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 Krissy Goelz (@krisgoelz)

In The Godfather Part II, Michael Corleone lambasts a Mafia crime family member following an attempted hit on his life.

“In my home!” he rages. “In my bedroom, where my wife sleeps! Where my children come and play with their toys.”

Even in the mob, business doesn’t belong in personal quarters. The same is true for how professional communicators should handle their social media presence. If your business role requires you to participate in social media, you need to lock down your personal profile, tailor privacy settings and keep what you do on the off hours separate from your job.

In my father’s day it was easier to compartmentalize work. You left the office at 5 p.m. and your personal life was your own. In the digital age, segregating personal details from professional ones is harder, and it takes a great deal of diligence. But, it’s worth it if you want to build an image as a thought leader, trusted advisor or esteemed professional.

When participating in social media you have to enact the grandma rule. In the fields of Behavior and Psychology, this is known as the “Premack Principle.” What it means is conduct yourself properly and never post anything that you aren’t willing to shout from a rooftop or say in front of your grandmother. This is true of all social media users, but especially those who post on behalf of their organizations.

To borrow again from The Godfather, when participating in social media you also have to keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. There’s always danger of putting information into the wrong person’s hands – whether that’s competitive details, revealing personal health information or posting personal messages on Facebook during business hours. Even messages that are meant to be private sometimes find their way into the public arena. If you share too much of yourself, you may be surprised when it comes back to haunt you.

Blurring the lines between work and personal life can cost you reputation or financial damage. Just because you qualify something you post with the caveat “the views reflected are my own and not that of my employer” doesn’t mean that a reader is able to maintain that separation. In fact, the more the lines between work and leisure blur, the harder it is to separate our identities.

One way to manage a clean division is to use different platforms for different purposes. For example, keep business relationships and professional content on LinkedIn or Twitter. Use Facebook to connect with college roommates, neighborhood or childhood friends or other personal connections. If you want to use platforms like Facebook or Google+ for both purposes then make sure you create two profiles and work the privacy settings.

While you could argue that we’re all multidimensional human beings and everyone knows people have a work personality and an after-hours persona, there’s still no reason to mix them together.

We’re at work to work and do great things on behalf of our employers. How and when we socialize needs to be kept separate. Also, judiciously parsing information is never a bad thing. It’s good to keep a little mystery about yourself.

There’s no way to know how even the most inane things will be perceived by an outsider, whether it’s having a bad day or not being able to relate to your training for the New York City Marathon or sharing feelings about the NRA. Connecting with others online is critical, but as with anything, perception is reality. Shaping and controlling how you’re received requires a disciplined approach to managing your digital profile.

How are you handing your online presence?

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 Jason Brandt (@jasondmg3)

As Egon Spengler told us in “Ghostbusters”, “crossing the streams” was a horrific tactical error, one which would create a terrifying explosion of undreamed-of power and destruction. “Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light,” he explained.

That’s how a lot of people feel about mixing business and personal personas. Nothing comes of “crossing the streams” except chaos and disaster. Social-media professionals – those of us in the communications and marketing fields who work largely in social digital venues -cross the streams” between personal and business social networking at our peril, and that of our brand. As a result, some people, in representing their brand to the world, put on a brand hat so big that they hide underneath it completely.
In my opinion, all that gives you is a boring hat. I want a hat that’s walking around with a living, breathing, interesting person underneath it. This is what makes the company real: a warm fuzzy personal face. That’s the whole point of social media. It’s social. It has personality and feeling and humanity. If all I wanted to see was the brand hat, I’d go to Wikipedia or to your website.

There is, of course, inherent risk with the personal nature of social-media marketing. If you tie the online brand to one person, you risk losing your whole brand if that person leaves. Or, perhaps worse, if they disgrace themselves somehow, they take the brand down with them.

That simply reinforces why it must be done astutely. Social media is a delicate mix of informal conversation and careful consideration. Deliberation and silliness are never a more necessary couple than when trying to conduct yourself in social channels. Your brand is represented by a person, but your brand isn’t just one person.

One great example of this? Tony Hsieh. He is the Zappos dude, but Zappos’ culture and customer service is bigger than him.

One example to watch? Apple. Is their drive and idealism and vision the company’s, or did that die with Steve Jobs? The next few years will tell us.

