Last week, Facebook commemorated its 1 billionth user with the announcement of its first ever television advertisement, called simply “The Things That Connect Us.” The ad offers examples of the things people use to connect with each other – from the tangible to the abstract – and likens Facebook to those things.
Critics lambasted the ad calling it, as Gizmodo's Sam Biddle did, “confusing and stupid.” The Atlantic Wire’s Rebecca Greenfield called it “absurd” and “kind of silly,” with an attempt at deep meaning that lacked sincerity. But what Facebook knows – and what we as communicators know – is that things that connect us are powerful and stirring. Things that connect us move us to action.
This past weekend, I participated for the first time in the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society’s Light the Night Walk in my area. During the walk, the words from Facebook’s ad repeated over and over in my head: “the things that connect us.” Like most who participated, I was walking individually in some ways, for my own personal reasons that are particular to me. But I was acutely aware of the hundreds of other walks that have taken place and will be taking place across the country, of the thousands of people that would be participating, for all their own particular reasons, and of the greater cause they represent. It may sound trite, but events and causes like this – in part through tools like Facebook – unite people in a common purpose.
The reality is that social media plays a huge role in generating momentum for causes, in magnifying voices, and in creating experiences that make people feel connected to something bigger than themselves. These tools don’t function in a vacuum, but they offer enormously effective ways to communicate ideas and even to bring about change.
As for the ad itself, perhaps it’s as my high school business teacher said: a good ad is one you talk about and remember. On that score, the Facebook spot seems like a winner.
Tweets were flying Wednesday night and into Thursday after the first of three presidential election debates between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
In addition to terms like “debate” and “last night,” tweets about Obama focused on terms like “people,” “plan,” and “presidential.” According to the PoliPulse Election Dashboard, “altitude” also registered as a key topic of Obama tweets, in reference to Former Vice President Al Gore’s assertion that Obama’s poor performance might have been attributed to Denver’s high altitude.
Tweets about Romney focused on terms like “plan,” “won,” “big,” and “wins the election,” reflecting the sentiment that Romney gained major momentum from the debate. This sentiment has been validated by a new Pew Research Center poll showing Romney now leading Obama 49 to 45 percent, among likely voters.
Tweets about both candidates also often included the terms “lie” or “lies” and “facts,” reflecting the public’s desire to call out claims the candidates had made and either substantiate them or tear them down. Fact-checking has indeed become a popular event in the post-debate analysis games.
While interesting in and of themselves, these findings have greater implications than they may seem at first to have. These are the terms that appear in the most influential and numerous tweets. They have the ability to influence public opinion as much, if not more than, the performance of the candidates themselves.
What other people think matters. What important and influential people – in particular those with lots of Twitter followers and retweets – think matters more. And what lots of important and influential people think really matters, especially when a presidential election is at stake.
Stay tuned to the Polipulse 2012 Election Dashboard to see what topics are trending in connection with each candidate after Thursday’s first and only vice presidential debate between Vice President Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan.
The issue of healthcare reform undoubtedly looms over the heads of Vice President Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) as they prepare for tomorrow’s Vice Presidential debate.
In last week’s first debate between President Obama and Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney, healthcare emerged as a hot-button issue, though not nearly as scalding as jobs.
While both candidates agree that the $2.8 trillion U.S. healthcare system is unsustainable, neither offered a clear picture of what they envision as the new status quo during the debate. “My priority is jobs,” asserted Romney. But, contrary to popular opinion, healthcare is an equally powerful driver of many Americans to the polls.
A recent symposium held by the Harvard School of Public Health, titled “Health Care & 2012 Elections,” dove into the intricacies of the healthcare system as it relates to the 2012 elections, highlighting Medicare as one of the single most influential, mobilizing terms of the campaign season.
Panelists at the symposium ranged from policy experts, such as the American Enterprise Institutes’ Joseph Antos, to policymakers like former Senator Blanche Lincoln and former Senate Majority Leader, Senator Tom Daschle (pictured above), former Congressman Billy Tauzin, among others.
