Interactions and Relationships with the Media
The great advantage of a strong and clear signal from the top is that even quiet junior managers, when they are tuned into it, can make good independent decisions without worrying. They can answer telephone queries, even press queries, sensibly and decisively rather than timidly and evasively, because they know what the business is about. Antony Jay. From Management and Machiavelli.
THE INDUSTRY’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE MEDIA
Medical news is one of the fastest growing areas in lay media coverage. The news media are more likely to write about a health or high-tech medical problem than ever before. Reporters often visit government agencies [e.g., the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Public Health Service] and the Congress in search of stories. They also read medical publications, attend medical meetings, monitor activities of local drug and healthcare industries, and monitor hospitals and other medically oriented institutions. The media is a double-edged sword—we want them to share information with their audience on technological breakthroughs, new drugs, etc., but then we don’t like it when they start to share information that is less to our benefit. A good company realizes that working with the media requires the company to be proactive and not reactive. Companies should always be fostering relationships, answering questions and helping the media through interviews, providing stories and advertisements in good times as well as bad. Good advice is “don’t get to know the reporters in a crisis.”
Company Policies
Each company has its own policy for dealing with the media. There are, however, a few basic principles to which many adhere:
Provide information that is guided by the product’s labeling.
Restrict comments on other company’s drugs.
Assign appropriate company public relations spokespersons to key issues.
Encourage employee spokespeople not to talk to reporters “off the record” because nothing is really “off the record.”
Do not comment on questions that are not proper for a company response.
Refer detailed medical or marketing questions to the appropriate professionals.
Although companies do not like to feel the need to be defensive, that is exactly what happens in many cases. Interestingly, the FDA also often finds itself in the same position as pharmaceutical companies when they are approached and interact with the media. For example, if a new drug is claimed by academic scientists to be great, the media often criticize the FDA and the pharmaceutical company
by asking why the drug is not already on the market. The FDA is often accused of delays and the company of dragging its feet. When a marketed drug, however, has serious adverse events uncovered, the media often asks why the drug was allowed on the market and states that it should be removed. The FDA is often accused of slackness and the company painted in even a more unfavorable way.
by asking why the drug is not already on the market. The FDA is often accused of delays and the company of dragging its feet. When a marketed drug, however, has serious adverse events uncovered, the media often asks why the drug was allowed on the market and states that it should be removed. The FDA is often accused of slackness and the company painted in even a more unfavorable way.
Interactions between Pharmaceutical Companies and the Media
Types of Media
The approach a pharmaceutical company takes with the media is generally the same for radio, television, and printed forms, although some modifications are usually made for each. Working with television is much more time consuming than working with the other media because of the setup time (in a studio or on-site) and frequent run-throughs that are necessary to get a segment to be correct. Radio interviews can be technically much simpler, especially if they are conducted by telephone. In some situations, they are conducted at a studio or at a company. On the other hand, radio tends to be stressful because interviews are often live. In deciding whether or not to accept an invitation to participate in a television or radio interview, a company considers the target audience, the quality of the show, the likely consequences of participating or not participating, and the availability of suitable spokespeople. Sending a letter to a TV station declining an interview can be counter-productive since stations often photograph the letter, highlighting your refusal to participate, which always puts your company in a poor light.
Deciding to Interact
A company often asks itself the question: Is it worth our time to respond to the media? Who else will be there? How will the company appear if it does or does not participate? The forum must be considered appropriate for the company to be able to present a rational approach, and adequate time must be allotted to the company. If the company believes that the specific network or program may edit the company’s responses or edit the interviewer’s questions so that the company is seen as responding to a different question than the one posed it should never agree to participate in such an interview, unless it is conducted live, and not taped for later rebroadcast. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America had evidence that at least one “news” show edited the questions posed after the taping was complete to show the person interviewed in a very negative light. Even if a live program is agreed to the company may still wish to decline if they believe the program will try to embarrass them or to put them in a very difficult position.
When the Media Contacts a Pharmaceutical Company
When the media calls a company with a reasonable question about one of their drugs, most companies attempt to find and provide an accurate answer that lies within the limits of their proprietary information. Companies may not be willing to talk to the media about issues that lie outside a drug’s labeling. Labeling is considered the “Bible” from which companies are not allowed to stray in their promotional messages or communications, with very few options to discuss off label use. Only when a company discusses future plans or new information on current tests may they be willing to discuss other-than-labeled indications. They can also discuss new data that is presented at a scientific meeting. This is partly because company scientists are communicating on a scientific level with other scientists and the medical media. Companies may not provide reprints of published articles if they relate to indications that are outside a drug’s labeling. There are well-known rules on how and when a company may provide such literature. For example, they may not leave a stack of postcards with a request for such literature at exhibit booths at professional meetings, which is a type of solicitation of physicians to request the material.
