some are trailblazers.
There are plenty of ways for marketers to engage in social media initiatives today that align with your overall marketing goals. Schwartz Communications runs successful social media campaigns for our healthcare clients with business-impacting results and we'd be happy to help you.
Download our free social media eBook to learn best practices and guidance for social media. It includes the results of a survey we conducted with regional medical device trade association MassMEDIC to learn what healthcare marketers are doing or not doing with social media, as well as suggestions on how to navigate internal regulatory and legal waters. Find out which types of social media tools have been most effective for healthcare organizations and our seven basic tips for social media participation. You'll also get interesting perspective from David Harlow, lawyer and author of HealthBlawg.
Do you have questions about your own foray into social media? Do you have a social media policy or need help creating one? Get in touch with us at healthcare@schwartzcomm.com.
Spring has sprung and with it, so has O’Dwyer’s annual rankingof independent public relations firms across the industry. Once again, Schwartz Communications was named among the top 10 independent PR firms out of 152 firms nationwide. Additionally, Schwartz is ranked sixth among the top firms specializing in technology and healthcare respectively.
Schwartz is proud to be ranked and recognized by O’Dwyer’s Public Relations News, a leading public relations and marketing communications publication. In our 20th year of business, we continue to be inspired by our innovative clients in a number of markets from clean tech to life sciences, consumer technology, health IT to security. We design and execute traditional media, video, public affairs, social media and blog programs to drive influence and maximize impact.
Check out O’Dwyer’s Public Relations News for the complete list of rankings online. The rankings will also be published in the May print edition of O’Dwyer’s monthly magazine.
A core component of effective communication strategies for healthcare companies almost always involves identifying and promoting patient success stories. Drug, device, diagnostic or treatment, there is always greater success creating awareness when courageous patients step forward, willing to share their stories of triumph of how innovative medical technology helped them identify or conquer their medical challenges.
Dr. Chen’s recent story in the New York Times provides evidence that this methodology really works. Storytelling from one patient to another is an effective way to motivate people to get healthier:
“Now The Annals of Internal Medicine has published the results of a provocative new trial examining the effects of storytelling on patients with high blood pressure. And it appears that at least for one group of patients, listening to personal narratives helped control high blood pressure as effectively as the addition of more medications.”
Throughout my years in PR I have spoken to upwards of 100 patients facing all kinds of conditions including menorrhagia (excessive menstrual bleeding), obstructive sleep apnea, epilepsy, depression and several types of cancer. It has always amazed me at how willing these brave souls are to share their stories for only one reason: to help others who may benefit. On behalf of everyone living healthier lives because of this selfless act, thank you for sharing.
There are a zillion resources online where patients can read the personal stories of those going through similar medical challenges. For example, Accuray, the maker of the CyberKnife System, updates its website regularly with fresh stories of patients facing a variety of cancers as well as benign tumors. Another great source to check out is patientslikeme, an online community for people with life-changing conditions. Patients share their personal health data with one another so the information can be available to help the public-at-large.
The Schwartz Digital team has been busy as of late creating videos and podcasts for our healthcare clients. It's great that these services have been so well received--I personally think it's indicative of widespread understanding among the types of companies Schwartz represents that there's way more to telling a story than issuing a press release and getting covered in BioWorld or Medical Device Daily. (Not that we don't love and value those publications, because we certainly do.)
Here's a recent video for client Phytel that shows how a clinic is using the company's technology to deliver coordinated patient care.
I imagine one of the things that's really forced marketers to consider video is the fact that YouTube is the second most popular search engine in the US. It's safe to say that YouTube offers something for everyone, but built its reputation among consumers who were looking to be entertained, instructed or grossed out. By now, though, it seems that most companies have figured out that YouTube and other significant video sharing sites, like Vimeo, or even niche sites like TheDoctorsChannel, are in fact looked upon by their target customers as useful sources of information.
If you're the kind of person who appreciates numbers over anecdotal evidence, consult the 2009 Forbes/Google Report called "The Rise of the Digital C-Suite." It'll tell you that "text is king" when it comes to consumption of information by executives, "but online video is entering the C-suite's ranks." In fact, the report says, "27% of senior executives under the age of 50 cite web video as their preferred format for information gathering ...." [The report does note a generational split, with execs who are 50+ favoring text.]