Senators Daschle and Lincoln were joined on the “Political Landscape for Health Care Reform Panel” by Governor John Engler.
“This election isn’t being fought over healthcare. This is an economics election,” said Engler, making a declaration that was echoed by some on the panel, who agreed that healthcare simply isn’t top-of-mind for most voters. But not everyone agreed.
“You are wrong,” grinned the final speaker, Robert Blendon, Senior Associate Dean for Policy Translation and Leadership Development at the Harvard School of Public Health. Blendon conducted an impressive polling of United States voters, which he presented. His polling included a staggering array of statistical evidence showing that healthcare is, unequivocally, one this election’s most salient issues, especially when “Medicare” is interjected.
Blendon found, for instance, that while 46% of voters think the national healthcare law will negatively impact the economy, 67% of Americans disapprove of Congressman Paul Ryan’s “competition”-based plan, perceived by many as a terrifying attempt to “gut” Medicare.
“’Health care’ was ranked third, below ‘Deficit’ in second place and ‘Economy/Jobs’ in the lead,” affirmed Blendon. “That is, until Medicare messaging came into the picture and then ‘Health Care’ shot up past ‘Deficit.’”
Needless to say, candidates are unwise to assume that the only thing that matters in this year’s elections is jobs. Equally unwise would be to assume that Medicare and Social Security are not high priorities among voters. “Medicare and Social Security are seen as the last things that should be cut, way after things like the Commerce Department or the Navy,” Blendon insisted.
Unlike the first round of Presidential debates, the Vice Presidential candidates need to address and confirm what Blendon so adamantly proved: voters really do care about healthcare and they want hard answers.
As the general election begins to heat up, so does the digital arms race. This clash goes far beyond the simplistic jockeying between candidates for the biggest following on Facebook and Twitter — indeed the data lying beneath the surface may end up being far more important.
In January, the online news publication Slate.com broke news about a top-secret Obama campaign project called “Project Narwhal,” which aims to integrate all the data the campaign has captured over the past six years — from door knocks and donations to email activations and Facebook app installs. As a result of these efforts, Obama for America now has an unprecedented, and scarily accurate, understanding of the interests and motivations of their 13 million or so supporters. That data is already fuelling a hyper-targeted outreach programme that personalises the campaign’s communication with supporters.
The Obama campaign knows the next president will not be re-elected based only on the number of his Twitter followers or Facebook likes. Facebook and Twitter are still extremely important gateways for the campaign in creating opportunities for engagement and building relationships, but simply having a presence on those social platforms isn’t enough.
Republicans are responding quickly to this data build-up with voter database platforms of their own. A conservative grassroots group called American Majority Action has released a community mobilisation app to rival tools the Obama campaign has been using.
The keys to winning are what they have always been: convincing voters, recruiting volunteers, raising money and getting people to show up to vote. This means driving people to action. Thanks to the integration of all data points into a single database, and the ability to mine that data in supporter communications, Obama for America will be more effective at driving people to action than ever before.
In 2008, the campaign knew when to ask someone for money, when to ask for volunteer hours, and when to send informational emails. In 2012, they’ll also know how much a supporter is likely to give, the kinds of volunteer activities (door knocking, phone banking, etc.) that a supporter is likely to do, and the issue messaging that will strike a chord and drive that activation.
As Teddy Goff, the Obama for America digital director, said on a panel recently: “We try to speak to people in the language of the people we’re speaking with.” Campaigns know in order to resonate in this day and age they can’t just broadcast from on high, they need to tell a story that is deeply personal and unique to each person.
The campaigns also need to know where to find their audience. In late March the New York Times reported on how in the tight Wisconsin primary battle the Romney campaign has put a significant investment in paid online video ads as opposed to traditional television spots because they know that a sizable portion of the electorate does not watch live TV anymore.
