Side step or step up – what to do with Web 2.0?

Posted on 16. Nov, 2009 by NW1er in Communications, Web 2.0

Chatterings are afoot – Sidewikis have burst on to the Web 2.0 scene and colleagues in pharmaceutical communications are talking: what are they, what are the implications and what can we do? Aurora’s very own Neil Crump has immersed himself in the ‘sidewikiverse’ and has been providing some top tips for companies facing this conundrum.

Recently commenting in Pharmaceutical Marketing, PR Week and PharmaTimes, Neil has offered a balanced and pragmatic approach to the Sidewiki. Neither suggesting that it’s a game changer, nor consigning it to the bin of issues-past, Neil proposes that companies scenario plan for Sidewikis and, where a proactive approach is agreed, register as a Google-verified site owner as a first step. Registration enables an organisation to ‘own’ the first Sidewiki comment on a specific page. In theory, an organisation could post a disclaimer to the top spot stating that, as owner of the site, it does not monitor subsequent comments. Neil notes, however, that a potential downside of this is that it could attract a comment where one may not have gone before.

And here we come back to the old sticking point of Web 2.0 and pharma comms: any level of involvement may lead to interaction, interaction is difficult to control, uncontrolled interaction may be perceived as promotion to the public, and promotion to the public is illegal. I’ve pondered these very issues on this blog before.

So why do I come back to it today? Am I simply a Web 2.0 bore? Well yes, I probably am, but nevertheless, I feel there is a genuine point to consider here and that is the one of responsibility. Up until now, organisations have invested in developing websites to deliver corporate messages that explain their modus operandi and role in the world. These sites represent significant investments, are assets to be protected, and are de facto the responsibility of the organisation. Other online mediums that talk about an organisation, such as independent blogs, Facebook groups and Tweets, in contrast, are not the direct responsibility of that organisation.

Turning back to the Sidewiki, responsibility is not such a cut and dry affair. Bearing in mind that organisational websites are important assets, it seems very difficult to suggest that an organisation could simply ignore a Sidewiki comment posted against a page on its site(s). This would be the same as saying that an organisation would ignore graffiti sprayed on one of its buildings but we all know this would not be the case.

Action would be taken against graffiti as any organisation wouldn’t want its guests to see a spray-paint eyesore. In addition, graffiti would be virtually impossible for an organisation to ignore due to its visibility and proximity. The probability of every single employee failing to notice the graffiti would be miniscule.

And so the argument is the same with the Sidewiki: an organisation would find it hard to suggest that they are unaware of Sidewiki comments posted to their site(s) because Google has made the software accessible and highly compatible and because the comments are associated directly with the site page. In other words, Sidewiki comments are visible and proximal to an organisation and to say they cannot be seen would be to say that the organisation is wearing blinkers.

If an organisation is unblinkered and chooses to ignore Sidewikis, then it may be perceived to be unprogressive, unresponsive and at odds with its stakeholders. But when it comes to pharmaceutical companies, another word could be thrown into the mix: irresponsible. Registering as a Google-verified site owner brings responsibility back into the Sidewiki game, allowing a pharmaceutical company to direct people to accurate sources of health information, as well as the appropriate channels for registering an adverse reaction if required. It is responsible behaviour like this that will help our industry improve its reputation, adding weight to the argument that we can behave responsibly, in a helpful way to patients and healthcare professionals, in an increasingly interactive online world.

And as a final thought, comparing Sidewiki comments to graffiti, as done above, is perhaps the wrong way to look at this affair and assumes that comments posted by the public would be negative. Perhaps Sidewikis should be viewed more like ‘Thank you’ cards? In reality, they will probably be both, and also somewhere in between. If an organisation chose to take proactivity beyond the steps suggested above, and set its strategy to learn from the online world, then it may well gleam some useful insights that help shape how it interacts with the world.

The Sidewiki phenomenon may stay or it may go, but it thankfully brings the question of web responsibility squarely back to the table. The choice we now face is whether to side step these issues, or step up (as far as legislation, laws and best practice allows) to the digital plate. If either course of action will be a game changer for the reputation of our industry remains to be seen…but I’ve always preferred stepping up baseball style rather than side stepping Strictly style.

Share and Enjoy: