The Continuing Evolution of the Web and Pharma
by R.J. Lewis published in the August 2008 Edition of PM360
The evolution of the Internet has been interesting and rapid. This article defines the major growth phases defined as Web 1.0, Web 2.0 and now even Web 3.0. In layman’s terms, one would refer to these as the "past, present and future". The common and sad theme in each of these evolutions is that pharmaceutical marketers have significantly lagged behind most other industries in the adoption curve of all of them, and continue to lag behind. This article serves as a recap of Web 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 and the milestones that marked each era.
Web 1.0, or what we used to simply just refer to as "the Web", and what we now refer to as the past, can be characterized as a crude searchable encyclopedia of disparate information accessible through a low-bandwidth dial-up and somewhat unstable connection. Pharmaceuticals are laggards in the adoption of technology, but another industry – not often spoken of in the halls of pharma – are technology leaders. Look at any cutting edge media technology and you will find the adult entertainment industry.
The early days of the Internet (much like the early days of video tape, the early days of CD, etc…) saw a disproportionate amount of adult content. In part, this hurt the credibility of the nascent Web as a place to find good quality information on serious topics. The early web can also be characterized as a "first draft" for many pharmaceutical companies in that their first attempts at websites were generally quite basic technically and aesthetically just crude electronic brochures. Through multiple improved iterations, advancing technology, proliferation of radically improved development tools and the literal training of an and entirely new industry, these "first draft" websites were vastly improved but still largely information based deep brochures with a "one-to-many" focus through Web 1.0. For the most part, pharmaceutical companies still live in web 1.0.
The immergence of Web 2.0, or the present, can really be characterized as the point where user collaboration began to proliferate. Many factors including technology, software and broadband contributed to the evolution of Web 2.0 – the real spark defining the entrée into Web 2.0 is the contributions of the end user and the community that ensues. Blogs are often cited as the beginning of Web 2.0, however, a blog on its own is essentially part of Web 1.0, but apply the technologies that make blogging easy and allow others to respond to blog posts-- just about anyone can readily blog about anything and spurn a debate – suddenly everyone is a publisher. Add the ability to readily find blogs and just about anything else through improved search, and most importantly, the ability for others to comment and post to blogs and add their own input, and you have the beginning of community building and the start of the transformation toward Web 2.0. Web 2.0 is defined in large part by "user generated" (user submitted) content. Wikipedia.org, the user-generated, user maintained world’s largest encyclopedia, is a great example of this phenomenon.
An early personal version of user generated content is myspace.com. The name "MySpace" says it all. This is "my space" on the Internet – I design it, create it, comment on it, select who to let in and who to keep out. "MySpace" turns out to be a lonely place however if you have no myspace "friends" (or people willing to engage with you online via your page). So for a blog to be really effective, it must also be networked through social connections. Web 2.0 also infers "connectedness" through social networks such as LinkedIn, MySpace and FaceBook. The collaboration and community building and networking aspects that have emerged are the essence of Web 2.0. The Internet has been referred to as the great equalizer and the ultimate tool for democratization. Anyone can publish, anyone can voice an opinion and be heard.
Web 2.0 communities and technologies in fact encourage everyone to be heard through providing the ability to readily vote on just about anything. Through voting and the wisdom of crowds, users themselves are beginning to determine the relative importance of just about every type of product and services. Everything from pharmaceutical brands, to doctors themselves are being rated and evaluated online. Services such as Digg (digg.com) democratize the very news we read by allowing users post links to timely news stories and vote on the relative importance of each story. Users are becoming the writers, editors and filters of tomorrow.
Word-of-mouth has always been one of the most effective marketing techniques due to the high degree of trust people put in their peers. Web 2.0 represents word-of-mouth on steroids. This is both good and bad for marketers. A look at the user ratings of "Lipitor" on Revolution Health for example, shows 54 ratings. Though there are only 54 ratings (so far), each rating can receive votes. Dozens have voted (hundreds more probably read but don’t post or vote), and the ones with the most votes get ranked at the top. So although there are some positive comments, you generally don’t find the positive comments on them first page. Instead you find comments with heading such as "…the dark side of statins…" and "…my personal poison…". The voice that is noticeably absent the millions of "conversations" about healthcare on the Internet today – is that of the pharmaceutical industry. Because Web 2.0 – perhaps the biggest marketing opportunity of this century in communicating with real customers on their terms – is viewed by pharmaceuticals as a regulatory quagmire. All marketers should be reminded that choosing NOT to participate in the conversation, and instead pretending as if it is not happening, is still a choice. While there is no moral sin committed per se, it has the feeling of big tobacco refusing to acknowledge that smoking causes lung cancer. Allowing one’s own customers (albeit mostly the vocal few) to disparage your brands and spread misinformation while sitting idly by – is almost as just as bad. When posted information is incorrect, and the CHOICE is made to ignore it and not respond with correct information, it is the equivalent to seeing a person in trouble and not coming to their aid. Yes, Web 2.0 presents regulatory challenges. These challenges are not insurmountable however. It is not a question of IF pharma joins the conversation but WHEN and HOW. Much like the companies who led the charge into Web 1.0, the companies who show leadership in Web 2.0 will prosper through greatly improved customer relationships.
Web 3.0 is a term that is loosely used as a reference to the future of the web. While no one can define this with certainty, the speculation (and investment) is broad. One main commonality in all of the theories is that bandwidth will continue to improve to the point that loading web pages, even high definition video will be instantaneous. The virtual elimination of bandwidth restraints opens web developers to entirely new opportunities. Elements and experiences such as high definition graphics, 3-D animations and modeling, multi-player games and social networks such as Second Life, can all rise to new levels on an unlimited bandwidth Internet. Other conjectures as to what Web 3.0 might entail include elements such as artificial intelligence, full cloud computing – whereby any significant processing speed and resources are simply available via the Internet (think an unlimited data warehouse and unlimited processors at your fingertips – no more need for server rooms). Whatever is in store for web 3.0, three things seem certain: 1. it will be an amazing experience 2. the adult entertainment industry is likely to be there early (and are probably already experimenting) 3. the pharmaceutical industry is likely to get there late.
