Most pharmaceutical branding, however, rarely goes beyond the trademarked name – at least for patients. But among the professional medical community, drug companies embrace the scope for building a more complete brand experience.

In April 2001, Datamonitor conducted a survey of Internet use among physicians. In the US, although 81% of physicians did use company websites, visits were infrequent. For those who did not use these sites, around 70 to 80% expressed mistrust of content impartiality and a lack of information on competitive therapies. Almost all of these doctors were happy with other online and offline sources.

"Some physicians express concerns about the bias of pharma sites," states Wilke. "They prefer to go to third party sites where they are happier to read drug information, clinical trial data, product comparisons and patient material."

"Of course doctors will say they don't trust pharma content," the industry executives counter. "If you asked people if they trusted advertisements they would tell you 'no.' But they still use these disease sites."

Nevertheless, pharma companies should not ignore the physicians' comments. If they want to woo doctors, the drug giants must listen.

The simplest solution is sponsorship. From psychiatry24x7.co.uk to uronet.org , sponsorship lets companies spread their name and benefit from the independence of a third party site. In some cases they may have opportunities to contribute articles and opinion leaders, along with links back to corporate sites.

Sponsorship offers useful marketing and perhaps raises the company's image. Doctors are familiar with the concept too, and know where the boundaries of possible bias lie. But for branding purposes, it simply isn't enough. A logo at the bottom of a page does little for the brand.

Companies need to take control. If they really want to attract physicians and overcome the current unease about pharma-funded sites, they must carefully design their own physician-oriented sites. "Pharma should develop non-branded sites and stop pushing their own products," says Datamonitor's Oliver Sexton. "What the doctors really want is a comprehensive online resource, a place where all their questions are answered. The primary concern for physicians is patient care, so they want clinical trial data, product comparisons and especially access to peer-reviewed journals and content."

"Only third party sites currently do some of this," continues Sexton, "but only pharma probably has the wealth to do it comprehensively and long-term. Non-bias to their own products is a high risk strategy, but if their products are that good they should compare well anyway."

"Pharma companies have already had to go down the route of publishing evidence based trials, especially where the web is concerned" notes Dr. Dan Rutherford, Medical Director of NetDoctor in the UK. "On the web anyone can see what you are saying about your products – and more importantly what you are saying about other people’s. Previously a lot of that went on behind closed doors, between the drug rep and the doctor.

"The web has had a leveling effect, it has made pharma-produced information more credible as a result. What doctors want is pithy, reliable information. If pharma can provide it then doctors won’t mind a bit of branding."

In other words, the daring company, has much to gain. Its brand could come to incorporate honest service, not just effective drugs. Never since the founding of the Merck Manual have drug companies had such an opportunity.

But do drug companies value their corporate brands enough to invest in a highly risky, online strategy? Can online branding take precedence over online marketing? For the moment, at least, it looks unlikely. Doctors will continue to regard pharma's virtual efforts with the same wary eye that they use in the real world.    

[7-Jan-2002]