To return to the “Ghostbusters” metaphor, do you remember what happened at the end of the movie? (If for some awful reason you haven’t seen this cinema classic, I’ll wait here while you go and do that now.)

The state of affairs had gotten desperate. The old ways weren’t working. People had made mistakes. Nothing they were trying was stopping things from getting worse. As a last resort, they crossed the streams. This new way of doing things, taking their individual energy and combining it in this new and scary way, was finally enough to save the day.

Should you take all your life lessons and business acumen from Ray, Winston, Egon and Dr. Peter Venkman? Well, maybe not. (Although, if someone asks if you’re a god? Say yes.) But in this case – go ahead. Cross the streams. Dare to be yourself as well as your brand.

by Briana Campbell (@MsMatchGirl)

By now, you’ve all had time to review the FDA’s draft guidance on Responding to Unsolicited Requests for Off-Label Information About Prescription Drugs and Medical Devices. And you’ve had time to read the multitude of responses that came after (if you didn’t, Fabio Gratton has compiled many of them for you). And, as this is something we’ve been talking about for over two years now, you’ve probably been waiting for our response.

We were disappointed in Advertising Age’s write up calling this Social Media “Guidelines.” While this draft guidance should clear some things up for pharmaceutical companies surrounding responding to unsolicited off-label inquiries via electronic media, without being the definitive guidelines that we’ve been waiting for since 2009 (head’s up, those are not coming anytime soon, if at all), it should be used as just that – a guide. We’re not lawyers (we’ll be getting you insight from one ASAP!), but we’d guess that keeping social media responses in line with these guidelines should keep pharma companies out of hot water for at least the near future.

As recently as December 2011, we posted a piece, “Shoot First, Apologize Later: Why Pharma Needs to Proceed Without Social Media Guidelines,” that offered up the idea that, with a bit of thoughtfulness behind it, pharma could easily embrace social media platforms, not only for the benefit of their own brands, but the patients that are searching the social web for answers.

Companies that want to change, lead or influence need to take calculated risks and proceed even without formal guidelines. Often, a permissible approach results in delays, obstacles and stagnation. For companies waiting for permission, by the time they get it, it’ll be too late. Someone else will lead the pack and they’ll again be reduced to playing catch up.

That doesn’t mean to proceed without caution and strategic foresight, but it does mean the time to act is now – not at some undetermined point in the future. Consider how the U.S. Navy has embraced social media for recruiting. Realizing that conversations are happening online, with or without guidelines, they chose to not fight it and instead promote social media usage throughout the ranks.

There are loads of heavily regulated industries joining in online. Why shouldn’t pharma be amongst them?

In lines 338 through 351 (on page 10) of the draft guidance, the FDA lays out some of the thought behind the draft guidance release, writing that “the Internet has revolutionized communication” and that it has “spawned a variety of social media tools that host online content primarily created and published by users other than the intellectual property owner or product manufacturer.” Given the nature of online communities and the public’s growing reliance on the social web to gather information about their personal healthcare via internet communities, web pages, social platforms and discussion groups, it makes sense that the FDA should offer some thoughts on how their already stated policies for responding to off-label inquiries (first laid out in 1982, and restated many times after) can be applied to trends in emerging electronic media. From lines 207 through 209: “This draft guidance sets forth FDA’s current thinking on this topic consistent with Agency’s past policy statements about responding to unsolicited requests.”

Many have mentioned, and we agree, that the language, as laid out in this draft guidance, seems a bit confusing. Our friend Jonathan Richman at Dose of Digital has you covered, with a handy flow chart explaining what pharma can and cannot do in responding to these requests. We’d recommend printing it out and hanging it eye-level, for easy reference.

The internet, web sites and the social web as we know them are constantly changing, evolving and growing. This draft guidance, while maybe not the set-in-stone policy so many marketers and the pharma companies they work with – so many of whom are terrified to dip a toe in the water of social media, for fear of drowning in misunderstood or mis-handled regulations and red-tape – were hoping for, are a nice step forward in clarifying how pharma can respond to inquiries, public and private, via the web.

So. Next steps?

Let’s keep moving. Let’s keep innovating, building, growing and pushing forward as the social web continues to do the same. With an eye to this guidance, and some strategic thinking before jumping on the bandwagon, there is no reason that pharma companies can’t join finance and insurance in finding out the all the good that can happen from participating in social media.

