Now that Facebook’s new commenting policy is forcing every pharmaceutical to rethink it’s Facebook strategy — ie, take down all disease-specific pages but keep corporate pages — many drug companies are revising their corporate FB pages.
Boehringer-Ingelheim (BI) stands out in its attempt to stand out from the crowd of pharma FB pages by designing a colorful Welcome page and icons (see image below; click on image for enlarged view).
Compare this with Pfizer’s Info page:
Pfizer’s page is an example of the sameness seen in almost every Facebook page created by dolts like you and me who cannot afford to allocate resources on customizing our pages. It’s what I call “social media socialism” — the least common denominator available to all users (regardless of their ability or resources) that satisfies a minimal need: ie, to have a presence on Facebook.
Boehringer’s FB page, however, shows what you can do with dedicated resources and creativity.
Yet it’s still a mystery to me how Pfizer is able to have 31,656 “likes” versus BI’s paltry 13,008 “likes.” Yes, Pfizer is probably much more widely known among the general population than is BI. But even the #2 pharma company (GSK) has only 14,074 “likes” (Astrazeneca has 10,035 “likes”).
BI and AZ are doing almost everything right in social media in terms of allocating resources and engaging in conversations (see “OMG! AstraZeneca Hosts Twitter Chat & World Does NOT End!“, for example), yet they are not getting the ROI — in terms of numbers of followers and “likes” — that Pfizer gets. Recall that Pfizer has NO dedicated social media resources and does NOT engage in meaningful SM conversation (see “Pharma Tweets: Followers Trump Content. Pfizer vs. Sanofi Case Study” and “Pfizer, Show Us Your Social Media ‘Playbook’“).
Something’s not right.