Johnson & Johnson also hosts a blog (http://www.jnjbtw.com) that is largely self-congratulatory about what the company is doing (see “Giving Back Image of the Week”). But it recently had a couple of interesting tidbits, including a J&J expert on the value of corporate wellness programs and a series of tips on keeping kids safe from injury.

I’m glad the writer found the tips from Dr. Isaac and from Safe Kids to be of interest, but I was disappointed to hear that she found the blog – and in particular the Giving Back Image of the Week – to be “self-congratulatory.”

Through JNJBTW I had hoped to provide some of those folks in the corporation who are usually silent an opportunity to be heard and to engage with others online. I’ve encouraged people to use it to tell their stories, share their perspectives on different topics that are of importance to them and try to connect with others online. I don’t think the folks posting on the blog meant to give themselves a “pat on the back,” but were instead posting to share their experiences with others.

The same holds true for the Giving Back Image of the Week. When Shaun Mickus and I discussed his interest in posting the photos, I know he felt it was more about highlighting the efforts of the charitable organizations we happen to partner with than talking about our company’s support. I think our hope was that we would encourage others to learn more about the activities of these organizations.

Clearly there is room for more “interesting tidbits” and other useful information on corporate blogs like JNJBTW, but I also think there is space for people at companies to blog about what they are doing and who they are working with.

From Kathy:

For instance, a few weeks ago the WSJ Health Blog and Eye on FDA both highlighted a new Facebook tool from our Vistakon company that would help remind members to replace and buy new contact lenses. This followed recent interest in the ADHD Moms page on Facebook that Johnson & Johnson’s McNeil Pediatrics is hosting.

Though many folks have applauded these efforts, a few – like John at the Pharma Marketing Blog – have questioned whether any of these are really social networking.

As John put it:

Part of social networking is the ability of ordinary people like you and me — JNJ customers — to add comments to social networks set up by others. Usually when pharmaceutical companies host a social network channel, they turn off the comments for obvious and understandable reasons.

It’s a great point. Let’s face it – at this stage, many of these corporate efforts – particularly in the healthcare field — don’t quite match what you or I do when we use Facebook or Twitter or engage with others online. (Ok. To be honest, I still don’t use Twitter that often – I just have trouble figuring out where Marc Monseau ends and Marc Monseau, Company Spokesman begins… but that’s ANOTHER story.) While I would argue that what is being done is a good start, it nonetheless begs the question – why not more?

Well, as Tricia Geoghegan was quoted saying in the WSJ Health Blog post about the ADHD Moms page on Facebook, in the healthcare realm, this can be rather, um…. complicated.

Take the case of what we had to think through as we developed THIS little ‘ole blog.
In addition to our well-known consumer products, Johnson & Johnson also sells prescription medicines and medical devices — which are highly regulated products. That’s where things become complex. Among the many considerations we had to take into account as we tried to move from simply broadcasting messages to engaging in conversations, we had to sort out how we would handle comments that could include reports of adverse events (which legally must be reported to the FDA — something we routinely do) – and could include a discussion of so-called “off-label” or unapproved uses of our products, which we do not support or encourage.

Ultimately, the decision was reached, right or wrong, to create a comments policy that would encourage comments that would be “on topic” – as well as to not allow comments that could get us into legal or regulatory trouble.

These limits haven’t been such a big problem for JNJBTW (despite some suggestions to the contrary (link)) Since it is a corporate blog, JNJBTW tends to touch on corporate matters such as the company’s strategy and other corporate-wide initiatives – and so it is rare that we talk about products. After all, that’s something our operating companies are more familiar with.

But as Johnson & Johnson’s operating companies (and, based on what I’ve heard from others in the industry, their competitors as well) try to figure out how to get involved in the conversation, the question of how to manage these comments inevitably comes up.

Clearly there need to be some measures put into place to mitigate the risk of legal or regulatory liability. However, the more hurdles that are put into place, the less credible, useful or open those online efforts become, and in the end you may be left with something that could be criticized as being more akin to a traditional, one-way communications effort.

And so what we have ended up doing in many cases is take some small steps to get more comfortable with getting involved. We are also making sure we have processes in place to handle adverse event reports and that we have responsible people involved who can respond quickly to questions.

At the same time, projects like JNJBTW and the Johnson & Johnson health channel on YouTube are giving us some great experience.

…submitted an application for a Wine Spectator Award of Excellence. I named the restaurant “Osteria L’Intrepido” (a play on the name of a restaurant guide series that I founded, Fearless Critic). I submitted the fee ($250), a cover letter, a copy of the restaurant’s menu (a fun amalgamation of somewhat bumbling nouvelle-Italian recipes), and a wine list.