The campaigns will continue to use what they know about their audiences to serve them to tailor how and where they communicate with them. This means building a narrative with different constituent groups all over the country in sustained ways that gets them excited and gives them the tools to act.
Information travels instantaneously in the modern social political campaign and campaigns know that they can’t take a moment off. They have to create content and engage with voters every day. They know that one sound bite can knock them off their message and the only way to defend against this is to continue to deliver the story you want and empower followers to help tell it.
As the general election heats up, we will see a lot of this data-driven storytelling from both campaigns. And organisations of all stripes will be looking to these campaigns for innovations. In this socially driven world, people expect to be treated as individuals and the campaigns will have to do what they can in their power, and use all the data they have to meet people where they are.
Powell Tate today announced the launch of PoliPulse 2.0, a dynamic monitoring tool that enables users – campaign staff, corporate communicators, brand managers, media and voters alike – to spot trends, identify influencers and highlight pivot points in online conversations around key political issues and current events.
The revamped PoliPulse 2.0 will feature an Election 2012 Dashboard that tracks every Twitter conversation around the presidential campaign in real-time, and provides a conversation analysis that comprises multiple social media platforms around a new topic every week.
“Campaigns use social media as a vital tool to drive their daily message, respond to breaking stories and engage voters,” said Pam Jenkins, President of Powell Tate, a division of Weber Shandwick. “PoliPulse offers an unequaled window into each campaign’s social media efforts and robust analysis to help determine its influence.
As the 2012 election dominates the news over the next few months, PoliPulse 2.0 will present in-depth analysis of President Obama’s and Governor Romney’s social media presence, including Facebook and Twitter; it will also display the most influential Tweets about each candidate and a list of the top 10 trending topics connected to them. Located at PoliPulse.com, the tool is free and open to the public, providing up-to-the-minute statistics 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Users can track updates to PoliPulse on Twitter by following @PTInsights.
“PoliPulse uses cutting-edge software – Crimson Hexagon and Mass Relevance – to deliver a comprehensive snapshot of the most important online conversations happening at any given time,” said Colin Moffett, senior vice president of Digital Communications at Powell Tate. “Whether you are immersed in political, corporate or brand communication, Polipulse helps make sense of the social media landscape and stay ahead of emerging issues.”
Powell Tate launched PoliPulse in October 2010 as a vanguard tool for quickly and easily gaining insights into the issues and debates shaping opinions in social media. It established an easy-to-understand graphic analysis of the billions of conversations and opinions expressed online by consumers, voters, media and thought leaders.
PoliPulse 2.0 seeks to build on this strong foundation. With access to the full bandwidth of Twitter and other social media content from Crimson Hexagon, a leading provider of social media monitoring and analysis technology, and Mass Relevance, Twitter’s official social curation and integration partner, PoliPulse 2.0 can quickly pinpoint statistical patterns in online conversations such as blog posts, Facebook posts, online forums and Tweets.
The Powell Tate Creative Studio, along with defense policy experts, recently created an infographic to visually communicate the potential impact of sequestration on the defense budget. Sequestration is a series of automatic spending cuts that became law when last year’s Congressional Super Committee failed to find $1.5 trillion in savings in the U.S. budget.
While there has been a great deal written about the potential cuts to defense programs and the consequences that could ensue, the issue is complicated and its broad implications are difficult to fully grasp in words alone. Approaching the issue of sequestration through data visualization communicates the scope and impact of the issue in a quick, comprehensive and interesting way.
On behalf of our clients, our graphics team has taken many complex issues and simplified the story through infographics, including explaining the importance of maintaining 11 U.S. Navy aircraft carriers.
If the growth in corporate sustainability and reporting over the past decade has shown us anything, it’s that there isn’t a standard definition or a one-size-fits-all approach to this work. Yet while companies are varied in their methods for implementing this work, a new study shows that sustainability practitioners within companies, diverse as they may be, rely on similar strategies to achieve success.