We say, listen to the conversation, develop a plan around it and go forth. Stop running scared. Be smart and you’ll be okay.

by DJ Edgerton (@wiltonbound)

The question seems almost nonsensical at first – your Twitter followers may be really outstanding people, but they’re not organic chemists or researchers. And your Facebook fans, while devoted, probably do not, generally speaking, know how to move a new drug through the FDA approval process.

Just the same, it’s a mistake to discount your social audiences as a source for insight and innovation. In fact, a wide range of category-leading companies do just that. While social media is not as planned or controlled as a focus group, there’s potential in polling the audience when it comes to research and development – and along the way you can even benefit the very people you’re polling.

Doing it right requires a three-step plan:

Understand what you want to accomplish. In this regard, social media is no different than traditional R&D research: Don’t ask existing or potential customers anything without a clear purpose behind “the ask.” What do you want to accomplish? Are you looking for feedback on a service (such as when consumers call into the customer care center) or improvement on a product or direction for a new advertising campaign? What about new products: Are you exploring the potential for one or looking at whether your customers have a need for a product that you have not thought of?

A solid roadmap will have goals covering what you hope to accomplish and clear indications of which social channels are – and are not – appropriate. Need to demo a product? You Tube makes sense. On the other hand, Twitter may be a better fit for simple questions requiring quick feedback. And tools like custom Facebook apps offer ways to bring customers and fans into the content creation process.

Be relevant in your questions and rigorous in your data collection. A solid roadmap lays out needs and expectations, but even the best plans can go astray if your research questions don’t balance your needs with the realities of social media, which often boil down to: Don’t be boring.

Tweets sending people to a 50-question survey or requests that Facebook followers sit through six sample commercials in search of the one they like best are unlikely to go anywhere. Instead, keep things short, clear and – most importantly – be ready to monitor and take feedback from the conversations that grow out of your public questions. They can be the source of tremendous insight.

Crunch the data and don’t leave the audience in the dark. One of the unique aspects of social media is that a lot of silos get knocked down – people have a great (and sometimes unreasonable) desire to peek behind the corporate curtain and know what’s going on. This is a powerful force and can jump-start your social-driven research – people love to be treated like insiders, and promising to give them a first peek at a new innovation, a new campaign or even just a slight change in how your company does something will motivate participation in your research.

The key is: You have to deliver on your promise. If you tell participants you’re working on a new way to talk about an established product and want their input, give them a peek before it’s rolled out to the public. Not doing so is bad form in the social landscape; promising to do it and then not delivering is an even bigger faux pas.

Whether it’s a one-drug boutique company or a global powerhouse, research and development is a constant part of pharma’s product and service lifecycles. While social media isn’t a substitute for formalized marketing research, it can be a powerful, low-cost augmentation to the toolbox.

by Briana Campbell (@MsMatchGirl)

People like to make out that the issues surrounding pharma’s involvement with social media are extraordinarily complex. I’m not so sure.

It’s over-simplistic – but still true – to say that the main worry with digital media for the pharmaceutical industry is the interactivity of social networks. You see, I don’t think it’s the rapidity of the connection that worries regulators and marketers, or the availability of information – not by themselves. It’s the ability to use that speed and access to share the information.

People are scared of the ability to share.

On one level, it makes sense. Disgruntled employees can raise embittered grievances. Dissatisfied customers can complain. Discontented partners can spread untruths. None of this is fact-checked or vetted or permitted – it simply happens. And, human nature being what it is, the old adage that the unhappy ones are twice as motivated to tell people can be true. That’s frightening.

Marketers and regulators fear unhappy people sharing.

This is natural, but it is, I think, the mistake. We shouldn’t fear bad news. We should welcome it, because hearing about it first, and fast, allows us to address it.

To this end, some regulators are considering recruiting social media as a channel for collecting adverse-event reports. The UK’s Medicine and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) joined the European Medicines Agency, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry and the U.S. FDA in starting a Twitter feed in December, and pondered its utility as a reporting channel in September.

Pharma is used to assuming that social media is a flood of bad news that we’re holding back. To continue the metaphor, what if we started to see social media as a spout that would alert us to the leak?

Regulators and companies would know about adverse events sooner, and their relationship with each other would be more transparent. Patients and healthcare providers could report more easily. Marketers could address potential problems faster.

