More than half (63%) percent of connected physicians took part in a variety of pharma-sponsored marketing programs monthly including online detailing, compared to 53 percent of unconnected online physicians. Connected physicians are more likely to use branded Web sites and manufacturer’s Web sites than their counterparts.

Connected physicians are more likely to be influencers among other physicians and patients. Two-thirds of connected physicians passed along useful content to colleagues, and 58 percent recommended specific web sites to patients.

"Connected physicians who perform social activity in a work context in general are more engaged with and responsive to online pharma marketing than are unconnected online physicians, signaling an important target segment for marketers," explained Lead Analyst Monique Levy, Senior Analyst for JupiterResearch.

"Marketers must promote word-of-mouth tactics and explore partnerships with professional networks to leverage this growing trend."

Marketers have been hesitant to invest in social media because of regulatory concerns around off-label discussions and adverse event reporting.

"Leveraging the Web to connect and share information is likely to grow significantly among online physicians in terms of both total adoption and frequency," said David Schatsky, President of JupiterResearch. "Pharmaceuticals that ignore social media may undermine their marketing efforts."
 

More than half (63%) percent of connected physicians took part in a variety of pharma-sponsored marketing programs monthly including online detailing, compared to 53 percent of unconnected online physicians. Connected physicians are more likely to use branded Web sites and manufacturer’s Web sites than their counterparts.

Connected physicians are more likely to be influencers among other physicians and patients. Two-thirds of connected physicians passed along useful content to colleagues, and 58 percent recommended specific web sites to patients.

"Connected physicians who perform social activity in a work context in general are more engaged with and responsive to online pharma marketing than are unconnected online physicians, signaling an important target segment for marketers," explained Lead Analyst Monique Levy, Senior Analyst for JupiterResearch.

"Marketers must promote word-of-mouth tactics and explore partnerships with professional networks to leverage this growing trend."

Marketers have been hesitant to invest in social media because of regulatory concerns around off-label discussions and adverse event reporting.

"Leveraging the Web to connect and share information is likely to grow significantly among online physicians in terms of both total adoption and frequency," said David Schatsky, President of JupiterResearch. "Pharmaceuticals that ignore social media may undermine their marketing efforts."
 

More than half (63%) percent of connected physicians took part in a variety of pharma-sponsored marketing programs monthly including online detailing, compared to 53 percent of unconnected online physicians. Connected physicians are more likely to use branded Web sites and manufacturer’s Web sites than their counterparts.

Connected physicians are more likely to be influencers among other physicians and patients. Two-thirds of connected physicians passed along useful content to colleagues, and 58 percent recommended specific web sites to patients.

"Connected physicians who perform social activity in a work context in general are more engaged with and responsive to online pharma marketing than are unconnected online physicians, signaling an important target segment for marketers," explained Lead Analyst Monique Levy, Senior Analyst for JupiterResearch.

"Marketers must promote word-of-mouth tactics and explore partnerships with professional networks to leverage this growing trend."

Marketers have been hesitant to invest in social media because of regulatory concerns around off-label discussions and adverse event reporting.

"Leveraging the Web to connect and share information is likely to grow significantly among online physicians in terms of both total adoption and frequency," said David Schatsky, President of JupiterResearch. "Pharmaceuticals that ignore social media may undermine their marketing efforts."
 

More than half (63%) percent of connected physicians took part in a variety of pharma-sponsored marketing programs monthly including online detailing, compared to 53 percent of unconnected online physicians. Connected physicians are more likely to use branded Web sites and manufacturer’s Web sites than their counterparts.

Connected physicians are more likely to be influencers among other physicians and patients. Two-thirds of connected physicians passed along useful content to colleagues, and 58 percent recommended specific web sites to patients.

"Connected physicians who perform social activity in a work context in general are more engaged with and responsive to online pharma marketing than are unconnected online physicians, signaling an important target segment for marketers," explained Lead Analyst Monique Levy, Senior Analyst for JupiterResearch.

"Marketers must promote word-of-mouth tactics and explore partnerships with professional networks to leverage this growing trend."