The study, titled Making The Pitch: Selling Sustainability From Inside Corporate America, sought to “understand the skills, drivers and partnership-cultivation strategies necessary for executive success” in the sustainability arena. VOX Global, Weinreb Group Sustainability Recruiting and the UC Berkeley chapter of Net Impact surveyed more than 30 corporate sustainability practitioners and conducted follow-up interviews with executives at companies such as AT&T, DuPont, EMC, Hilton Worldwide, and McDonald’s.
Respondents were asked to evaluate the importance of three possible drivers of success among sustainability leaders (note: respondents were able to choose all that apply):
1. Interpersonal skills
2. The ability to quantify the value of an initiative
3. Subject matter expertise
Contrary to what I expected, 100% of respondents indicated that interpersonal skills are the attribute most critical to a sustainability leader’s success on the job, while quantifying value and subject matter expertise were highly valued by 81% and 66% of survey respondents, respectively. According to the survey, selling sustainability within corporate America is a balancing act largely dependent on successful relationship building as well as the ability to communicate with business leaders in a way that articulates how sustainability measures will help achieve their existing business objectives.
To learn more about the study’s findings, visit: Making The Pitch: Selling Sustainability From Inside Corporate America. To read more about how best to communicate sustainability over digital and social channels, see our previous blog on Communicating Sustainability in a Social World.
The Chronicle of Philanthropy issued the findings of their latest Corporate Giving Survey today. As expected, overall funding remained fairly flat with the continued economic recession. Key findings include:
- Of the 115 large corporations responding to the survey, cash donations grew just four percent in 2011.
There are 13 companies that donated over $100,000 in cash
Production donations are growing at a faster rate than cash donations
One area the survey also highlighted was that companies are more strategically investing their philanthropic dollars and focusing on fewer causes. This is something we are also seeing with our clients as the concept of Shared Value – focusing on the connections between societal and economic progress – is taking hold with more corporate CSR and philanthropy programs.
As the CoP article notes, this is a “long-term trend” with companies “zeroing in on social issues that threaten their bottom lines like people’s ill health, high transportation costs, or diminishing fresh water.” CoP also highlights the positive benefits for the company by helping them to access new markets, continue to build brand equity and relationships with their consumers and engage their employees in volunteering.
More than 45,000 leaders of governments, business and advocacy organizations from around the world gathered recently at the UN Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to explore solutions on important development issues, from food and water security to healthcare, from oceans to sustainable cities and climate change.
What made this event different from previous UN summits was a greater presence of multinational corporations, with more than 1,500 business execuives on hand to announce new initiatives and commitments. That amount compares to just a handful who were present at the first Earth Summit.
Increasingly, multilateral institutions such as the UN, the World Bank and regional development banks are partnering with the private sector to implement development strategies. They recognize that solving development challenges such as global food security, disease or energy poverty requires financial resources beyond what governments or multilateral institutions can provide.
The UN increasingly sees its role as working with its member states to put in place regulatory frameworks that reduce risk and make it more attractive for private companies to invest, create markets and provide goods and services. It is creating new public-private partnerships that pool public funding from governments and bodies such as development banks to leverage greater investment from private companies.
At Rio+20, we saw an example of this in Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s Sustainable Energy for All initiative. More than 100 governments, companies and civil society organizations made commitments in Rio. In addition, the Asian Development Bank has recently pooled together a consortium of banks and corporations to invest $175 billion in sustainable transportation systems.
No doubt, multinational companies will continue to invest in development priorities through their in-house CSR programs. But today many are also looking for ways to partner with multilateral institutions and civil society organizations to advance high-impact, high-priority global development challenges.
Powell Tate, with support from our Weber Shandwick colleagues in São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, helped raise the UN’s Sustainable Energy for All to the top of the global development agenda at the Rio+20 Summit. Sustainable Energy for All was launched earlier this year by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Working with the UN Foundation, we have organized events, managed media relations and created digital tools in support of the initiative in Washington, New York, London, Brussels, Abu Dhabi, Nairobi, Johannesburg and New Delhi, as well as during Rio+20.
