As we come to the end of 2011, we also come to the end of our year-long Defining Moments series. Once a month, all this year, we’ve looked back at the biggest events from exactly 12 months prior, and noticed how we can relate what’s been changing our world to what we can do in our work. We’d love it if you were to check back over the series and let us know what you think:

January – Haiti earthquake

February – Tiger Woods scandal

March – Iceland volcano

April – Deepwater Horizon oil spill

May – United/Continental merger

June – vuvuzelas at the World Cup

July – Afghanistan Wikileaks documents

August – end of H1N1

September – Tyler Clementi’s death and the It Gets Better project

October – Chilean miner rescue

November – antimatter discovery

And now, December – when scientists announced that they had discovered arsenic-based life. What excited us about this story was not only its ground-breaking interest at the time, but the controversy that still swirls around it. It was startlingly important because, as New Scientist explained, “Until now, all known life has been built around… six major chemical elements: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulphur… which make up proteins, lipids and DNA. In all normal life forms, phosphorus is a major part of the backbone of the genetic material.”

Saying that an element that is not one of these six, and which is extremely toxic, could be swapped in – well, it sounded a bit like saying that gravity had an alternative, or that the sun didn’t have to rise in the east. Scientists last December were essentially implying that life could be completely foreign to the way we always imagined it – not on some other planet in some other galaxy, but right here on Earth.

Commentators were reduced to unscientific reactions in their surprise: comments like “really weird” and “shocking” showed the startling nature of the news.

However, nearly as soon as the study was published, it was met with vehement criticism. Some said it shouldn’t even have been published, as the science was done messily, with contaminants that could have given false results, or alternate explanations that were not addressed. The jury is out on whether arsenic-based life is as simple, and as groundbreaking, of a discovery as it first seemed.

However, this study and the reaction to it highlighted how social media is changing science. As the journal noted sniffily five months after the study’s publication, the debate was “finally being aired in the scientific literature rather than on blogs”. The implication was that peer-reviewed scientific journalism was worth notice, and commentary hastily posted on blogs wasn’t.

But isn’t there something to be said for scientific debate happening rapidly and publicly? Certainly, there’s no shortcut for thorough and accurate methods, for proper data analysis or for uninfluenced science.

But what if this study was on an anti-angiogenic molecule, instead of on a bacteria in a desolate lakebed? Would it be appropriate to react as this study’s lead author did, saying “We cannot indiscriminately wade into a media forum for debate at this time”? I would say no.

There’s an argument to be made that the biggest leap we need to take in science and medicine is one in timeliness. The academics themselves are saying that “Online scientific interaction outside the traditional journal space is becoming more and more important to academic communication.” The story of arsenic-based life showed us both the pros and cons of speeding the process up.

We’re glad you stuck with us for a year of Defining Moments. What would you choose for this year’s notable events?

by Krissy Goelz (@krisgoelz)

How do you market the new hotness – when it is neither new nor hot anymore?

It’s a pressing issue for pharmaceutical companies, which have become increasingly dependent on blockbuster drugs (the equivalent of tentpole movies in the film industry) for long-term financial performance and market share.

But in a world bound by patents and intellectual-property law, even the blockbuster drug most crucial to a pharmaceutical organization’s bottom line will, eventually, become subject to competition from generics.

We don’t know if that’s the approach that Pfizer took with Lipitor, but recent marketing for the drug has shown an increased focus on the trustworthiness and proven reliability of the brand, acknowledging that competitors will soon flood the market.

That will help, but it won’t be enough to salvage Lipitor’s dominant position as the cholesterol drug of choice – something Pfizer recognizes in its decision to lay off additional sales and administrative staff.

Lipitor is the highest-grossing drug of all time, worth more than $10 billion in revenue to Pfizer last year alone. What’s more, Pfizer has fairly recent history as a guide, and it isn’t pretty: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited took over the Zocor (another high-cholesterol treatment) helm when Merck Inc. lost its U.S. Zocor patent in 2006. By the end of 2007, Teva’s generic version of Zocor, called Simvastatin, - had cut Merck’s Zocor sales by 80 percent.

