Pfizer is providing an excellent example on how not to deal with product problems and recalls. While the drug industry has some unique attributes, there are several learnings that are applicable to other sectors as well.
I have written extensively on Pfizer's mishandling of the recall of Bextra, it seems that Pfizer has another situation to deal with - a somewhat likely recall of another blockbuster drug Viagra. Based on the data presented so far, I think that the number of people affected is still small (unless others have not yet come forward). However, it is interesting to watch since that is how most drug problems come to light. If we go back and look at the recent recalls of other drugs, for instance Tysabri, Adderall XR (in Canada), Vioxx and Bextra, the first reports were generally of isolated cases.
Thus, I do not expect a recall of Viagra right away but this could be the first step in the process.
How has Pfizer responded to Viagra controversy so far?
Let us review the timeline. On March 31, 2005, ophthalmologists at the University of Minnesota said in an article published in the Journal of Neuro-ophthalmology that a condition that causes permanent vision loss has been diagnosed in a small group of men who had taken the Viagra. The condition, nonarteritic ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION), described as “stroke of the eye,” occurs when blood flow is cut off to the optic nerve, which injures the nerve and results in permanent vision loss.
Pfizer did not even issue a press release after the study was published while the news quickly spread (Note: I have argued before that silence on part of a company when a controversial news develops is no longer a viable strategy. The longer the silence, the worse is the damage). Then it was disclosed on May 27th that the FDA was investigating the Viagra and blindness linkage. As I have said before, sometimes even a delay of few hours can make a huge difference and it did for Pfizer. The company did issue a press release later that day but by that time thousands of online publications (particularly blogs) had already done enough damage to Pfizer and Viagra. (Related article: Brand management on the Internet)
So far Pfizer's response has been no different than it was when bad news about Bextra first came out in early December, 2004. This time too, Pfizer does not even acknowledge that there could be a problem with Viagra. "There is no evidence showing that NAION occurred more frequently in men taking Viagra than men of similar age and health who did not take Viagra," the company said in a written statement essentially challenging the researchers who established the linkage.
It could very well be that Pfizer is right and the company and the FDA might agree on label changes, and the matter will come to an end, but in the meantime not many men will be motivated to take the drug.
What does it mean for you?
- When bad news about a product or a company comes out, do not act like a politician. Do not just defend for the sake of defending. It doesn't work, particularly when scientific data is presented.
- Always have the PR team ready to respond to external developments. Pfizer was too slow with a media strategy for Viagra.
- The lesser the controversy, the better it is. Bad news always attracts more publicity than good news. If Pfizer is eventually able to show that Viagra is totally safe, it might be too late already.
Recommended articles
How to leverage public relations
Lessons from Pfizer's mistakes
Pfizer's wrong strategy for Celebrex
Keywords: Viagra recall - product recalls