Healthcare communications and marketing news and information

This article is part of a five-part series focusing on the biotech industry, Genzyme and Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Geeta Anand’s book The Cure. Please click here to learn more about this series.

In February 2005, the biotech industry nearly had a Vioxx moment.  That month, Biogen and its Irish partner Elan Corp. pulled their best-selling multiple sclerosis drug Tysabri from the market.  They did this because one patient died and another became seriously ill after taking the medication. 

Tysabri’s withdrawal, coupled with Chiron Corp’s surprise announcement that it would be unable to supply 50% of US flu vaccine stockpiles had people worried about the future of the biotech industry.  Experts wondered whether biotech firms would be rocked by a string of safety scandals akin to those afflicting pharmaceutical companies. 

They needn’t have worried. In July 2006, Biogen announced that doctors would begin prescribing Tysabri again.  In addition, public opinion of the biotech industry as a whole is quite favorable.  In 2004, industry trade association BIO conducted a survey that measured public opinion of biotechnology companies.  Survey respondents associated the industry with “medical advances, future cures and research.”  In addition, they said that companies in this sector provide “hope to people with terrible diseases.”

Contrast public opinion of the biotech industry to pharmaceutical companies.  In a widely-reported study conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers, Americans:

-Are split between believing that pharmaceutical companies consider important unmet medical needs when deciding to develop a new drug (55 percent) instead of choosing to develop “me-too” and “lifestyle” drugs with the greatest sales potential (45 percent).

-Say that drug companies often manipulate or suppress negative clinical trial results to maximize sales.

What’s Behind Biotech’s Shining Reputation?

I think that a major reason the biotech industry has such a sterling reputation is that its marketing practices are generally less visible than the pharmaceutical industry’s.  In an article published in the May 2006 edition of Pharma Marketing News, John Mack noted that advertising agencies are “trying to entice [biotech firms] into transforming themselves into marketing machines.”  However, Mack cited some experts, including Alfred O’Neill of Ryan TrueHealth, who disagreed with this advice.  O’Neill said:

“Biotech should not take on the Big Pharma model with heavy emphasis on TV.  Nor should they use unbranded ads the way Big Pharma has done – better to work with philanthropic and patient organizations to support the patient in a grassroots way, not just with a TV ad.”

There are a number of reasons why it is difficult to launch massive television campaigns for many biotech drugs, including:

• Complexity:  Some biologics have complex dosing regimens that require significant education to master or accept. 

• Expense: Some major biotech medications are very expensive and companies could face significant backlash if they encourage patients to “see their doctors” about drugs that cost tens of thousands of dollars per year.

• Patient Population: A number of biotech companies, including Genzyme, develop drugs for rare conditions.  For firms that specialize in producing medications for “orphan diseases” it does not make sense to market to the masses. 

Although biotech companies are not known for launching DTC advertising, there are exceptions.  For example, Amgen, which makes the psoriasis medication Enbrel has produced unbranded television commercials focusing on the disease. 

Another reason biotech companies – especially small ones – have good reputations is because they actively distance themselves from the pharmaceutical industry.  For example, earlier this year, the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council was embroiled in a scandal caused by Thomas M. Finneran, the former president of the organization. 

Finneran had pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice charges resulting from a criminal investigation into a redistricting plan.  Members of the Council from small biotech firms wanted to oust Finneran.  However, according to the Boston Globe, a small group of Council members – all from major drug companies – wanted to keep him on the organization’s board.  “Executives of smaller [biotech] companies said that biotechnology values its reputation as a clean, research-driven industry, and [were] concerned that Finneran’s conviction could stain that image. 

Clouds On The Horizon     

Although the biotech industry currently enjoys a stellar reputation, there are clouds on the horizon.  Biotech’s Achilles heel is cost.  Many biologics are very expensive -- especially for patients facing high out-of-pocket costs.  In the next installment of this series, I will focus on this topic and the quest for generic biotech medications.