Eyeforpharma | Andrew Tolve
Andrew Tolve investigates the value of the Internet as a pharma marketing
research medium
The mass emergence of online patient and physician communities has
fundamentally altered the market research landscape. Granted, traditional
methods of market research like in-person interviews, focus groups, and surveys
are still valid, but no longer are they the only way to gain insights into
patient and physician wants, needs, frustrations, and habits.
Want to know what patients don’t like about a competitor’s brand? Just find
a patient social community online and see what its members are griping about.
Want to figure out what would make physicians loyal to a new drug? Set up an
alert and track their chatter.
“We need to start understanding the value of the Internet as a research
medium,” says Brian Mondry, vice president of integrated strategies and digital
solutions at Kantar Health. “People are talking to people about diseases, drugs
and therapies. With the right Internet-based technologies, this conversation
can generate powerful insights for the offline world.”
Of course, pharma is already attuned to the rise of social media and its
impact on patients and physicians. However, Mondry contends that most pharma
companies today are primarily concerned in the quantitative aspect of the Web.
They want to know how much people are talking about their brands and what that
indicates about brand voice and brand share. With that, they can then zero in
on where the majority of conversation is and target those areas with online
media.
This approach overlooks the qualitative value of online communities, says
Mondry. “Patients and physicians aren’t just talking about brands,” says
Mondry. “They’re talking about unmet patient needs, access to drugs, and other
big topics that can help clients determine what pipeline drugs should be and
how they should position them once they come to market.” (For more on online
patient communities, see Special report: Pharma
and social media.)
Qualitative data
When patients or physicians participate in focus groups, they are naturally
aware of their participation. That is, they know they’re sitting in a room at a
table often behind a one-way mirror, and they know that they’re being paid to
be there. No matter the candor with which they answer questions, therefore,
it’s hard to argue that a focus group is a completely native environment. Indeed,
psychologists generally concur that setting, context, and the presence of
authority exert profound influences on behavior and notions of truth telling.
Online communities by contrast form organically and provide participants a
forum to contribute information in the absence of judgment or official
research. Rather, people are there to learn from each other, share experiences,
blow off steam, and form bonds. “This type of communication is raw and
unbiased,” says Mondry. “When it comes to qualitative data, this is the most
authentic you’re going to get.”
If companies want to steer online conversation toward specific talking
points and glean insights about particular topics, they can form online
research communities with virtual moderators. Those who join the communities
are incentivized, but Mondry believes that these communities are still more
natural than offline groups.
For one, online communities have the benefit of time. Often their
conversations unfold over the course of weeks or months or even a year, which
lends them more time to build comfort and probe their feelings on an array of
topics. “If you have more time to think about and engage with the issues, you
get a lot more in-depth feedback,” says Mondry. “Discussion also tends to be
iterative, which means people can add on and lead the conversation in
unexpected directions.”
Secondly, talking about disease and drugs is a sensitive matter, and
privacy is often paramount for a candid, open conversation. If participants are
in the comfort of their own homes participating when they feel like it, they
may be more likely to share their feelings.
Oftentimes moderators can recede into the background overtime, and patients
begin talking to patients just like in open social media platforms. “Members
become more immersed, and people who may be intimidated or uncomfortable in
focus groups or interviews have the chance to contribute more freely,” says
Mondry.
Social media monitoring
Despite the promise of social media monitoring and controlled online
forums, pharma has been reluctant to integrate Web 2.0 into its market research
practices. The lack of FDA oversight on pharma’s relationship with social media
helps color the conversation, with a particular concern focusing on adverse
event reporting. After all, it’s unclear what pharma is or is not obligated to
do if it comes across a report of an adverse event in a social media forum.
(For more on adverse event reporting, see Adherence Arena:
Overcoming the fear of adverse events.)
“Research goes to show that a fraction of one percent of social media
conversations mention adverse events or off label usage,” Mondry reminds, but
nonetheless it frames the debate.
A second concern specifically directed at social media monitoring is that
people on the Web are by and large anonymous. If researchers don’t know who
they are, it’s hard to guarantee that they’re representative of the overall
patient population.
In some respects, these concerns are warranted. Kantar Health has conducted
research that indicates that control groups are often less gung ho about a
concept than what Mondry calls “the vocal minority” would suggest online. As
with politics, those that are most passionate and sometimes radical can easily
frame a debate online, even if they are not representative of the moderate
majority.
“Sometimes with social media monitoring we end up hearing the vocal
minority, and it’s very important that you don’t devise an entire strategy
around an extreme,” says Mondry.
Mixing methodologies
Lack of FDA regulation, anonymity, and the vocal minority shouldn’t deter
companies from probing the Web for market research insights. Rather, it’s an
argument for mixing methodologies. Will straight up social media monitoring
provide a full overview of the market and comprehensive insights into all the
different issues that will determine a brand and its market placement? Probably
not.
But social media monitoring is still valuable. A vocal minority may
dominate conversation, but more moderate patients and physicians, even if
they’re not active contributors, still go to communities and use them as
sources of information and networking. “It’s important for clients to
understand what potential patients are being exposed to independent of
companies’ paid advertising and the messages they control,” says Mondry.
Additionallysome of the conversation is moderate, especially that which
relates to cost, which can be valuable for pricing insights. “Middle of the
road comments and conversations around cost can be very insightful,” says
Mondry.
But he’s quick to remind that it’s equally important to combine social
media monitoring with other forms of market research. “When you’re talking
about major business decisions during drug development, you never pursue a
standalone methodology,” he contends.
In-person interviews and focus groups can supply valuable insights, as can
controlled online communities. “In the end,” he says, “it’s about integrating
insights from each method with other datasets until you have a complete grasp
on the situation.”