Here, for organizations interested in the future of U.S. healthcare, is a little multiple-choice quiz. According to recent media coverage, last Thursday’s Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act is either:
A) The biggest boon to mankind since the invention of the wheel.
B) A sure sign that the apocalypse is in the immediate offing.
C) A highly nuanced ruling whose implications remain largely uncertain and will be parsed for months to come.
E) All of the above.
If you chose “E,” congratulations, you’re correct. All of the above it most certainly is. To study the media coverage of the SCOTUS ruling on the ACA, after all, is to recognize all too readily that the reports, analysis and opinion available about its meaning, significance and outlook ran the gamut.
For example, the hospital industry will come away the big winner, it is declared. That’s because so many newly insured patients will now be granted admission through the front door rather than through the emergency room. Then again, it’s also stated, hospitals are doomed to be the biggest losers in the whole equation. That’s because with Medicaid expansion left to states – and doubt about which ones will opt in or opt out – reimbursement dollars are at risk of plummeting by the billions.
In short, up is down and, with all due respect to Justice Roberts, right is left and left right. So it can go with the media, whether mainstream or its tributaries. Plus, some outlets tripped over themselves, and each other, rushing to deliver the goods first. One minute comes word that the law is found unconstitutional, the next we do a 180. Whoops.
So how should you respond to media requests for comment? Here – whether you’re an insurer, a health system, a trade association, a consultancy, a medical device maker, a pharmaceutical firm, a government agency, an advocacy group or a think tank – are some basics for engaging.
1. Vet the request. Ask the reporter for an idea of the kinds of questions likely to be asked of your C-suite spokesperson, even the specific questions themselves. Then vet it all again. Check what the reporter has written before. Establish a baseline understanding with said reporter about the overall message. Even try – diplomatically, of course – to get something in writing.
2. Consider the context of the interview. In keeping with point “1,” find out the thrust of the article or the trend angle at play (Obamacare as Trotskyite conspiracy), the hypotheses to be tested (President as proof of a messiah), the other experts to be interviewed (federal officials, Tea Party activists). Some reporters may play coy (“Well, you know, it’s just the usual stuff.”) Insist, albeit politely.
3. Look to influence the editorial process before, during and after. Prep your spokesperson via a rigorous mock interview, even if he or she has shown up on “Squawk Box” 14 times in the last 24 hours and is high in self-esteem. Host the interview to hear the questions asked and the answers given. Follow up with the interviewer, if need be, to offer comment on potential key takeaways.
Now make no mistake: top-tier media coverage of the SCOTUS ACA news has proven largely solid. The most self-respecting reporters aim to play it straight down the middle, staying factual, apolitical, public-service-oriented. They realize a judicial decision, like life, can be 50 shades of grey.
Still, we live in partisan times, a truth no less self-evident in the increasingly ideological media than in the halls of Congress. Right now, courtesy of the ruling, healthcare reform is better defined. But, with the initial hysteria settling down and so much of the law’s implementation yet ahead, it’s still to be figured out, still even somewhat definable.
So if you’re eager to join the conversation – to share your perspective, to raise your visibility, to build your brand equity -- here’s the bottom line. Engage. By all means engage. But watch your step.
The Canadian Marketing Association recently released a paper, as part of its Leadership Series, called Sustainability: Why Marketing Needs to be Firmly Rooted in the Movement. My colleague François Taschereau and I are pleased to have contributed to the paper on behalf of Weber Shandwick. My commentary about the series follows below.
The idea of sustainability has become a driver of profitability, shared value and long-term success. Companies that fully embrace and integrate sustainability realize business gains and deeper relationships with a broader base of customers — but only if they are committed to real, meaningful action and only if they communicate their commitment effectively.
In its business context, sustainability has come to represent the way a company manages what is known as the triple bottom line – profits, people and the planet. From a marketing and communications standpoint, sustainability embodies how a company sources, promotes, sells and distributes its products or services in the most responsible way possible and in a way that embeds, integrates and engages all of the important communities with which it interacts.
