Edelman released its annual Trust Barometer last week, documenting how much faith key opinion leaders have in different industry sectors. Pharma didn't fare too well; only 56 percent of the global opinion elite said they trusted the industry. Healthcare and biotech/life sciences, on the other hand, scored a little better with 61 percent and 65 percent, respectively. The most trusted industry? Technology, which was trusted by 77 percent of respondents.

"Biotech, technology, and healthcare industries [are seen as being more] communicative about the world we live in, the future of that world, and the role that they are playing in improving that world," said Nancy Turett, president and global director at Edelman, Health. "Companies that are forward looking and show vision are more trusted."

Pharma is most trusted in India, where 77 percent of respondents said they trusted the industry. (The equivalent figure in the United States was 54 percent.) Industry clearly has some work to do in Germany, were only 29 percent of the interviewees said they trust pharma. 

Trust in pharma was flat in the United States from last year, but gained about five percent globally. The rise in trust was attributed to emerging markets overseas. According to the study, there is more trust in pharma in countries where the industry is an economic engine for improvement and social betterment, such as India, Brazil, Mexico, and China?the four countries where pharma was most trusted.

One of the most interesting findings has to do with who's talking about companies. In the past, disgruntled customers were more likely to go online to communicate their opinions than happy customers. Among opinion leaders, at least, that seems to have changed. In the survey, 52 percent said they would share their experiences of companies they trust, compared with 50 percent who said they would share opinions of a company they didn't trust.

"Today, you get an even greater payoff from people who have trust in pharma, because they are more likely to take positive action, including buying products, recommending the company to local community plans, and blogging about the company on forums," said Laurence Evans, president of StrategyOne.

Much like last year, 60 percent of respondents said that they would prefer that a company spokesperson be someone more like themselves or someone they could relate to. A financial or industry analyst was listed second (56 percent), and an academic was listed as the third most-credible type of spokesperson (54 percent).

Nonetheless, it is still the quality of products and services that earns trust. In the study, quality, customer service, and corporate reputation topped the list of factors building trust. Reputation even beat out value for the money and social and environmental track record.

According to Edelman, opinion elites are people who are college educated, in the top 25 percent household income per age group, and are attuned with news and public policy. The firm said that it is looking at doing second trust study incorporating a wider segment of the population.

Articles

News Analysis

Pharma is still having a hard time earning the confidence of the key opinion elite, as only 56 percent claim they trust the industry.

Edelman Trust Study Released

Johnson & Johnson dove deeper into e-media, last week, launching its second blog—this time for its biologics firm Centocor. The usually conservative pharma giant is no stranger to the Web: Its corporate blog, 

, has already stirred up buzz and proved that pharma can indeed be part of Web 2.0. Getting the online treatment this go-round is Centocor, a J&J subsidiary familiar with alternative communication tactics. 

Last year, the company premiered the feature film 

 which followed three people as they learned to fight and live with different diseases. "After the launch of 

 a lot of people were writing about Centocor on the Web," said Michael Parks, vice president of corporate communications at Centocor. "But with the exception of responding to comments and questions on other peoples' blogs, we didn't have a voice in that environment."  

In an effort to find that voice, Parks phoned J&J's legal team and his colleagues to find out how the company could develop a blog that was engaging yet didn't break any legal and regulatory parameters. A year later, 

 
 "This is not going to be a marketing blog," Parks said. "This is not going to be a site where we predominantly talk about our products. It's something we want to use to talk about Centocor, but really to talk about the company in the context of the industry that we find ourselves in."  

That conversation is going to be a two-way one thanks to the inclusion of a comments section—a feature that can cause more harm than good if a conversation turns heated. Or even worse—off-label.  

"That is the biggest challenge for us," Parks said. "I really do not want to censor. This blog really should be the voice and personality of Centocor. To that end, we want to make sure that we are posting and voicing the opinions of the people who have an interest in the industry and Centocor. Whether it's good or bad, we are going to post it."  

Or maybe not. The blog's comments policy states that comments relating to Centocor products will not be posted. Neither will comments on topics other than those originally posted about, comments about legal and regulatory matters, nor anything that falls outside of mainstream science.  

