3 ms·

Reminds me a little bit of Adverse Event Reporting in pharma. If a drug manufacturer finds out about an adverse event (i.e. a bad reaction) to a drug, it kicks

Reminds me a little bit of Adverse Event Reporting in pharma. If a drug manufacturer finds out about an adverse event (i.e. a bad reaction) to a drug, it kicks off all sorts of obligations that have the potential to be time-consuming and expensive. So pharma is the one sector you won't see with a "social media listening/analysis" department in marketing. They actively avoid tracking or learning about discussion of their products on social media.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
anchpop 6y ago
Sounds like a case of poor incentives. It's easy to wag our fingers and say "well they shouldn't be doing that" but difficult to come up with a system of incentives that makes everyone want to do what's socially beneficial. In this case, it seems like there should be a separate organization in charge of looking for adverse events that is rewarded for finding events (instead of punished). We use some strategies like this currently when regulating the finance industry
vxNsr 6y ago
I worked for a pharma co for a while, they did have a social media listening department in marketing, also we were trained to report any discussion of the company at all to a special investigations unit that would follow up.
- La1n 6y ago
  As someone who works in pharma currently, I have seen the same. The pharmacovigilance unit does search the internet/social media for AE's, off-label use, etc (depending on region). Secondly every single person in the company also needs to report events when they see/hear/read them. So not having that social-media department wouldn't be doing much, not all thousands of employees can/will/want to avoid social media.
  - williamsmj 6y ago
    Thanks. I can well believe my experience (ca. 2014) is a little outdated. I would imagine they is still quite difficult to sell social listening into as a sector, but it makes sense that eventually you have to take your head out of the sand.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

anchpop 6y ago

Sounds like a case of poor incentives. It's easy to wag our fingers and say "well they shouldn't be doing that" but difficult to come up with a system of incentives that makes everyone want to do what's socially beneficial. In this case, it seems like there should be a separate organization in charge of looking for adverse events that is rewarded for finding events (instead of punished). We use some strategies like this currently when regulating the finance industry

vxNsr 6y ago

I worked for a pharma co for a while, they did have a social media listening department in marketing, also we were trained to report any discussion of the company at all to a special investigations unit that would follow up.

La1n 6y ago
As someone who works in pharma currently, I have seen the same. The pharmacovigilance unit does search the internet/social media for AE's, off-label use, etc (depending on region). Secondly every single person in the company also needs to report events when they see/hear/read them. So not having that social-media department wouldn't be doing much, not all thousands of employees can/will/want to avoid social media.
- williamsmj 6y ago
  Thanks. I can well believe my experience (ca. 2014) is a little outdated. I would imagine they is still quite difficult to sell social listening into as a sector, but it makes sense that eventually you have to take your head out of the sand.