This morning, the Supreme Court issued its much anticipated ruling regarding the constitutionality of certain provisions within the Affordable Care Act (ACA), President Obama’s healthcare reform, which was signed into law on March 23, 2010. In a nutshell, it upheld the constitutionality of the ACA, most significantly the individual mandate.
With today’s Court’s ruling – and given the highly contentious nature of the law and the high level of media inquiries around the ruling - we wanted to provide an analysis of what we believe will play out in the months ahead, and offer topline communications implications.
The Court ruled that the ACA’s individual mandate requiring virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance was constitutional under the power to “lay and collect taxes.” Therefore, the Federal Government has the authority to impose a tax on anyone who chooses not to buy health insurance.
The Court ruled that requiring states to participate in Medicaid expansion, or suffer a penalty, is unconstitutional. States have a right to decide not to participate in Medicaid expansion. If they do not participate, they will still receive funding for existing Medicaid programs. But, if states do decide to participate, they will have to meet all the criteria for expansion.
While the Court’s ruling creates clear resolution regarding ACA’s constitutionality, the communications and policy battles over healthcare are far from settled. The question of the appropriate role of government in healthcare delivery, and the allocation of funding for healthcare by the federal government and states is a long-term journey, not likely to be settled any time in the near future. Congress will try but not succeed in repealing the law. While there may be changes, the law will be around for the foreseeable future. In the short term, the Court’s ruling determines with greater precision the battle lines of what will continue to be blistering, no-holds-barred partisan rancor over healthcare policy. Expect that both political parties will continue to wage heated battles over the issue heading into the November election and beyond.
As was the case during the course of the healthcare reform debate, there will be pressure from both political parties for companies in the healthcare sector to pick a side. Companies should avoid getting pulled into political arguments.
Regardless of who wins the White House, fiscal realities will force both political parties and both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to revisit healthcare policy. Rising healthcare costs and pressure to address the annual budget deficits and the national debt will force policy makers – both in Washington and in state capitals - to deal with financing healthcare coverage. More than 20 percent of the federal budget - $769 billion - is devoted to health care with two thirds of that amount paying for Medicare. Any serious effort to address budget deficits has to address these rising expenditures.
Look for opportunities to begin shaping the next chapter of healthcare debate in 2013 as attention focuses on cost containment, and depending on the outcome of elections, renewed efforts at repeal. Additionally, there are technical fixes that need to be made to the law and policy issues that will emerge from implementation. There may be policy solutions where visible engagement could enhance your brand and leadership, and bipartisan efforts could well emerge to improve the law.
It is worth a reminder that the political rhetoric of both parties on the healthcare reform subject falls well short of an accurate picture of either the state of healthcare in America or the content of the ACA. By its own admission the Obama Administration has struggled to explain and convince the public of the value of the ACA despite the presence of popular provisions of the law, such as eliminating the donut hole for seniors; allowing children to stay on their parents’ insurance until 26; and, prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage because of a person’s medical history.
Recent polling indicates that only 18% of the public say they feel they understand what’s in the law very well. Regardless of the reasons for the communication shortcomings, the Supreme Court ruling will again challenge the Administration to articulate the law’s benefits.
As was true with enactment of ACA, members of Congress on both sides of the aisle will be less interested in reasonable dialogue and explanation, and more focused on scoring political points prior to the elections in November. Take care to articulate and communicate the ACA’s impact relevant to your company’s stakeholders.
When it comes to its role in healthcare, the term “social media” is a glaring misnomer. I mean, come on. So-called social media, as applied to the physician-patient relationship – to cite just one example – has little or nothing to do with the networking usually done online among friends, family and job-seekers alike.
So agreed several forward-looking experts representing pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and hospitals at a recent New York University forum about social media in healthcare. Indeed, just about everyone engaged in healthcare social media is still figuring out what works best.