What’s a pharma marketer to do?

Understand that the long-term positioning for any drug’s life after patent expiration doesn’t start a year or even a few years before the patents expire: It starts on day one of the drug’s launch. Not every pharma product can enter mainstream awareness like Viagra, but every product can strive to sell trust and results, not just clinical benefits.

Bind users to a community or other resources, not just to the product. This strategy has made organizations like Weight Watchers clear leaders in their market segments, and many of the strategies they’ve used to create and sustain long-term affinity with their brands can be replicated for widely used drugs. Whether it’s an online community of peer support, deep resources for patients or a rich, engaging presence within social media, there are many fronts where pharma can make their tentpole brands bigger by making the drug itself a smaller part of the overall experience.

No one likes losing a sure thing, and that’s what the patent expiration of a blockbuster drug can mean. But with careful strategic planning, there can be a strong role for these established, strong brands in a competitive landscape as well.

by Krissy Goelz (@krisgoelz)

Anyone familiar with Discovery Channel’s hit show “Mythbusters” will know co-host Adam Savage’s catchphrase, “Failure is always an option.” As he explains, “It’s not just a joke, it’s actually the cornerstone of our approach to the scientific method. [...] Any result is a result.”

Science is used to the idea of “failure” not being a bad thing, but rather, simply a potential outcome of research. One of the first things you learn in science class is that an experiment that discovers the opposite of what you expected is not a failed experiment. As long as the experiment was conducted properly, the result – whether expected or unexpected – is the evidence of a successful completion.

However, most corporate executives do not see a failure with quite the same blase equanimity. They tend to look at it with a little more horror – and a lot more focus on what it has taken out of the annual budget. In the corporate world, failure tends to have a direct correlation with brakes being applied to a career trajectory. And when science is done – as it often is – within the bounds of a for-profit institution like a pharmaceutical company, those financial business realities tend to bleed over into the lofty ambitions of science. In some ways, it can be useful when scientists start thinking like businesspeople. But when it comes to experimentation, it can seriously limit their thinking and exploration. If you need to win all your bets, you’re going to make very safe ones.

A recent article in Pharmalot noted that Phase II clinical-trial failure rates are rising, with only about 18 percent of Phase II trials meeting their endpoints. The article itself is proof that failure, in pharma R&D at least, is no longer an option. Drug trials exist to prove the worth of their compounds – and “worth” is meant literally.

The mindset behind this way of thinking is obviously sensible and sound in many ways. However…

1. Is it possible for the industry to find a way to bring back more of the scientific openness to failure – and with it, the possibility of an increased number of great new discoveries?
2. A second, slightly more wishful question is, can we bring that scientific willingness to risk and experiment from R&D over to pharma marketing?

The fastest way to encourage innovation and risk is to take away the possibility of negative repercussions – to make failure okay. We need to create more opportunities – whether time-limited special events, geographic gatherings, online groups, or new ways of doing business altogether – that allow us all to fail forward.

By Dan Bobear (@dbobear)

Looking around the business landscape just a year or two ago, economic uncertainty lingered in the air. There was hesitancy as far as the eye can see. Whether the issue was hiring, funding a new initiative, putting money into product development or any one of countless other issues, the feeling from Wall Street to Main Street was something along the lines of let’s wait and see how this shakes out. These days, the outlook is much more positive, but as history has taught us, it will be another handful of years before we’re due for another economic crisis.

Companies cannot afford to stand still. Yes, waiting things out can be the right strategy – but make sure your team, department, division and even your whole business reach that decision through a thoughtful process, not a reflexive freeze. How can you maintain momentum even amid uncertainty? One way is by taking a rigorous approach to strategy.