Marketers have been hesitant to invest in social media because of regulatory concerns around off-label discussions and adverse event reporting.

"Leveraging the Web to connect and share information is likely to grow significantly among online physicians in terms of both total adoption and frequency," said David Schatsky, President of JupiterResearch. "Pharmaceuticals that ignore social media may undermine their marketing efforts."
 

Of course, any number involving ten digits to the left of the decimal can sound good, but in the event that you’d like a better breakdown, Matthew G. Nelson gets into the details.  "[L]ocal display and search advertising will grow over the next five years at compound annual growth rates (CAGRs) of 18 percent and 16 percent, respectively," he reports.

Also, "[L]ocal advertising will grow at a CAGR of 13 percent from 2007 to 2012, a faster clip than online advertising in general, which has an anticipated 12 percent CAGR."

These forecasts aren’t phenomenal – before all the recent cuts, a decent CD might have guaranteed an interest rate of around four percent.  Still, given all the talk of the Web 2.0 bubble that was circulating before the entire economy burst, Jupiter Research‘s conclusions may be comforting.

As a final, FYI-style tidbit: the Dow is down another 45 points just now.

The BET Digital Media Group said the vertical advertising network featuring 30 Web sites would focus on music, entertainment and lifestyle content relevant to the urban and African-American communities.

The new advertising will allow advertisers to target African-American consumers across relevant and professional Web sites. BET’s vertical advertising network will offer Web site publishers revenue opportunities by connecting publishers to advertisers trying to reach urban and African-American consumers.

According to Jupiter Research, African Americans are likelier to respond positively to online advertising, and are the second largest online minority after Hispanics with 22.7 million users.

"By joining BET’s vertical advertising network, publishers will gain access to high quality branded advertising, with the network allowing them to target campaigns most relevant to their audience," said Denmark West, President of BET Digital Media Group.

"The BET vertical advertising network offers a compelling solution for sites that have a large scale of premium inventory but don’t necessarily have a sales force to match."

Jupiter Has Good Prognosis For Health Ads

It’s been a month since we visited Google’s Health Ads blog due to an amazingly ill-advised blog post and the tepid corporate response it generated from the PR department.

The blog in question has added a couple of posts since then, neither by the person responsible for the early July kerfuffle over how healthcare interests can counter negative publicity with some Google advertising. The most recent post discussed findings by Jupiter Research and its look into the way people find health information.

Google has it right when it comes to attracting those searchers. Neha Patel, posting for Google, cited the relevant details from the Jupiter report:

The study’s overarching theme: relevance drives clicks. Four times as many consumers who used a search engine for health info clicked on a result because it was relevant, compared to others who click because the link was to a trusted source. And fully 65% of searchers clicked because the text was most relevant to their query. In addition, the study found that people seeking health information show no bias against sponsored results (versus natural results).

It isn’t the source that matters, but the appearance of relevance. That’s the great danger of health advertising. As an example, the diabetes drug Avandia has been linked to increased risks of heart attacks in their users, according to the New England Journal of Medicine.

GlaxoSmithKline runs the most relevant-looking Avandia site, as it should per Google’s recommendations supported by Jupiter’s findings. But the Q&A about Avandia appearing on a Fox News article does a much better job of detailing recent concerns about the drug.

Relevance may be the way to go for health advertisers, but people need to look beyond the best-looking sites and be more critical of the information they find.

Quick recap: Last month, Jupiter Research published a study about corporate blogging that led to Toby Bloomberg asking questions about their research methodology. She received a brush-off from Jupiter’s PR agency. Fard Johnmar purchased the survey report and also asked questions about the research methodology. He, too, got the brush-off. His post concluded with a recommendation to treat the research with a pinch of salt and not buy the report.