No wonder. Most healthcare professionals remain reluctant to network with patients for medical care. Only about 20 percent of U.S. hospitals have a social media presence.
This hesitancy is understandable and justifiable, given prevailing legal, regulatory and ethical concerns. Questions about some of the elephants in the room – reimbursement protocols, malpractice liability, privacy and security safeguards – remain largely unanswered.
Still, the move among healthcare providers into social media is likely inevitable. The Affordable Care Act – and more specifically, Meaningful Use regulations, the Medicare Shared Savings Program and the push toward accountable care – are driving healthcare professionals in that direction.
Here are some other telling insights from the NYU panel discussion about healthcare social media:
• “Adopt the right voice,” said Brian Mulligan, Assistant Vice President of Public Relations, North Shore-LIJ Health System. “Social media is all about what people want to hear rather than what you want to tell. Listening to what patients are saying about you is easier than ever before. We avoid being overly promotional. We try almost to be anti-PR, anti-marketing.”
• “’What’s in it for me?’ That’s the question physicians still ask about social media,” said Brian McGowan, Ph.D., columnist, author and technology consultant. “We need to research that. We need to identify the incentives that will motivate MDs to cooperate and collaborate rather than compete. But it’s learned behavior, and also a Catch-22. How can you convince a doctor – or anyone, for that matter – to do something for the first time without any case studies demonstrating ROI?”
• Healthcare is 24/7, going well beyond a stay in the hospital,” said Charlotte McKines, Global Vice President for Marketing Communications & Channel Strategy at Merck & Co., Inc. “It’s an ongoing experience, and patients and professionals have to get real-time intelligence. And while the pharma industry waits for the FDA’s guidance about social media, we should do our own recommendations.”
More broadly, physicians should follow certain guiding principles about adopting social media.
• Understand the environment. Educate yourself about current practices and ask questions of your peers.
• Drop your prejudice against social media as a potential tool for advancing medical care. Just as patients go online to find treatment advice, so, too, should you consider the value of delivering services directly to your target audience.
• Take a role in defining the future of social media in healthcare. Engage with stakeholders as well as communications experts. Only then can you truly learn exactly what you need to know.
About three years ago, physicians diagnosed Charlotte McKines with breast cancer. As global vice president at Merck & Co., Inc. – and thus probably savvier as a patient than most – Charlotte immediately went online. She clicked onto breastcancer.org and posted that she needed help.
Within an hour she had received responses from 50 people, all ready with answers to her questions. “That’s the beauty of social media for patients,” McKines said at a recent educational event in New York City. “It’s all about having an ongoing dialogue.”
Linda Bruenner, appearing in the forum at New York University’s Business Development Institute, has likewise witnessed firsthand the favorable influence of social media on patients. A vice president of web operations management for Siemens Healthcare, Linda she told how Siemens launched an online breast cancer awareness campaign called “Turn Your City Pink,” with a YouTube video featured front and center. The goal was to create a “global pink ribbon” with 10,000 participants.
As it turned out, Siemens enlisted 10,000 supporters within 14 days, with no fewer than 94 countries joining in building a “ribbon of hope.” “We had to stretch our boundaries for this initiative,” Bruenner said. “But as a result, our video – and the ribbon itself – went literally around the world.”
And yet healthcare professionals and organizations alike – particularly physicians – are doing nowhere enough to take advantage of social media for the sake of helping patients.
At least so claimed Brian McGowan, Ph.D., a columnist, author and technology consultant who is currently researching a book about how social media can help “fix” healthcare. In the most provocative presentation at the HCP Healthcare Social Communications Leadership Forum, McGowan revealed research he has conducted showing, for example, that physicians deploy social media much less frequently for medical practice than previous reports have suggested.
Even though more than 50 percent of physicians say they believe social media can improve the quality of care, McGowan said, only 4 percent turn to Facebook for professional purposes, and only 2 percent to Twitter. Moreover, 26 percent of physicians he surveyed said they will “never” use Facebook in medical practice, with 33 percent saying the same about Twitter and 22 percent about blogs.