Two steps are at the core of a vigorous strategy-development process, whether you’re trying to launch a new team initiative or a billion-dollar drug:

Rationally assess the level of uncertainty you’re dealing with. In 20/20 Foresight: Crafting Strategy in an Uncertain World, author Hugh Courtney notes that managers can approach uncertainty systematically. He lays out a four-part framework to help managers determine the level of uncertainty surrounding strategic decisions: In level one, there is a clear, single view of the future; in level two, a limited set of possible future outcomes, one of which will occur; in level three, a range of possible future outcomes; and in level four, a limitless range of possible future outcomes.

The bottom line: Risk and uncertainty always exist – even in a strong economic climate. What changes is our perception of those risks. For level one to three, conduct some bottom-up analysis to figure out market drivers, do some market research and uncover competitive intelligence prior to crafting a strategy. For level four, the increased ambiguity requires working backward from potential strategies to what you would have to believe about the future for those strategies to succeed. The classic example would be biotech – early-stage biotech investments have always faced level four uncertainty, because you’re playing with therapies with an ultimate commercial viability that is unknown.

If you’re developing a strategy, make sure your process works. In a world of perfect feedback, this wouldn’t even be an issue – you’d develop a strategy, execute it, and the results would tell you whether or not your planning process worked. Unfortunately, habit and inertia can be our constant companions, and sometimes that means processes that may have worked years ago continue to live on in conference rooms and thick memos, long after they’ve stopped being effective.

The recent recession has made some strategies obsolete and revealed weaknesses in others. This requires organizations to examine decisions and trade-offs they put off in boom years. How can organizations know if their strategy will be effective? The January 2011 McKinsey Quarterly outlines 10 tests to help executives assess the strength of their strategies. In the same report, a survey of 2,135 global executives indicates that few strategies pass more than three of the tests. One recommendation:  Don’t be afraid to kick the tires and test your strategy. This enables executives to identify gaps in thinking, open their minds to new ways to use strategy to create value as well as improve the strategy-development process itself.

Uncertainty isn’t new in business and, despite the sometimes overwhelming drumbeat of negative economic news, great products and strong markets can still mean a home run. But to find those products and markets through anything other than blind luck requires solid strategies – even if the decision coming out of that process is, for now, to wait and see.

This post continues our series on Generation Y and their relationship with their health. From challenges to epidemics, this series attempts to expose how these digital natives are managing health-related issues, both individually and together.

By Bob Mason (@BobMasonPalio)

Attracting the youth market is critical for protecting the future of most health care organizations. Getting a strong footing with these consumers as they grow over the decades can help increase loyalty, attract top talent and build a successful brand. Some social psychologists and culture watchers argue that the Millennial generation (individuals born 1980-2000) are different than any previous generation, claiming they’re self-absorbed and in need of instant gratification, a result of being tech-enabled practically since birth. While the access and availability to technology is certainly unprecedented, they’re really not all that different than previous generations.

Young adults demand instant gratification because they’re used to it. However, that doesn’t mean they’re overlooking research and doing due diligence when making a purchase decision. Like older adults, they’re going online or using their mobile device to get information prior to making decisions – they just were born expecting to be able to get that information when and where they want it.

For marketers, it’s a matter of understanding generational differences in online usage. For example, while the Boomers are more likely to be combing Web MD’s symptom checker, Millennials or Gen Y are using social media to learn from or share experiences. As with any market segment, success is contingent on understanding how they are using these technologies, how they like to be communicated with, what motivates them and then designing messages that are relevant, meaningful and resonate with their preferences and buying habits.

With the proliferation of mobile and online technologies, Millennials are embracing interactions through community-based technologies and new media.  Marketers need to keep pace with these preferences and adopt new technologies while creating an engaging customer experience. Because information is so accessible, marketers should trade hype for facts, be authentic and ensure they add value to the relationship.

Young adults in particular are embracing mobile technology, accessing online health-information on their phones. A recent Pew Internet & American Life Project survey of American adults finds that 85 percent of adults use a cell phone. Of cell phone owners:

• 29% of cell owners ages 18-29 have conducted searches on their phone to look up health or medical information and
• 15% of those ages 18-29 have software applications or “apps” on their phones that help them track or manage their health

However, just because this generation was practically born with technology in-hand, and are comfortable using mobile technologies, marketers should not discount the offline world. Like previous generations, young adults are likely to turn to a health professional, friend or family member when they have a health question. A Public Policy Polling survey finds more than five of every six Americans still turn to traditional lines of communication when they need specific health consultation from their own doctor. Even among Millennials (18 to 29 years old), only 21 percent said they would take advantage of an online forum if offered.