So there's a general trend toward video. But how does it affect companies that mostly care to reach technical or scientific audiences? I suspect that video is going to be very interesting to them precisely because their stories can be so complex.
One thing Schwartz has always done with technical companies, stretching back to our first healthcare client 20 years ago, is help them translate their stories for consumption by a general audience. That ability is now, and always will be, I believe, a critical first step of any communications program.
But sometimes it really kills executives of science-driven companies to prepare their stories for relatively broad audiences. Not because they're unable to speak using terms that their mothers might understand; on the contrary, most are willing to lose the jargon when they need to. What obviously pains them is the thought of having to compress their stories to a few sentences in order to make them palatable to reporters, for example, while preserving the details that will catch the attention of the most knowledgeable audiences, such as other scientists or sophisticated investors.
I think video is a natural option for these companies because it can help them better project the things that make them unique--the researchers, the enthusiasm or images associated with their work--that they often lose, almost by necessity, in writing.
What do you think? Have you seen good examples of healthcare companies that don't market to patients or life sciences firms using video?
Say what you will about the effectiveness of conferences in the marketing mix--there are still a lot of shows that companies feel they have to attend in order to see and be seen. In the case of Schwartz client BioImagene, that conference is the annual meeting of the U.S. & Canadian Academy of Pathology (USCAP).
BioImagene is one of the companies that dominate USCAP and their PR team is working overtime to support the show presence. So it was nice for everyone to see a blog entry, "BioImagene PR Doing It The Apple Way," from New York-based pathology resident Karl Robstad, M.D.
Dr. Robstad offers, "In an industry that, at least in my opinion, lacks some of the excitement in spreading the word about their newest and best products/services, BioImagene is a real stand-out taking a page out of Apple’s handbook, by creating mystique and hype around product releases, and then following the hype up with grand spectacle unveilings."
He continues, "You can look at stuff like this and call them 'PR stunts' or whatever, but I think there is a certain amount of merit behind a good PR campaign."
We'd agree, Dr. Robstad, and thank you for noticing. It's all about generating the sort of visibility that makes the BioImagene sales team happy and that underscores how a company that was founded a few years ago is altering a century-old industry.
The BioImagene booth was hopping at USCAP last year. Here's to an even more successful 2010 event later this month.
This photo from euthman is covered by a Creative Commons license.
When you convene a group of leading healthcare journalists, in front of a room full of healthcare PR professionals, sometimes there's no telling what you might hear. Journalists and PR folk, especially healthcare PR agency specialists, have a bit of a love hate relationship. We both need each other, for different reasons of course, and in light of the different media world we live in today, it's more critical than ever that we best understand how we can help each other. As a PR practitioner, I'm most concerned with finding creative and impactful ways for my medical device, biotech and biopharmaceutical clients to get their message out to their key target audiences. The game has changed and in fact continues to change on what often seems like a minute-to-minute basis. OK, maybe I'm exaggerating but you get the point.
To that end, we prepared a special report with our takeaways from this session, thoughts on how the media environment is altering communications strategies and ideas on how healthcare companies can capture the right mix of influential mindshare. Is it shocking that healthcare journalists are busy (no), have fewer resources (no) and have less time to pursue feature-based stories (no)? How about the fact that several of the reporters we heard from have yet to jump on the social media bandwagon? Probably not shocking, but interesting, yes especially when the media organizations they write for are knee deep in trying to drive eyeballs to their respective Web sites via the multitude of social media tools and channels available. Check out the report and read on to uncover the good, bad and the ugly of what to expect in 2010. Feel free to opine on our blog with your thoughts and observations, we would love to hear from you.
Jim Weinrebe presented his perspective on the role social media is playing in crisis communications management for biotech, life science and pharmaceutical companies at the Publicity Club of New England's "Crisis Communications Preparedness" program held at Schwartz Communications.
