Pharmaceutical companies sick from bad PR

Pharmaceutical companies sick from bad PR
By Annie Bowen

We’ve all seen them – clever and compelling advertisements in magazines, on television and online about the latest medicine for diseases like fibromyalgia, restless leg syndrome and numerous others. Despite these well-crafted commercials, however, the pharmaceutical companies that research, manufacture and promote these drugs are currently struggling with some very bad public relations issues. In essence, pharmaceutical companies are facing negative press because they are seen as untrustworthy, giant corporations that hide significant health risks and invent illnesses in the quest for more profit.

First, it is important to note that by “currently” I am referring to roughly the last five years, and that unfavorable public relations issues for pharmaceutical companies have been occurring steadily over the years. The issues that pharmaceutical companies face can be, for the most part, divided into two categories. The first is when drugs that are successful at preventing/combating an illness are then linked to potentially causing other health issues, such as increasing risk of heart attack. The second is when drugs are marketed for certain illnesses that some physicians and experts believe do not truly exist.

In 2004 Pfizer’s arthritis drug Celebrex, although advertised as one of the safest drugs on the market, was said to present an increased risk for heart attack. As well, in September of the same year, it was reported that Merck’s Vioxx posed similar heart attack and stroke risks.

Findings such as these cause many problems for the pharmaceutical companies. For one, trust in the company is drastically lessened. In the case of Pfizer, investigations suggest that the company did not attempt to study the drug thoroughly enough to find the cardiovascular risks before it was released. In fact, Pfizer has even been accused of failing to publicize important study data on the drug. In addition to the decrease in trust, Merck faced billions of dollars in legal liabilities and a decrease in its stock price because of bad press about its drug.

More recently, the New York Times ran a story that covered another drug controversy involving Pfizer. This time, its drug Lyrica was criticized because it is advertised to treat fibromyalgia, a condition that supposedly causes chronic pain. Some doctors and medical experts, however, do not believe that fibromyalgia is even a legitimate disease.

So, what public relations lessons can we learn from all this? First and foremost, pharmaceutical companies must understand that their primary asset is trust. Doctors must trust the company and its products in order to prescribe them, and the public must trust so that they will be comfortable if and when their doctor does prescribe these drugs. When stories are being published that your organization withheld important safety concerns, this significantly impacts the level of trust; and as we all know, trust is something that cannot easily be regained once lost.

Second, I think that pharmaceutical companies must be proactive in combating the image that they are solely aimed at boosting their stock price and/or gaining profit. Community and non-profit involvement, such as donating medication to local shelters and overseas efforts, would help the public to look more favorably upon the companies.

These same principles apply, generally, to our client "OU Nightly." Credibility is of large importance for news programs, since the audience must trust that the news being covered is done accurately and fairly. Second, partnering with non-profit organizations helps to foster an image of being involved in the community, which is crucial for news programs so that they become relevant to the community in which they operate.

Want to read more?

Pfizer's Celebrex could face PR problems
Pfizer's Funk

Image located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vioxx