In other words, communicating with young adults is not solely about digital. To reach this group, Marketers need to embrace a multichannel marketing strategy and create compelling content and promotions. Some points to consider:

*Mom (and dad) knows best – The helicopter generation has taken heat for excessive parental involvement but from a marketing perspective, it’s important to note that Millennials are likely to find their parent’s advice credible. You’ve seen the cough medicine recommended by Dr. Mom? Marketers should not only target parents of Millennials, but consider capitalizing on history, praising therapeutic treatments trusted for generations and recommended by mom and dad.

*Learn the lexicon – If you want to attract younger consumers, it’s time to forgo stuffy corporate speak and converse in more age-appropriate tones. After all, this is the generation that thinks it can be educated in 140-character sound bites. You don’t need to get totally “rad” in text talk, but think about the language of youth and use it when communicating with this generation.

*Get smart about the smart phone – Blackberry devices, iPhones and Droids are in the hands of today’s Millennials and more health-information apps are coming prepackaged with these devices. As adoption increases, make sure your online content is smartphone ready.

*Hit the streets – Gen Y likes experiences, whether that’s through video simulations or real-world events. Design programs that tap into their senses and create stronger bonds with your brand. Don’t overlook contests and free offers that let them join in the excitement or try something new.

*Get social –Target websites such as YouTube, FaceBook, and Bebo – wherever young people congregate and socialize. If you want to reach the youth market, go where the people are playing.

The Millennials want it now, and it’s up to you to give it to them. The tell-a-friend generation is likely to be your best brand advocate if you get it right. Let your brand be its authentic self, and reach them through their preferred modes of communication.

Also, check out previous installments from this series:

The Healthcare Revolution
The Making of the Millennial Doctor
Dealing With Depression

Today’s guest blog post is by Casey Williams, the Associate Director of Health Sciences at iProspect. Since joining the firm in 2006, Casey has focused on the health sciences market. She is responsible for strengthening relationships with iProspect’s clients in this field, and cultivating and disseminating health industry knowledge within iProspect and across its client base in order to enhance their performance marketing initiatives. Prior to iProspect, Casey worked in marketing at a DNA sequencing biotech start-up, and interned at both a Fortune 1,000 pharmaceutical company and the National Institutes of Health. She graduated summa cum laude from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst with a Bachelor of Science degree in Psychology.

By Casey Williams (@iHealthSci)

Nowadays, we take search for granted. At least we do as users – but as marketers, sometimes it’s too easy to let search considerations fall by the wayside.

When a question arises over dinner about what exactly constitutes high blood pressure, the answer is easy. “Just Google it!” Our queries are so easily and immediately answered that we have learned to turn to search engines when we have questions.

This is true when more serious issues arise as well. A few summers ago, my boyfriend was very sick – fever, headache, vomiting, the works. I returned from a business trip to find him cranky, achy, and immobile on the couch. He pointed to a strange rash on his leg – and who did I turn to but Google (or “Dr. Google” as I call him in these situations) to diagnose him.

In this case, we were lucky. We found websites that indicated he may have Lyme disease – and after a midnight trip to the ER, it was confirmed by a blood test. His treatment began immediately, thanks in large part to “Dr. Google” and of course the “real” doctor he visited.

I’m not alone in my use of search to answer my health questions. There are approximately 212 million Americans online per month, 94 percent of whom perform searches as part of their activities (according to comScore research Jan-Feb 2010). Health is of major interest – 62 percent of those people online visited sites in the health category (comScore Oct 2010). And similar to me, they’re not just reading the information, they’re acting on it. Seventy six percent of people took an action as a result of health-related online research (comScore research Jan-Feb 2010).