Goldstein posted the whole sorry tale — including the wine list — about how Osteria L’Intrepido came to be named one of the world’s best wine restaurants. Funny stuff — but don’t just dismiss it as something limited to the world of food and drink. Such “top ten” and “best of” lists are all the rage, but far too often they provide few insights or critical assessments, making them little more than marketing tools for the magazines who publish them.

One of my least enjoyable tasks at Johnson & Johnson is to assess the numerous survey requests the company receives to determine whether participating will be worth the time spent completing the application.

At times, this has been pretty time consuming. It seems like almost every magazine publishes a “best places to work for”-type survey to provide potential job hunters with a list of what the publication deems to be THE BEST company for recent graduates, moms, scientists, engineers, chemists, liberal arts majors, etc., etc., etc…

Some do try to provide a critical evaluation. In these cases, the survey administrators ask hundreds of different companies to complete carefully constructed questionnaires that are then assessed and ranked by a team of experts who compile the list.

But frequently I’ve found others that don’t take the task seriously at all. In these cases, a simple phone call will reveal little or no scientific rigor involved in the survey design or execution and very few participants. It appears that simply showing up will get you on the list.

Rather than aiding and abetting the perpetuation of such bunk, I usually tell such survey organizers thanks but no thanks. The pity is, however, that their findings are rarely challenged, allowing such lists to not only survive but proliferate.

If you heard otherwise, let me clear one thing up — the FDA did not approve a generic version of RISPERDAL and issued a correction yesterday.

Shirley Wang at the WSJ on a rare correction from the FDA…

Interesting article in this weekend’s NYTimes about: “When does fairness demand that a newspaper walk down the middle in a scientific dispute, and when does responsibility demand that it take sides?”

Antibiotic resistant bacteria is a hot topic these days. Every day seems to bring more stories, and questions are often asked about what’s being done to combat some of the drug resistant strains — the so-called superbugs.

Certainly, drug-resistant bacteria represent a significant risk to human health. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , about 2 million people acquire bacterial infections in U.S. hospitals each year, and 90,000 die as a result. About 70 percent of those infections are resistant to at least one drug.

One topic being discussed has been about why more treatments aren’t available. In an October article on the subject in BusinessWeek, Catherine Arnst noted that over the past 20 years the number of new antibacterials approved by the FDA has fallen from 16 launched in 1983-87 to just 2 in the past five years. She chalks that trend up to the low financial rewards associated with developing a medicine that is used only once for a few days.

(Hmmm… I can’t really speak for other companies, but I do know that anti-infective medicines have been part of the portfolio of products manufactured by the Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical companies since I joined back in 1997, and are in the current pipeline of new medicines in development.)

But while it is important that we continue to look for new treatments, medicines aren’t the only way of combating bacterial infections. When talking to my colleagues over at Ortho-McNeil, I found they had some interesting tips we could all follow to help combat the rise of antibiotic resistance:

1) Don’t take an antibiotic for viral infections like a cold or the flu

2) Discuss your symptoms fully with your doctor

3) Take the antibiotic exactly as prescribed

4) Take the entire supply of antibiotics, even if you feel better (That means you, mom and dad)

5) Don’t take old antibiotics and don’t save unused antibiotics for the next time you get sick

6) Don’t take an antibiotic that’s prescribed for someone else.

Since I came across it a few weeks ago, I’ve been an avid reader of AdFreak. I’ve chuckled at the humorous clips they highlight and have been intrigued by the obscure campaigns they describe — but what brings me back again and again is their rather irreverent analysis of the advertising industry.

Today they had a post about all those dopey e-newsletters that have completely swamped my e-mail. It really hit home. As David Griner — one of their bloggers — explains:

I don’t read this particular newsletter (Not that this makes it any different than the boatload of e-newsletters I actually receive ) but I get what Griner is saying. The ultimate purpose of most of these is to get you to buy something — whether a product or service — which is probably why I don’t pay much attention. But it sounds like GameStop has figured out that people are not only wise to this, but that to get anyone to take notice amid the cacophony, they have to talk in an authentic voice. In this case, humor and a slightly cynical tone helps to set their newsletter apart.

As the author of the e-newsletter explained to AdFreak’s Griner:

Now jocularity may not necessarily equate to increased sales — the quality of the product will ultimately determine that — but I’m nonetheless cheered to discover that there are people who realize that the usual marketing song and dance may no longer work and that to reach people you need to treat them like people — and use your real voice.