All of this information is already being collected. And it’s already being made public. And it has been for almost 50 years. Is this really such a groundbreaking step, as we’re so conditioned to think? Or in adding social media reporting, would we simply be updating the type of form that a patient fills out, just as we added them to websites a decade or two ago?

Perhaps social media is not really the problem we think it is, opening us up to people saying goodness-knows-what. Perhaps it’s a solution, in a wider and busier world, to gather patient data more efficiently than we could otherwise.

As we keep talking (and talking and talking) about and waiting (and waiting and waiting) for FDA Guidelines for social media usage, we thought it would be fun to visit this video, from nearly two years ago.

Do you remember this time? Are you still waiting for guidance or are you pushing the boundaries without it?

by Krissy Goelz (@krisgoelz)

Recently, we were asked what we thought about how Google+ could affect healthcare, by someone who had read an Xconomy post on the same question.

So, does this newest, mega-hyped social network have the potential to really transform the industry? As you’ve seen with our many point/counterpoint articles, we like to pick up an issue and look at it from all different sides. And certainly this question has a few possible answers. Let’s look at them.

“Yes! Google+ is already transforming healthcare.”

Like the rest of Google+, it’s getting there, just maybe a little more slowly than we expected. As one piece of evidence, just look at this list (curated by Ed Bennett of the University of Maryland Medical Center) of hospitals on Google+. (You probably know Ed from his encyclopedic and invaluable Hospital Social Network List.) It’s not huge, but it’s a sign. Hospitals realize that they need to find new ways of communicating and advertising in order to survive in an ever more competitive. They haven’t historically been known for being cutting-edge in social media, so you could argue that their presence on Google+ is a sign that it’s gaining mainstream acceptance.

The main way in which Google+ could change healthcare, or any industry, is in its revolutionizing the concept of sharing. Thanks to Google+, sharing is no longer an all-or-nothing proposition. And that, friends, is what will change the game. You don’t want everyone you know to be privy to your health history – you want that information available only to a very select group of people, who can only do very select types of things with your data. A year ago, social networking didn’t offer that ability. Today, thanks to Google+, it’s not only feasible, but extant.

“No! Google+ won’t have much effect on healthcare at all.”

On the other hand, it’s not likely, the skeptics say, that Google+ could transform an industry when it can barely transform itself into a social network. This is mostly a reaction borne of the disappointment people feel. The network arrived like a cannon blast, but has since fallen to more like kazoo-level excitement. Some pessimists say it’s never going to rise above that level. A social network does need a good structure, but it also needs the user-supplied content to succeed. Without that, it’s just a skeleton. So with people not using Google+… well, if it falls in the forest, will anyone care?

“Maybe? Google+ could matter to healthcare… or it could not.”

The potential effect of Google+ on healthcare depends upon the long-term health of Google+. Thus far, reports of its death, like Mark Twain’s, have been greatly exaggerated. Don’t forget that Facebook didn’t come out of nowhere; it’s just that when anything hits its tipping point, it seems to. Perhaps Google+ will come to nothing, and then, obviously, it won’t change healthcare. But what if its biggest rival, Facebook, does put a foot wrong, and Google+ seizes the opportunity? Then, it may change our social networking, our relation to friends and family, and, certainly, it could also change our healthcare.

Bottom line? It’s too soon to know… but it might not be Google+ who does it.

I can’t in good conscience be as optimistic as Rich Whalley and Steve Dickman, the authors ofthe original post that brought up this topic. They seem to believe pretty wholeheartedly that Google+ is changing the healthcare game. But while the geeks (and I count myself among them) were all thrilled about Google+, in the months since its launch, it’s fallen fallow – and I don’t know for sure if it can come back.

However, what does intrigue me was something our friend Jon Richman had to say recently about the new Facebook Timeline – and, in particular, the new ability to add “health and wellness” updates. Here’s a bit of what he had to say:

They even suggest a few to get you started (“Broke a Bone”, “Had a Surgery”, “Overcame an Illness”). However, you can put in anything you want here. One of the big reasons why people don’t share health information publicly, including Facebook, is because they don’t see others doing it. It’s not the norm. Well, sharing your location wasn’t the norm a few years ago, but people started doing it via “checkins” and now it’s pretty common among a large percentage of people. The question is whether this will extend to sharing health information.

