Pharma BAdWords A-Rising

Pharmaceutical marketing is its own unique sub-specialty, almost like marketing viewed in a slightly different dimension: aspects are familiar, but skewed and warped somewhat. It's kind of like the difference between Portuguese and Spanish--similar roots but a completely different language.

I read an interesting post in John Mack's Pharma Marketing Blog about a concept he calls Google BAdWords. This is an idea that really is only specifically applicable to pharma marketing, but has a worthwhile point for the rest of us too.

There are many arcane restrictions on pharma marketing that come from the FDA. There are specific rules that have to be followed, such as never advertising a therapy for use that has not been specifically approved by the FDA. This is called "off label" use and suggesting it is a big no-no, even if studies support it or doctors do it. Other restrictions involve everything from what you call the therapy (i.e. brand name vs. generic name) to the formal documentation of the drug that has to be associated with any advertising or marketing (the Prescribing Information or PI).

To make a long story short, this seriously complicates marketing procedures that the rest of us can take for granted. Google AdWords, for instance.

The text ads which are still the bedrock of PPC advertising do not lend themselves to support of these various pharma marketing restrictions. The haiku-like copy requirements require brevity and an exquisite control of language. With only so many character spaces available, the need to list a brand name AND a generic name really cramps one's ability to craft a compelling call to action. The need to link directly to PI subverts the creation of a landing page that can speak directly to clicking searchers, based on their keywords, and thus scuttles any likelihood of further customer interaction. Even the use of the most effect key phrases can be prohibited by pharma company ad regulation approval boards (who have to review ALL external communication) because of fears of FDA condemnation. And you'd better believe that competitors, advocacy groups, watch-dog bloggers, and the FDA itself all routinely spy on and inform on each other so violations really do run the risk of being reported.

So Mack basically suggests you cheat.

He proposes that you keep one ad copy for general use, which is crafted for success and ignores FDA regulations. If challenged on it, you switch it out for the second ad copy. The second meets all regulations, which means it would be a poor performer in real use. His thought is that nobody will be able to prove that you haven't been running the "good" ad all the time except possibly Google itself, and they are not likely to divulge your historical data unless facing a court order. Thus the "BAdWord" copy is effective, and the non-violative copy is kept on the shelf unless absolutely necessary.

Now I am not sure I completely agree with this reasoning, but I understand it. FDA rules are not documented well, open to wide interpretation, and enforcement is notoriously fickle and inconsistent. It is difficult to push yourself and your clients into ineffective tactics under a vague and arguably unjustified threat from the FDA.

Still, the basic concept is something that the rest of us in B2C and B2B marketing can and should use in our own PPC campaigns and web marketing efforts. We should create different versions of the same basic communication object, based around any number of factors.

The primary difference-maker will be target audience. You speak differently to different types of people. Patients care about different aspects of the problem than caregivers or family, and they are both different from physician concerns. Depending on the key phrases involved, you can anticipate the different audiences based on the searches.

Second and perhaps more important overall, create more than one version of anything you do and *measure* the results. Use this data for regular iteration that will continuously improve your efforts and generate more and more success.

Marketers have always used test cases or test markets to develop a proof of concept. If it plays in Poughkeepsie, it'll play anywhere. In Search Marketing, there really isn't a need to test in the classic sense; just create your two versions and launch, and the results will tell you which is working better.

This means of course that you need to put some thought into the two versions, so you have a handle on why one might work better than the other. Does one use colloquial language and the other a more formal tone? Perhaps one focuses on a particular user-based theme and the second on another. Maybe one refers to the product by brand name and another by a more general description, like Kleenex vs. tissue. Whatever it is, the relative success of click-throughs will indicate that the audience generally speaking prefers one to the other. Review after a month, get rid of the loser, and evolve the winner to a new version. You will be like the optometrist who keeps offering you "one or two? two or three? four or five?" until she finds the right prescription.

PPC campaigns should *never* rest on their laurels. If your client has loaded up a Google account with key phrases and let it fly, without changing it from month to month, then that is a waste of potential, no matter how well it might do from week to week. The market will dictate what works and what doesn't, so listen to the market (i.e. the use data) and learn from your mistakes and profit from your successes.

But don't cheat, generally speaking. Even for the FDA.