In May, Harris Interactive released the ninth installment of an annual survey measuring the public’s perceptions of companies from nearly 20 industries, including pharmaceuticals. As indicated in the table below, from 2000 to
2004, public opinion of drug companies turned sharply negative. In fact, in 2004 more respondents said that drug makers were doing a bad job serving their customers than good. 
What contributed to negative public opinion of the pharmaceutical industry during this period? While Harris Interactive did not design the study to answer this question, the research firm suggested that the “constant drumbeat of unfavorable publicity” about drug prices significantly influenced perceptions of drug firms.
2005 – 2006: Opinion Becomes More Favorable
Beginning in 2005, opinion of the pharmaceutical industry sharply improved. That year, the difference between those saying drug companies were doing a good versus bad job of serving their customers increased to 13 percent. In 2006, the gap increased to 25 percent.
What prompted this shift in opinion? Harris Interactive suggests
that decreased media scrutiny of drug prices may have been one factor. Interestingly, perceptions of the industry improved despite the highly-publicized
withdrawals of a number of medications, including the painkiller Vioxx, from the market.
Survey Results: What Does Pharma Need To Say To Shift Public Opinion?
Although opinion of the pharmaceutical industry is improving, it is still largely negative. Pharmaceutical executives seeking to change perceptions of the industry face a difficult task. The question remains: Is there anything drug companies can do individually and collectively to shift public opinion? What needs to be communicated? To answer these questions, Envision Solutions conducted an informal, non-scientific online survey of pharmaceutical company executives, communicators, physicians and others. The key results of the survey are outlined below.
About The Survey
Envision Solutions fielded an online 10-question survey in February 2006. The firm sent e-mail invitations to 35 individuals and received responses from 20. 17 people completed the survey. Survey respondents were asked questions about public opinion of the pharmaceutical industry and what it should communicate to shift perceptions.
Survey Results: Issues Contributing To Negative Perceptions Of The Pharmaceutical Industry
Given the results of the Harris Interactive poll, it is not surprising that the majority of survey respondents feel that
the pharmaceutical industry has an image problem. 76.4 percent either “strongly agree” or “agree” that public opinion of the pharmaceutical industry is largely negative.
In contrast to Harris Interactive, many respondents believe that concerns about drug safety are contributing to negative perceptions of the industry. Nearly 60% of those surveyed identify this as a critical issue (see table to the right). In addition, 60 percent of respondents believe that direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising is also having a harmful impact on public opinion. Notably, 53 percent think that the industry’s relationship with physicians is another factor influencing the public’s feelings about drug firms.
Survey Results: Respondents Believe That Proactive Communications Can Positively Impact Public Opinion On The Pharmaceutical Industry
Overall, survey respondents are optimistic that public opinion of the pharmaceutical industry can be changed. 77 percent of survey respondents either “strongly agree” or “agree” that proactive communications can influence perceptions of drug firms (see table to the right).
But, just what should be communicated to the public? When asked this question, survey respondents advised pharmaceutical companies to:
- Put A Human Face On The Industry: A number of
respondents felt that drug firms are not doing enough to
put a human face on the industry. John Mack, publisher of Pharma Marketing News, an e-newsletter focusing on the pharmaceutical industry, said “[Pharmaceutical companies] should tell the personal stories of pharma company employees . . . in their own voices.” This would help the public understand that drug companies employ people who have great pride in their work and believe they are making a difference in the lives of patients.
- Reassure The Public: With questions swirling about drug safety, some respondents said that the industry needs to do more to reassure the public that pharmaceuticals are safe and effective. One person, who asked not to be identified, suggested that drug companies should launch a DTC campaign that “[reassures] on safety issues . . . [and highlights] life-saving/altering innovations in a positive way.”
- Place Actions Into Context: One respondent suggested that the industry needs to place its actions into context. Ed Barks, president of Barks Communications and author of The Truth About Public Speaking, said: “The pharmaceutical industry needs to place things in context in its efforts to gain more positive public opinion. For example, many drugs are expensive. Still, they are less expensive (and in many cases less burdensome) than a hospital stay – the main treatment regimen of not so long ago. Yet, that part of the equation is rarely noted.”
- Communicate Efforts To Balance Profit & Human Need: A number of individuals noted that that drug firms need to do a better job of communicating how they balance profit and human need. One respondent said that the industry should “increase awareness about the programs industry offers for patients who are low-income.” Another suggested that “pharma companies . . . work closely with public health. [Drug firms] can sell their products, but do it in a more positive way.”
Looking Ahead: What Else Is Needed?
Respondents to Envision Solutions’ survey had excellent advice for pharmaceutical companies. However, without a concerted effort, it will be very difficult to shift negative perceptions of the drug industry.
Fortunately, there are signs that the industry is investing in efforts to educate the public on key issues. For  example, in January Montel Williams, an award-winning talk show host and motivational speaker, agreed to become the national spokesperson for the Partnership for Prescription Assistance (PPA), a patient assistance program the pharmaceutical industry launched in April 2005. Williams is currently appearing in public service announcements touting the benefits of PPA for uninsured, under-insured and low-income Americans.
However, too often the pharmaceutical industry undermines its efforts to showcase its good work by appearing unwilling to aggressively enforce its own policies. For example, PhRMA, the industry’s trade association, announced last year that it had adopted voluntary “guiding principles” on pharmaceutical DTC advertising. In addition, PhRMA said that it was establishing an Office of Accountability that “accepts comments from the public and from healthcare professionals regarding DTC advertisements by any company that is a signatory to the PhRMA Guiding Principles.”
Despite these moves, some companies have continued to engage in DTC marketing practices that flout industry guidelines. For example, Sepracor aired a number of “reminder advertisements” (commercials that mention the name of a medication, but not the disease it is designed to treat) for its sleep aid Lunesta earlier this year. (See this post on Mack’s Pharma Marketing Blog for more.) PhRMA’s guidelines expressly prohibit companies from airing these types of commercials.
If the public believes the pharmaceutical industry is simply paying lip service to its own guidelines, policies and procedures, it will become even more difficult to change perceptions. Given this, the industry should take steps to ensure that companies fully comply with its mandates.
By communicating proactively, confronting its critics and following through on its policies, drug companies can start to shift negative public opinion about the industry. It is difficult, but doable task.
To comment on this article, please send an e-mail to envisioning@envisionsolutionsnow.com. Please tell us whether you would like your comment to be published in a future edition of Envisioning.
(back to the first page) |