My prediction is that it will. Not today or tomorrow, but in the near future. The tipping point will be when people start noticing some benefit for sharing this information. There really isn’t much incentive now. However, if you knew that you’d get better care by sharing this information, you probably would.

That, to me, is the crux of the matter. When we can use social networks to help patients help themselves faster and better than they could be cared for otherwise – that’s the transformation, the tipping point, the revolution.

So what do you think? Is Google+ going to revolutionize healthcare? Is Facebook? Do social networks have this capability at all? And if they do, what will patients use it for – what will that killer-app functionality be?

by Briana Campbell (@MsMatchGirl)

Here’s the question: How do we help people get healthy and stay healthy?

With all the information that’s available, you’d think it would be a no brainer, right? There are warning labels and public service announcements and calories posted at point of purchase. Yet, people seem not to care. When, for instance, was the last time you heeded the calorie count when popping in for a doughnut? And you smokers (I know there are a few of you reading this), do you read the warning label on that pack of cigarettes? I didn’t think so.

The fact of the matter is that it’s hard to get people to change their habits. And whether it is about sticking to a diet, following a physical therapy regimen, or giving up a bad habit, it’s just not human nature to be so easily changed.

Here’s where we start talking about gamification.

We see gamification entering the marketing landscape in so many instances; it would be ludicrous to believe that it wouldn’t touch those working in the health space. In fact, it’s quite possible that this is an instance where those other marketers can take a glance at our community and find some inspiration to push themselves forward

Yes. We know it’s a buzzword. And we know you’re probably so over it. But, lacking better verbiage, lets talk about how game mechanics can help people with just these problems.

A while back, Buster Benson launched Health Month. I actually remember this, as I had a couple of friends participating. And I remember thinking it seemed pretty silly. Being a self-sufficient and stoic New Englander, joining my friends in a healthy living, no cocktails, exercising game didn’t seem like anything I would want anything to do with. Apparently, a lot of people did. People lost weight and lowered cholesterol levels. They quit smoking and stayed quitters. They, for the most part, got healthier. And Health Month is still going strong. In fact, as we spend more and more time living in online communities, maybe it’s stronger.

Which brings us to something I heard about on On The Media quite recently, Superbetter. It “is specifically designed to create “gameful” incentives to help people recuperate physically and emotionally from injury.” On The Media Correspondent Alex Goldman decided to play along for six weeks, while recovering from a traumatic injury sustained while on his bicycle, and blog about it. Superbetter looks like a really meaningful way to recover, but looking at Goldman’s blog, it also looks like it takes a lot of work.

Here’s the thing I didn’t get when I watched my friends jump on the Health Month bandwagon all those years ago – humans, as social animals, are only boosted by the support of others. And, that support can be competitive of nature. Playing against yourself, your colleague or your friend, it pushes you to do more. To work harder. To be better.

We know we’ve just scratched the surface here. Is there a gaming platform that you see leading the way when it comes to helping people to lead healthier lives? Share your thoughts in the comments section.

by Jason Brandt (@jasondmg3)

1. I don’t understand any of this stuff.
2. Who has the time to really use this stuff anyway?
3. No real business can afford to have employees wasting their time on this stuff when they should be busy working.
4. It’s just a geek thing. Nobody with a life really uses this stuff.
5. It’s just a kid thing. Nobody over 20 really uses this stuff.
6. Even if this new stuff has some applications for some industries, but in healthcare, it’s just too difficult. It will never work here.
7. Even if we wanted to see if this new stuff could work here, we can’t try it yet. We have to wait for the FDA to explain exactly what we can and can’t do.
8. Even if we did try this new stuff, who would own the project? IT? Marketing? Communications? We can’t all try to share it, it’ll be a disaster.

Raise your hand if you’ve heard someone say that about social networks, smartphone apps, blogging or any other type of social digital technology over the last few years.

Now, if you’ve been in this industry over 15 years, look at that list again… and raise your hand if you heard someone say that about websites in the mid-1990s.

The more things change, eh?

As funny as it sounds, people were scared to death of websites – once they stopped scoffing at them. They’d waste employees’ time, they’d never be accessible to most consumers, they’d invite a crippling deluge of adverse event reports from the fanatics who would find them, and the FDA would shut the whole company down if you tried to say anything anyway.