Jim, along with his fellow panelists, weighed in on the need to plan, plan, and then plan some more as it's still at the root of any good crisis communications or reputation management plan for healthcare PR. Simply put, you can't be too careful, or too prepared in today's digital media age. It's not so much that many of the fundamentals have changed but that the SPEED, unbiquity of communication and new product applications in social media, with Google Sidewiki offered as just one recent example, have the potential to outpace the planning capabilities of some of even the most seasoned practitioners.
What's very different today in healthcare, according to Jim, is diminished ability of healthcare prescription product manufacturers to control, manage or even respond to messages that are swirling around them in the social media universe. With the prolific growth in use of Twitter, blogs, Facebook, YouTube, Flickr and other channels, social media content is not only broadly influencing people online, but also becoming a feeding ground for resource-constrained traditional media outlets that are constantly seeking audience generated content to embellish their reporting. The news vetting bar has never been set so low for provocative content that can get instantly posted and then picked up by influential traditional broadcast and print outlets in the blink of an eye.
While one of the fundamental rules for participation in social media is to actively listen, Jim also noted that even this basic aspect of social media etiquette poses difficult challenges for healthcare prescription product manufacturers, who could be accountable to the FDA for reporting instances of adverse events that have been identified through social media monitoring. It was noted that the industry is seeking clarity from the FDA on these and other issues related to social media, which could be at least partially forthcoming in pending public hearings on this topic in mid-November. Until such guidance is established, Weinrebe noted, prescription healthcare product manufacturer participation in social media will be very modest, and for the most part resembling more of a web 1.0 than a web 2.0 format. Meanwhile, Weinrebe said that social media has more potential to create or accelerate crisis for healthcare prescription product manufacturers. Exceptions in healthcare cited by Weinrebe were organizations like the Centers for Disease Control and American Red Cross, and even individual hospitals, who have employed sophisticated uses of social media to help effectively manage and communicate messages during public health emergencies and crises.
Jim noted that in regulated industries, such as healthcare and finance, there is still a lot of work to be done in educating senior management about the need to apply authenticity in tone to social media communications, even if the communications are nothing more than stand-by statements or simple acknowledgment that a problem has occurred. Jim counseled attendees to consider social media monitoring tools as a core part of an effective public relations strategy, while at the same noting that many healthcare product manufacturers need more guidance on adverse events reporting before even that approach can be robustly implemented.
While the healthcare industry waits with suspense for the outcomes of the FDA hearings on social media, Jim noted that clarity will not be achieved in the short term, that the deliberations will continue well into 2010 and that even by that point and beyond, a certain degree of ambiguity may still be desired by regulatory agencies as a means for cultivating preemptive manufacturer caution.
Last week, I had the opportunity to speak at a panel discussion at NortheasternUniversity, "It's Time To Brand Yourself" sponsored by the Boston Alumni Networking Exchange, the College of Professional Studies and the Communications Alumni Network. The discussion, moderated by Dr. Carl Zangerl, College of Professional Studies, Northeastern University, focused on a topic that's near and dear to all communications professionals - personal brand building.
I was joined by Michael Armini, vice president of marketing and communications at Northeastern University, Ted Chaloner, president of Chaloner Associates and Lauren Libitz, president of the Yankee Chapter of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC). It was a fantastic line-up and each panelist brought a unique and interesting perspective to the more than 70 attendees who showed up for the program. With terrific questions and comments from the studio audience, my fellow panelists and I opined on the current job outlook for communications and public relations professionals, the concept of personal branding, the importance of networking and the different social media tools available including Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook, to create and promote a personal brand.
Whether you are currently employed or on the hunt, establishing a personal brand is important and something that bears relevance and utility to both an employee and a job seeker. The whole idea of a personal brand certainly isn't new but with the advent and popularity of social media tools it's quickly become a key buzz word in a challenging economic environment. I think building a personal brand is very similar to building a brand, and a strategy, for a company. The same rules apply. All the tools in the world won't do you any good unless you have a clear, consistent and differentiating vision to communicate. Further, coming up with the vision is just the first part of the challenge, the second part is figuring out which social media tools to employ. There are so many out there and it's challenging to know which ones to dabble with but my recommendation is to try a few at a time. Start slow, get recommendations relevant to your industry and observe others before jumping in head first. And, just remember, keep your personal and professional brand separate !