The amount and nature of information presented by company representatives often depends on the question posed by the reporter. If reporters ask, “What is your company doing in the field of biotechnology” (or Disease X), they will usually get an equally general reply. This type of question usually represents a fishing expedition by a reporter who has not done much homework. A better question for a reporter to ask is, “What is the status of your compound number AB3456?” But even more specific questions are better for reporters to pose, such as “We understand that your compound Number AB3456 has caused the following side effect. Can you comment?” It is acceptable to take the question and get back to the reporter with a well researched and thought out answer. Many companies get in trouble because someone tries to answer on the spot. Also, companies have standard answers to some “frequently asked questions” and preparing those responses in advance can be very helpful as many questions are redundant.
Reasons for Confrontations between Companies and the Media
Many news services, newspapers, and reporters read the medical literature on a continual basis and attend scientific conferences. They are quick to pick up stories that they consider newsworthy. Not only do reporters scan well-known periodicals the moment they are available, but they often proactively seek news stories of potential interest. These activities are neither good nor bad per se for pharmaceutical companies because a story may be positive, negative, or neutral. However, stories are rarely neutral, even when the media are reporting straight news. Therein lies the issue. Even though the media are charged with the devil’s advocate role, many reporters prematurely glorify or condemn a new drug or an old one. This is often a result of three reasons. First, they are in a rush to print the latest medical news about drugs and do not have the time to conduct sufficient research on the story. Second, they do not adequately understand the processes of drug development, the drug approval process or the disease state and understand how many tests, hurdles and years it will take for the product to reach the market. Third, they cannot interpret clinical data accurately and place the results they are reporting on in its appropriate context. Companies often respond with a more balanced perspective, but their response is often viewed by the public as a defensive gesture, promulgated solely to protect their product. As a result, many people give the company’s comments little credibility.
The media often react with skepticism about many verbal reports or press releases from pharmaceutical companies. Many media people do not call companies because they do not expect to be told the truth. Judging from newspaper and magazine articles, the industry’s credibility has become quite low, and is sometimes compared with the credibility of tobacco or oil companies. This has occurred for several reasons. One is because the company is expected to present only its own perspective, which is assumed to be unbalanced. Other reasons are the frequent expensive legal settlements of pharmaceutical companies with
individual plaintiffs, states attorneys general or government agencies including the FDA and the Internal Revenue Service. The media’s perception is strongly reinforced if a number of company people tell reporters different stories.
individual plaintiffs, states attorneys general or government agencies including the FDA and the Internal Revenue Service. The media’s perception is strongly reinforced if a number of company people tell reporters different stories.
Many in the industry wonder why a few “citizen” organizations that seem to frequently make unwarranted accusations (at least to industry staff), always seem to get their stories covered in the media whereas the industry has such a difficult time getting its stories presented in the press. Once when speaking with the scientific writers of the New York Times, the author asked them that question, and also whether they believed the truthfulness of the stories they were writing. The reporter looked surprised and said they definitely do not believe those stories. Then why, the author asked, do you print them? Their response was that those stories created news since there were now two sides to the accusations the citizens group was alleging, whereas when industry made many of its statements to the press there was no controversy and, therefore, it was not newsworthy. A similar situation occurs when the media finds a single individual to tell their story regarding a drug, usually how it brought about adverse events and suffering, whereas drug approvals are based not on single anecdotal examples but on the results of usually several thousand patients.
Some stories about drugs seem to acquire a life of their own, and, no matter how many denials and how much evidence to the contrary is presented, if the story has public appeal—it lives on and on. One minor example concerns the chemical source of thymidine, which is used to synthesize zidovudine (Retrovir). Herring sperm are a natural source of thymidine and were originally used for making Retrovir. But the Burroughs Wellcome Company began using synthetic thymidine almost from the start of the Retrovir project and stopped using thymidine derived from herring sperm. Even after the company informed the media that herring sperm were no longer the source used for thymidine, the number of articles describing herring sperm as the starting material for Retrovir have been plentiful. Another example is of bendectin, a fine drug for morning sickness in pregnant women that became so popular it was taken by a quarter of all pregnant women in the United States until some unfounded accusations led to court trials. Despite over 20 independent studies and large epidemiological evaluations that exonerated the drug, it was never able to maintain a clean profile and it had to be removed from the market.
Comments on the Validity of Sensational News on Drugs
It almost always seems that the more sensational a news story, the more likely it is that the story is wrong. Reemtsma and Maloney (1974) developed a theory that “the unreliability of instant medical news is so reliable that large profits may be made by betting against the value of medical breakthroughs reported in the lay press.” They applied this principle to short sales on the major stock exchanges, advocating Poor’s Law (as in Standard and Poor): “Buy on bad news and sell on good.” The reasoning behind this is that the insiders have already bought the stock on the good news and forced the price up. As other investors begin to buy stock it will start to fall because the insiders will be selling their stock. These authors present numerous examples of how their principle has worked, plus one occasion when it did not. To prevent mistakes, they recommend attending the press conferences given in association with major announcements so that the value of the breakthrough may be assessed. Most news stories about drugs, however, do not influence the company’s stock prices. Moreover, numerous pharmaceutical companies are not publicly owned (i.e., do not have publicly owned stock).
PUBLIC RELATIONS FOR DRUGS
Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel
Full access? Get Clinical Tree
