I’m talking about press releases and promotional summaries. The really dry… really boring… really inconsequential kind. The kind that say our stuff is great, we’re certified, we all went to college, you know, the kind that makes you wish you never clicked on the link. They seem to be highly prevalent in healthcare, may be because there’s so much to be proud of, so much to say, the desire to not appear to debase the institution with a perceived low-brow huckster approach, or maybe it’s regulatory.
No matter the reason, the end result is the same. Ineffective content that comes nowhere near representing the message you’re trying to convey.
Hey everyone does it. It’s not a new topic – and if you browse through the upcoming events line up on ORLive, you’ll see that we aren’t always winning in our attempts to convince our clients about this. We hear a lot reasons why:
- We’re marketing to the clinical audience; they need to know we’re serious.
- We only want “serious” viewers.
- We don’t want to appear like we’re trying to market
- Surgeons don’t respond to marketing messages (my favorite – and oh by the way, they do, just ask a surgeon about their buying decisions)
It’s not easy to write good summaries or releases, but it’s not as hard as it seems. It also doesn’t require taking on the late, great Billy Mays approach – but it does take shifting your perspective from trying to share information to trying to start a conversation. Think about it. You wouldn’t start a conversation about your favorite recipe with someone by describing the measurements and prep work – you start by telling them why they should care. How great it tastes, the experience – you establish the need to continue the dialog.
Same is true for health care – even if you’re attempting to share information about a new surgical option available – avoid falling into a “dragnet” approach – “just the facts”. The problem with just facts is that no one cares – not from you. They just don’t. They can get the facts anywhere – there are a million sources – maybe even a googol. If you want to have a relationship don’t barrage them with statistics, clinical references, and expected information – instead tell them why they should care, why they should explore more deeply, and what you have to offer.
In the coming posts we’ll try and scour the web for some great (or not) examples of “dragnet” releases and how a different perspective may have helped make them better.
Remember, you’re starting a conversation – chances are your brand has already established how solid your reputation is – don’t waste the opportunity to engage by telling them about you.
Make it about them.
It’s pretty clear that who ever wrote this has no understanding of the healthcare industry. As the head of a medical agency I read this with amazement wondering who would actually print something like this that openly contradicts there clients with misinformation and advice that is best suited for a peanut butter commercial. Not only do you challenge your clients professional abilities but you contradict every guideline, rule, law and ethic that a client expects from a company that is supposed to know it’s way around the medical industry. If you took the time to become just marginally educated on the topic you would find that the FDA, the AMA, the OIG, PhRma and (obviously)your client require “just the facts”. And yes, we do want to appear serious to our customers (What a concept).
Thanks for the comment – this is what EngagedMed is all about. Having a dialog, exchanging ideas, and creating a community. It appears that we’re not on the same page – and from the comment, I’m inferring that the agency you’re the head of spends a lot of time in the pharma world – one that is certainly highly regulated and one that does require great care in navigating through regulatory issues. I am certain that we can agree that pharma, device, and hospital marketing efforts are all impacted by the newest communication channels represented by social media, and the age of controlling the message are clearly behind us – the question is how to effectively (and respectfully) engage in the dialog that’s happening about your brand, with or without you.
I’m certainly not advocating that we ignore regulation, ethics, and just plain good taste. Rather I’m advocating that we, collectively as marketing professionals, don’t use that as an excuse to create the boilerplate messaging that is so prevalent in our markets. We see it all the time. To change it doesn’t require violating regulations or ethics, but it does require shifting perspective. I think a great example can be found at http://www.PhRMA.org, where currently you’ll find the message “Disease is our enemy. Working to save lives is our job.”, followed immediately by an invitation to share in this month’s “sharing miracles” episode following John Kruk’s experience with fighting cancer. It’s human. It’s compelling. It’s a great story, and one that allows you to engage, to build a relationship. If this challenges you, it should. The world is changing – fast, I challenge you to get on board.
One last thought, so there is no doubt – I’m a big fan of Joseph L. Rosefield, who’s invention revolutionized lunchtime over 85 years ago. Hmmmmm… peanut butter.
-Bob Oakley
Bob,
I think you are dead on. You can still comply with all the regulations and tell a great story. I work with some financial clients (read giant mutual fund companies) and their most successful content is the stuff that people can identify with. It’s not the facts and figures.
Keep up the great work. Good message.
Thanks,
Andrew