My own commentary on this story a few weeks ago attracted quite a few opinions from readers of this blog on Jupiter’s behaviour and that of their PR agency. A particularly thoughtful view on that latter point came from John Mims:

[] I think that the agency does have to shoulder some blame. I would hope that the agency would have at least anticipated some of the questions from the media. Number one question would have to be: How did you conduct the research? As someone who has managed a fair amount of research, that is the basis of the believability of any research project. If I can’t provide that basic information *to protect my reputation* as well as that of my client, I am compelled to walk away. Our responsibility as public relations pros is to provide accurate information for our clients to various publics. If that information is not accurate and we know it, we ruin our reputation and that of our industry. In this case, this agency might have provided accurate information, but they have done so in a way that it makes the information look suspect. They should have better advised their clients or offered a referral to another agency.

Ian Betteridge did a good job as devil’s advocate, standing up for Jupiter and the agency in questioning whether bloggers like Toby and Fard had really done enough in reaching out to Jupiter before posting criticisms. Fard’s response makes it clear to me that they had (and majority view in the comments: yes, they had.)

The latest opinion added to that discussion came yesterday from Clyde Smith:

[] As a highly trained qualitative researcher (PhD, OSU, 2000) I’m deeply disturbed by this whole affair. I’d like to get into more commercially relevant research myself so seeing a major research firm undermine the credibility of such research is quite disturbing. It’s been interesting to read the comments about the agency and I’ve gotten much more interested in the relationship of research and pr. But doesn’t any company have to take responsibility for the services they outsource? I don’t see how Jupiter Research could get off the hook at this point in time. [] Deep research always produces a lot of maybes and the media, politicians, etc. don’t handle that very well and remove the nuances that they don’t understand or can’t fit into a soundbite. In the process they typically misrepresent the research. It’s a mess and it’s sad to see a research firm contributing to the situation in this manner.

I agree with Clyde’s last point. No matter how you look at this story, the way in which Jupiter Research and the PR agency have reacted to questions about the research simply raises more questions. Those questions, and the people asking them, aren’t going to go away. It places Jupiter’s credibility on the line, in my view.

It gets worse, though.

Yesterday, Toby posted an email exchange between her and David Schatsky, president of JupiterKagan (the owner of Jupiter Research), in which Mr Schatsky effectively ignores the focus of Toby’s questions – asking about the research methodology – and, instead, goes on the offensive to accuse Toby of misleading her readers.

I’m astounded at this behaviour. Mr Schatsky has a great opportunity here to engage with an influential blogger, provide the information requested and so open up a further opportunity for far more relevant commentary.

He did, however, provide a snippet about the research methodology:

[] I’ll tell you that some of the data cited in the report you are discussing and mentioned in our press release is from a survey of 251 executives from a variety of industries who make decisions about their company’s Web site spending and who work at companies with $50 million or more in revenue.

Why stop there, Mr Schatsky? Come on, let’s have the whole story! Add to that little snippet. Let’s try and make your survey’s claims a bit more credible. Or not, as the case may be.

But perhaps this is nothing more than a mess, as Clyde said. If so, Jupiter’s doing a good job at adding to that.

DiggThis | Yahoo! My Web | Furl

Neville Hobson is the author of the popular NevilleHobson.com blog which focuses on business communication and technology.

Neville is currentlly the VP of New Marketing at Crayon. Visit Neville Hobson’s blog: NevilleHobson.com.

Jupitermedia continued to shift more of its focus on the global image sales market. Today, the company disclosed through its financial advisor, The Jordan, Edmiston Group, that the long-rumored sale of Jupiter Research had taken place:

What has happened here is Jupiter Research and Kagan Research LLC have been merged into JupiterKagan Inc, according to Jupiter Research’s David Schatsky.

He posted more about the deal today:

Schatsky moves up from his senior vice president’s role with Jupiter Research to president of JupiterKagan. Kagan’s former president Tim Baskerville will become CEO of the new company.

Putting together the two names helps with brand recognition. “MCG Capital is combining the names of Jupiter and Kagan, into JupiterKagan, following this transaction, in order to maintain the Jupiter brand,” JEGI’s Adam Gross said in an email.

—
|

Add to | DiggThis | Yahoo! My Web

Drag this to your Bookmarks.

Get all the updates in RSS:

David Utter is a staff writer for WebProNews covering technology and business.