You cannot afford to take your brand’s presence in search for granted. You want your medicine or service to be in front of the right audience when they are actively seeking it.  Most brands participate in paid search as part of their media buys. But over 70 percent of searchers click on organic search results. If your brand isn’t there, you’re missing out on a significant amount of traffic and branding!

Go to Google right now. Search on your brand name. Is your website in the top position  of the organic results? Where is your website (or the associated non-branded domain) when you search on your indication? Are you on page one of search results?

If you’re nowhere to be found on the first page of results ask yourself these questions:

1. Is my website technically accessible to the search engines? If you’re not sure, try running your site through a crawler program like Xenu.
2. Do I have content on my website using the exact terms that I just “tested” my website on? If not, when is my next planned website update so I can update the content?
3. Who is responsible for organic search visibility for my brand? Is it my IT department? The marketing team? The Agency of Record? Accountability is crucial for ongoing success.

If you have strong positioning in the organic search results based on these two tests, good for you! A few items for you to think about:

1. What is your site’s visibility in mobile search? It’s a fast growing access method with a small screen, making good visibility even more important.
2. Have you performed a content gap analysis to see where additional keyword opportunities may exist?
3. Are your paid search and organic search strategies integrated? For example, high-cost PPC keywords should be targeted in organic search. PPC ad positioning relative to organic search positioning can also be tested for maximum efficiency.

With some work, your website can be in front of consumers when they too are visiting “Dr. Google.”

The Defining Moments series looks back at the biggest events of 2010 to see what we can learn from them here at P&P, to work better in our calling, in 2011 and beyond.

By DJ Edgerton (@wiltonbound)

In May 2010, two of the biggest players in one of the biggest and most controversial industries joined forces. United Airlines and Continental Airlines merged, a $3.2 billion deal that had started and stopped for several years before finally coming to fruition, as the parties involved hope to save $1 billion a year. Since then, flight routes have changed, customer fees have changed, union agreements have been negotiated and re-negotiated. There has been a lot of change, and it’s gone a lot deeper than what to call the frequent-flyer program.

This lesson for pharma is one we’ve learned before, but one which can always be a useful reminder: Even the biggest can merge.

We’ve seen this over and over. Just last year alone, we saw it repeatedly, with the three great pairs of Merck and Schering-Plough, Pfizer and Wyeth, and Genentech and Roche. But would – could – any of the top ten pharmaceutical companies ever merge with each other? Many would say that it’s improbable at best, for a host of reasons, mainly related to finances and maneuverability.

But now, having seen two of the world’s largest airlines manage it – it looks a lot more reasonable.

J&J, Pfizer, Roche, GSK, Novartis, S-A, AZ, Abbott, Merck, Bayer: how would you combine them?

And, more to the point, once any two (or more) of them were to become one, what would happen then? Airline mergers are watched with fears over loss of competition, of course, but also with more industry-specific worries such as the prevention of strikes. The pharmaceutical industry would have the same general concerns about loss of competition in the marketplace for consumer prices, product choices, employee treatment and variability of the voices in the industry, but the main concern, I think, would be in drug-discovery pipelines.

Last month, all the fine folk at SoDA (the Society of Digital Agencies) and I pulled a prank on our industry peers by announcing the formation of Mutiny Worldwide, the global integration of 40 member agencies into the world’s largest digital agency network. We issued press releases. We promoted it one Twitter. And we had quite a bit of you fooled for a while there. But even though some of you clever cats called our bluff, at the very least, we got everyone thinking…what if? What if 40 of the world’s top digital agencies put our heads and our resources together to create one giant mega-agency?

There’s a lot of potential, but there’s also a lot of risk. Just because you have a lot more people working on the problem, if you haven’t done well before in separate groups, are you really going to do better just because you’re now together? I have to admit, I have my doubts. But a mega-merger like the one we’re imagining could lead to amazing, groundbreaking things. It could create a mega-research organization: a center of scientific excellence bigger, more well-equipped and better funded than anyplace that has ever existed.