Jim Weinrebe, executive vice president and leader in our healthcare public relations practice, will join several panelists on Monday, October 26 at Schwartz Communications for a Publicity Club of New England panel program to talk about crisis communications preparedness.
As much as we try to avoid them, crises are inevitable and usually strike at the most inopportune times. The emergence of social media alone has exponentially increased the urgency and need for being prepared. When the pressure is on, it is important to get the facts in order as quickly as possible before any public communication is disseminated and determine the key target audiences that need to be addressed. The pre-determined crisis communications team should be prepared to deliver relevant information in a timely and appropriate manner to minimize the rumor mill and restore order and/or confidence. It's absolutely critical to have a crisis communications team and protocol in place before an emergency or potentially controversial situation strikes.
Jim will be joined by several leading industry executives to discuss effective crisis communications protocol and offer insight into real world case study examples. More specifically, Jim will provide insight into managing a crisis in healthcare PR. Participants will walk away with an understanding of what works, and what doesn't, when under the gun and how to best prepare an effective crisis communications plan in a time of turmoil. To register for the program, please visit www.pubclub.org. Space is limited so please reserve your spot!
We spoke with Bjarte Reve, CEO of Oslo Cancer Cluster. The Norwegian cluster is a collaboration between pharma, biotech, research institutions and hospitals, patient groups and other organizations committed to making a difference for cancer patients.
Check out what Bjarte had to say about their initiative.
Lauren Arnold, Joe Pacheco, Jim Weinrebe, Jayme Maniatis and Kristina Ebenius at the Biotechnology Industry Association (BIO) annual conference in Atlanta. Welcome to booth 4715!
Attendance is down at this year’s international BIO conference and many of the clinical stage attendees are in a frantic race against their respective burn rates, but this event once again distinguishes itself as a forum where many of the industry’s best and brightest convene to be passionate about their science and its life changing potential, despite the formidable odds faced by so many. And while Big Pharma stalks the aisles and presentations looking for the next hidden gem that will restore luster to their aging portfolios, it is, once again, the little guys who really shine as the sources of innovation.
What has changed are the business models and pipeline strategies. They are far more practical in outlook and expectations than ever before. Projects of real scientific merit but commercially less within reach are being shelved in favor of more focused business strategies. With sharper focus on fewer projects, but ones with nearer term potential, these companies are operating with far more operating savvy that will help them weather the storm.
Big Pharma would be wise not to approach this as a buyer’s market. Even a biotech on the brink of running out of cash may have the cure that ails their portfolio. This is a more sober, more realistic partner match making environment where it is advisable to tread carefully.
At the recent Massachusetts Biotechnology Counsel annual meeting, there was a lot of talk about what it will take for the industry to “Make it in Massachusetts”—a nod to a famous gubernatorial campaign slogan during the era of the state’s massive technology boom. Today, the Boston walls once plastered with “Make it in Massachusetts” bumper stickers are covered up by Shepard Fairey graffiti and similarly, the DNA of the state’s economy has changed.
The technology companies that fueled the Massachusetts Miracle have been superseded by burgeoning biotechs like Biogen, EMD Serono and Genzyme. With its elite universities, leading research hospitals and strong venture community, the state’s biotechnology cluster has been an engine of growth, but like all industries, it faces considerable challenges in the face of recession. There are lessons to be learned here in our back yard that can be applied across the industry.
According to the Massachusetts Biotechnology Counsel 2015 Strategic Report, almost 50 percent of public biotech companies in the state risk running out of cash by the end of the year while one-half to one-third of private biotechs in Massachusetts will look to raise funds this year. A precarious position—particularly for early stage companies just bringing new innovations from the bench to industry.