The double-edged sword that breakthroughs carry (in communication technology or anything else) is that they are entirely unformed. They do not come with guidelines. They do not come with user manuals. You can’t always tell which will catch on. You can’t always tell how people will use them. You can’t always tell what next-generations they will spawn.

This is uncertainty. This is change. This is movement.  This is scary as hell.

But the thing is, it’s not. It is not uncertain, it is not movement or change. It is not new. It is the exact same argument about the exact same ideas – just with a new specific target.

Healthy skepticism is healthy. It can keep you from wasting time, money and resources. It can keep you asking questions. It can keep you thinking critically and strategically.

But unhealthy skepticism is paralyzing, debilitating, deadly. Today, you’d laugh at any company who thought having an online presence was a waste, or who wouldn’t give their desk-based staff internet access. It would be ludicrous.

So, how do you keep the balance between healthy skepticism – and asking the same fear-based questions from decades past?

Here, we get our hands dirty with new technology. We take it apart, play with it, figure out what we’d like to have it for ourselves, and start to piece it into our plans. But we don’t throw out what we’ve got that’s already working. Movies didn’t disappear after TV, and TV hasn’t disappeared because of the internet. The new pieces – the ones that last – learn how to play with the old ones, and vice versa.

How do you stop asking the same old questions?

by DJ Edgerton (@wiltonbound)

What do Lady Gaga, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Charlie Sheen have in common? They’re some of the most popular celebrity masks for party revelers this Halloween season. While industry luminaries may not dress up for tricks and treats, many pharma brands are hiding behind their own masks, limiting the ROI in their digital initiatives.

Pharma hides behind the mask of regulatory uncertainty because the FDA has been iffy on rules for social media. Rather than looking at regulatory guidance for other mediums and instituting their own social media policies, many industry players have taken the stance of “there’s not much we can do without formal guidelines.”

While there is some “damned if we do, damned if we don’t” mentality – particularly as Facebook’s open pages and comment policy has increased concern about regulatory ramifications – remaining stagnant in the face of fear doesn’t serve stockholders or customers well.

It’s time for pharma to accept that social media is where their customers are. It’s the gateway to authentic conversations and brand communications and the industry needs to figure it out – whether that’s defining its own policies or taking calculated risks. Hiding behind the mask of “no one is telling us what to do” is no longer acceptable.

Pharma also hides behind the mask of “do what the other guy is doing.” There’s a lot of pack thinking in pharma marketing. While innovative creative in advertising comes along pretty regularly, true innovation at the strategic level is rarer to find.

With the expiration of about $130 billion in patented products over the next several years, pharma needs to stop playing follow the leader and devise strategies that result in better portfolio management. Reliance on blockbuster products has been what everyone has banked on, but current conditions cry for a change in business as usual.

The doctor’s role as gatekeeper in the prescription path has diminished as the empowered patient takes the lead. Patients are turning to apps and social interactions to learn about their conditions, treatment and care. There are many digital touch points, but if organizations want to break out of the clutter, they can’t operate under a “me too” philosophy. They need to innovate, take risks and adopt new ways of interacting with their target audience.

Pharma needs to come out from behind the mask of corporate-speak. Modern branding and marketing need authentic, human voices front and center. That may be scary for traditional pharma marketers who hide behind the mantra of “legal would never let us do that!” or “we’ve never done that before!” But it’s time to be bold and open the kimono, whether that’s using social tools to strengthen connections between sales professionals and physicians or pharmaceutical companies and patients. Distrust and skepticism have long plagued the industry but authentic, open communication via digital tools can change that dichotomy and increase transparency and trust.

Pharma can no longer afford to hide behind the mask of paid media. Yes, it’s easier for a brand manager to spend X with a historic return of Y on traditional, broad-scale paid media, rather than to consider the long-term brand equity in smaller, more targeted campaigns that rely more on social or earned media.

But pharma needs to take the time to clarify its media goals and optimize its presence on the social Web. Earned media – retweets, blog posts, Facebook comments, etc. – can drive success for overall marketing campaigns by further empowering the patient to raise awareness, create or support interactions and impact emotions. The new model requires a patient-centric focus that requires risk, effort and innovation.

While others are donning masks for Halloween, pharma should get in the spirit of facing their fears and get comfortable using digital technologies to connect with patients and market effectively.

What mask are you hiding behind?