Of course, the whole point of a merger is to save money, so you’d have to sell that to the shareholders first. But the idea of it is exciting, I have to say.

As is the idea of a mega-merger. Will it happen in 2011? I don’t know. But I can say this: it’s not unthinkable anymore.

This blog post is part of a crash-course series about the state of the healthcare industry, and the vital information that every pharma marketer needs to know.

By Rob Kempton (@manonthemooncon)

Social media is no longer the future – it’s here. Various stakeholders including patients, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, medical practitioners and others are finding their voice in the online conversation, each bringing different values and perspectives to the discussion.

In our ever more connected world, social media has changed expectations in how people receive and share information. Business and personal reputation can be built or destroyed online and as each of these groups reach out to a larger community, they share heightened responsibility as they engage in online conversations.

Let’s examine the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholder groups in the online conversation:

Patient: Today’s patient is much more involved in his or her treatment and the stigma of sickness and disease has dissipated, as people are willing to discuss their ailments online, either in open forums like Facebook or in closed communities. For example, patients can register on the Patients Like Me website and take part in discussions about their disease and treatment in a secure setting, exchanging insight and personal experiences. These patients realize the value of sharing medical information and how it can help others cope with chronic illnesses such as lupus, cancer, sclerosis etc. The message is “you’re not alone and there is a community who can help provide insight into treatments therapies and options”.

Patients who are most active and offer recommendations often have implied credibility, and they may influence how other patients manage their care. While patients can share medical knowledge, their value is mostly in providing emotional support. People who are engaged in social media and comfortable advocating for their own care can be inspirational to those who may be more passive on the social networks and when in the doctor’s office.

Patient advocacy groups are also playing a larger role in how drug research is funded and developed as well as influencing how biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies set research priorities. Recognizing that the squeaky wheel gets the oil, they are elevating the voice of the patient to drive more patient-centered health care.

Hospitals:  Hospitals are embracing social media to educate patients on health related topics, highlight staff, connect with their communities and expand the boundaries of communication. While some are simply monitoring conversations in the community, others are taking a thought leadership role and driving discussion.

Those that are generating content, whether that’s YouTube videos to highlight a procedure, technique or patient experience or creating forums that allow patients with certain conditions to connect with and support one another, are differentiating themselves in the often-crowded retail health care space, both creating better customer experiences for patients and driving additional brand awareness of their services.

But if the potential for hospitals is great, then so is the responsibility. Patients and loved ones may be indiscriminate in their use of social media to seek out medical answers – the facility that only checks its Twitter account once a week, for example, could find themselves accused – wrongly or not – of playing part in a tragedy if someone tweeted an emergency medical question and didn’t receive a timely response.

Because patients may view hospitals as the voice of authority, it’s prudent to establish social media policies as well as disclaimers that distinguish opinion from fact. Whether communication is initiated by a physician, staff member or as a general message from the institution, activity that happens through social channels should not be commercially-biased and should be factually accurate.

However, good communication requires more than disseminating factual information. Social media also demands active listening. By listening to patients, medical professionals and the community, organizations can support best practices, provide information of value and create an open environment for feedback and engagement.

Medical practitioners: Online doctors may be the future of health care as more doctors are interacting with patients and other medical professionals through websites, blogs, and closed portals and on social networks. Recognizing that social media and participating in the online conversation is gaining traction among health care workers, the American Medical Association has issued a new policy to address professionalism in the use of social media.

Part of a physician’s responsibility – both on and offline – includes respecting the boundaries of the doctor-patient relationship as well as adhering to standards of patient privacy. While physicians can help patients by sharing knowledge learned from their experiences with their entire patient population, they need to be particularly careful sharing this information online and ensure that any identifiable information is kept confidential. Because online conversations have a semblance of permanence, physicians need to be mindful of how and in what context they share information as well as monitor their online “brand” and ensure content attributed to them or posted by them is accurate and appropriate.