I’m not smart enough to develop novel antibodies that could change the way we treat cancer like some of my clients, but I do have some thoughts on where biotechs—particularly clinical stage companies—can concentrate their communications efforts in this difficult environment. In this economy, securing financing, attracting partners and continuing R&D is more difficult yet more critical than ever. Whether your company is based in Massachusetts, Montreal or Munich, determining where to dedicate your communications resources in this environment can be daunting. Here are a few ideas:
Leverage your thought leaders—What do your internal and external key opinion leaders have to say about industry trends? Look for ways to strategically package their expertise to select media for thoughtful commentary.
Pick your PR battles—When you have constrained resources or budgets, it’s often better to maximize a specific event, like the release of data in a peer reviewed publication—than to spread your program too thin. Core audiences like media, analysts and potential partners would rather hear about one substantial piece of news than three pieces of fluff.
Don’t wait to communicate until you have a major announcement—Are your news and publication pipelines thin? Think about what issues your audiences care most about then focus your efforts there. It may be months before you have data or hard news to release, but don’t be afraid to capitalize on other industry milestones. Do you have a unique perspective about a newly released study or trend that is getting lots of attention? Let people know about it.
Maximize your exposure—Don’t stop communicating when you’ve captured the headlines. Are you distributing positive media coverage to investors and partners? If you have a company blog, are bloggers linking to media coverage of your company in the context of their posts? In today’s on-line, on-demand media world, stories still have value (some may argue more) after the paper or magazine hits the recycling bin.
The road ahead is challenging, to be sure, but those who communicate effectively during the down market will reap the benefits of being top of mind when recovery strikes.
Posted by Chris Stamm on April 29, 2009 at 8:54 AM
| TrackBack (0)
One of the more interesting recent medical stories to hit the mainstream media was the news that for the first time, the FDA has cleared the use of embryonic stem cells in human clinical trials. This particular trial will use a stem cell line developed by Geron, Inc. of Menlo Park, CA and will be implanted in people who have suffered acute spinal cord injury. As somebody who has actually seen the Geron-developed video of the stem cell’s affect on paralyzed mice walking and running after having been implanted with the Geron cells, the raw potential of the therapy is breathtaking. Of course, it will take many years of rigorous scientific testing in people to determine both safety and efficacy. This first small 10-patient trial however is an important first step.
What is curious and thought provoking about this news is its timing. The public debate over embryonic stem cells has been raging for many years now. Embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from embryos. Specifically from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro and then donated for research purposes, with the informed consent of the donors. The debate became a political ‘hot button’ issue when in 2001, the former Bush administration precluded public funding of additional stem cell research beyond 31 specific stem cell lines—ironically of which the Geron cell line was one. The Geron cell line was developed without public funding using instead the private capital markets. The public funding issue was largely perceived as a political gesture toward conservative supporters of President Bush as well as an extension of former President Bush’s own religious beliefs. To which of course, he is certainly entitled as are we all.
During the course of applying to the FDA for clearance of this trial, Geron submitted a 21,000 page Investigational New Drug (IND) application to the FDA, believed to be the largest and most thoroughly documented science that the FDA has reviewed in its history. The company says that the application detailed more than 24 separate animal studies of its product that established both safety and efficacy in animals. A lot of this scientific data had appeared in peer-reviewed publications over the years of development, including a study published seven years ago that showed efficacy in rats. As the FDA laboriously poured over the data during the years of the Bush Administration’s tenure, more people suffered from acute paralysis and investors bounced Geron’s stock up and down.
Then on January 21st, only ONE day after the Obama Administration took office, the FDA, suddenly and without warning, announced clearance of the Geron trial. While much of the news reporting on the clearance focused specifically on the scientific importance of the trial, a few intrepid reporters openly speculated that the change in the White House had immediate impact on FDA policy. This is a topic worthy of discussion. Was the timing simply a coincidence? Or did the Bush administration tacitly impose its own political and/or ethical views on the FDA? The job of the FDA is difficult. It must ensure that the safety of the public is held paramount and at the same time carefully guide new products and technologies through a process that allows new therapies to get to the marketplace after appropriate review. To add a layer of “politicization” to this process does not serve the public or the government. The science of medicine is after all transparent to personal belief or religious conviction—and politics.