On the design side, the team found an interesting way of incorporating fair balance into the site. In the inaugural post, a mention of Remicade—the companies top biologics drug—features a pop-up Web component. Hover over the name of the drug for a second and a tiny window featuring the drug's fair balance information appears.  

"We don't want to overburden the blog, aesthetically, with all of the safety information, but we make sure that it meets all the appropriate legal and regulatory rules that we have," Parks said. 

 
 So far, every comment written by readers has been posted, and it's not all rave reviews. Parks says he's fine with that: The more information he receives from people reading the blog, the more Centocor will be able to generate content that people want to read about. One week in, it's still hard to tell what direction the blog is going to take. 

"As far as blogs go, CNTO411 is a small step for a blog, maybe a giant leap for pharma," Pharma Marketing Blog writer John Mack 

 on Tuesday that it might be a mistake to have the key authors of the J&J blogs be communications personnel and that if the company really wants to spark reader attention, then they should have scientists and researchers blogging.  

Parks said that the blog would include new data sets released at medical meetings, new information about the disease state, and safety issues. But many posts will be more personal, said the blog's lead writer, Melissa Katz, senior director of corporate affairs for Centocor.  

Articles to date included a farewell to Centocor President Neal Fowler and a comparison of the healthcare system 40 years ago (as featured in the movie 

"If people are intimidated by pharma, this blog will help them realize that we are a group of people and we believe in what we are doing," Katz said. "To show our personality a little bit, it's OK."

Johnson & Johnson's biologics division launches a new blog in an effort to release easy-to-digest health information and corporate news.

Centocor Enters Blogosphere

 reveals that although people value the products produced by pharmaceutical companies, they think negatively of the cost of prescription drugs. The Kaiser Foundation surveyed 1,700 adults in January to better understand the public's perception of the healthcare industry.

"Pharma has this two-sided challenge," said Mollyann Brodie, vice president for public opinion and media research at Kaiser Family Foundation. "On one side, their products are really loved, but on the other, people worry a great deal about the cost of medication." 

Four in 10 Americans have trouble paying for drugs and cut doses or skip treatment to save money.  

The more-impoverished respondents also need the most drugs. A third of people with a household income of less than $25,000 need four or more. prescription drugs, while only 12 percent of people earning $75,000 or more require that many drugs.  

Ironically, 55 percent of respondents making less than $25,000 have a favorable view of pharma, compared with 44 percent with incomes more than $25,000.

"Industry has half the public thinking favorably of them, but the other half thinks unfavorably of them," said Brodie. "And the unfavorable side is very clear about the reasons why they are upset?cost and profit."

 that the majority of the public thinks pharmaceuticals are safe and drug companies do a good job testing them. More than 70 percent of people interviewed said they think prescription drugs developed in the past 20 years have made people's lives better; while only 10 percent said they made their lives worse. 

Of the 47 percent who said they have a favorable opinion of pharma, 64 percent said the main reason was that companies provide important drugs to society. In general, respondents believed that if there were a problem with their drugs, companies would immediately address them.

"There are a lot of areas where the public could have come down harder on pharma because of the news as of late, but they didn't," said Brodie. "Most of the negativity is aimed at the perception that pharma is profiting off of the high cost of drugs."

79 percent feel the cost of drugs is unreasonable.  

74 percent feel drug companies make too much profit.  

79 percent said profit is the biggest driver of drug costs.

 
  The study also includes some good news/bad new for pharma on the advertising front. Although may people think that drug ads reduce the stigma of mental health conditions, they also think that the ads are hiking up the cost of drugs.

"On the one hand, people think there are too many ads on television, but many fewer said that it bothered them," Brodie said. "We also found that 32 percent of people actually talk to their doctors after seeing a drug ad and, of that third, many ended up with some kind of prescription."

 Sixty-seven percent of those interviewed said that prescription drug ads are a good educational source. However, 40 percent think that drug ads are a "bad thing." More than 75 percent believe that drug ads are one of the reasons why prescription medication is expensive, while another 68 percent feel that drug ads encourage people to go on medications that aren't necessary. 

A Kaiser Foundation study finds that although most Americans look favorably upon pharmaceuticals, they generally think drugs are too expensive and that most of the cost is blown on advertising.

Pharmaceutical Executive-03-12-2008

Edelman Trust Study Released

Centocor Enters Blogosphere

Public Approves of Pharma Products, Dislikes Cost