The American Medical Association takes this one step further to say not only do doctors need to be mindful of their own online activity, but should they see a college acting unprofessional or in violation of the standards, they should bring it to the attention of the individual or report the infraction to the appropriate authorities. This approach benefits all professionals and helps to maintain public trust in the medical profession.

Social media will continue to play a prominent role in how patients gather information and interact with the medical community. Medical professionals need to uphold professionals standards while fostering new ways to connect, collaborate and communicate with the communities they serve. Working together, these different groups can effectively interact and contribute to better quality health care for all.

This post is part of a series of point/counterpoint arguments proposed by different members of the Pixels & Pills staff. We’re strong believers that healthy arguments can yield the best solutions, and we hope that you enjoy our series. Feel free to add your own arguments in the comments section below!

By Jim Mittler, PhD (@jim_mittler)

In the information age, familiarity with medical knowledge, and being your own health care advocate is increasingly the norm. Empowered patients who understand their condition, are educated about treatment options, and are versed in medical terminology have more productive discussions with doctors and nurses and reduce the stress that often accompanies illness. Even those patients who aren’t ill but seeking to achieve optimal health are best served by being a strong advocate for their own health care.

Social media is leading this state of empowerment by increasing access to other patients, medical professionals, hospitals, and government agencies. According to a study by research company TNS, people who use a mobile device spend an average of 3.1 hours per week on social networks. While most people likely don’t start searching for health information until they suspect something is wrong or have a diagnosis, social media can support better decisions and influence treatment.

Patient bloggers who share their experiences can help people understand their disease and what treatment options might be most effective, as well as alternative therapies that have been successful. These patients share information about daily challenges of living with a disease and provide coping strategies that work for them. This enables newly diagnosed individuals to benefit from the blogger’s knowledge, and perhaps more importantly, allows the newly diagnosed individual to develop a personal network that can provide long-lasting support.

Social games also enable people to interact with others and raise their awareness about health-related issues. Obesity in children is a rising concern, but getting kids to understand how to make better food choices is often difficult. Web-based games such as Kaiser Permanente’s “The Incredible Adventures of the Amazing Food Detective” teaches children about healthy eating through a series of activities that helps them make smart food choices. Then, the game shuts itself off after 20 minutes to remind youngsters to get active.

Some physicians have also hopped on the social media bandwagon and are using the social networks not to necessarily dispense diagnostic information but to educate patients on healthy lifestyle alternatives, trends in medicine and current research findings, risks and warnings, and to answer questions that help guide people as to when to seek medical care. According to a new Manhattan Research survey online physicians reported spending eight hours online for professional purposes each week in 2010.

Social media enthusiasts such as Jeff Benabio, MD (@dermdoc), Mehmet Oz (@DrOz), Howard Luks (@hjluks) and Sara Stein, MD (@sarasteinmd) have created an engaging presence on both Twitter and Facebook, helping individuals broaden their knowledge for informed decision-making. Physicians are also using social media for peer-to-peer engagement and it is influencing how they practice medicine. Dr. Kevin Pho blogs about the day-to-day realities of health care and has created a forum where patients, malpractice lawyers, progressives, conservatives, and others can interact and gain exposure to differing perspectives. With more doctors interacting online, patients today have unprecedented access to medical expertise.

Government agencies and advocacy groups are also using social networks to update consumers on relevant health news and deliver health-awareness messages, reminders, and alerts to subscribers. For example, the American Cancer Society launched a social networking site for its Relay For Life efforts to communicate with participants who walk, donate, or volunteer. Beyond raising awareness, this has fostered a cohesive community where people can ask questions, learn more, and bond together.

By tapping into the social networks, patients can discover how to manage disease, navigate health care systems, provide support to others, and ensure they ask the right questions when it’s their turn in the doctor’s office. Good decisions require awareness, which is why social media is contributing to more savvy health care consumers.

Mike Keriakos, Co-Founder & President of Everyday Health, and Asaf Evenhaim, Co-Founder & CEO of Crossix, teamed up to measure the ROI of patient education centers and how the participants compare to the conversion rates of brand websites.