“I apply to social media the same definition we apply to electronic health records,” McGowan said. “Do we see meaningful use? Does social media, in fact, enhance the practice of medicine? Does it, in fact, promote public health – the learning and sharing of information and knowledge? My hypothesis is that not only can social media benefit patients, it can also improve medical practice.”
Consider this case in point. A few years ago, a patient with a health problem went to the emergency room at North Shore-LIJ Health System and waited for service. And waited. And finally tweeted about waiting. And within minutes, a staffer at the hospital, assigned to monitor social media – including the twittersphere – spotted the tweet voicing the grievance and dispatched a colleague to the ER.
“Wow!” the patient said. “Your hospital is really following us!”
A nagging question in the mind of communications professionals these days is “What’s the best way to tackle social media analysis?”
In short, it depends.
There isn’t one universal solution for taking advantage of the vast treasure trove of information about your company or organization on social media channels.
Like so many things in life, getting informative social media data isn’t easy. When launching an analytics program, here are three points to consider:
Are people talking about you?
“Nobody is talking about us,” is the No. 1 reason companies don’t start a social media analysis program. If your audience isn’t talking about you, what are they talking about? What makes them tick? Learning everything you can about your audience will help you connect with them both on and offline.
For example, a paper company with low brand recognition may not have much buzz on social media channels. In that scenario, it should consider looking for people mentioning the things their customers use paper for (writing letters, art projects, paper airplanes) or problems they are having with paper (paper cuts, printer paper jams). Information gleaned from this content may hold immense value for how the company markets its product and may have insights for perfecting its business processes.
Do key staff members and stakeholders support the need to start a social media analysis program?
Mining social media for valuable insights and data can be great for understanding your audience and improving how you do business, but you can’t do it without getting input from other business areas. First and foremost, you’ll need to understand the needs of your colleagues — what information do they wish they had? Beyond that, your social media data won’t be useful until you can sync it up with data from other departments. This will enable you formulate smart metrics to help gauge the success of your organization’s efforts.
If you work for a nonprofit, you may be able to easily track mentions of your issue as a gauge of overall awareness, but it will be difficult to provide actionable analysis without more information from your colleagues. Did a spike correspond with an unusually high number of interactions with potential donors?
In other words, unless you know why something happened, why your colleagues should care and how to best present them with your information in a compelling way, you likely won’t have much support to continue your social media analysis work.
Do you have the time and resources to commit to making sense of the data you collect?
Monitoring social media channels for valuable information does not have to make a big dent in your budget. It does, however, take time. Creating smart tools and dashboards to collect data and monitor conversations is a great first step to harnessing social media to your advantage. Identifying how you plan to staff your measurement program is vital to ensuring that you can sustain it, and that it can provide you with real value.
Those are just a few questions to before you start a social media analysis program. There are of course many more.
What is holding you back from starting a program for your organization?
Senior Vice President
Senior Vice President
- Mar | 14
- Feb | 14
- Jan | 14
- Nov | 13
- Oct | 13
- Sep | 13
- Aug | 13
- Jul | 13
- Jun | 13
- May | 13
- Apr | 13
- Mar | 13
- Feb | 13
- Dec | 12
- Nov | 12
- Oct | 12
- Sep | 12
- Aug | 12
- Jul | 12
- Jun | 12
- May | 12
- Apr | 12
- Mar | 12
- Feb | 12
- Jan | 12
- Dec | 11
- Nov | 11
- Oct | 11
- Sep | 11
- Aug | 11
- Jul | 11
- Jun | 11
- May | 11
- Apr | 11
- Mar | 11
- Feb | 11
- Jan | 11
- Dec | 10
- Nov | 10
- Oct | 10
- Sep | 10
- Aug | 10
- Jul | 10
- Jun | 10
- May | 10
- Apr | 10