Comments on: Should big PR firms that represent drug companies also run scientific societies’ media operations?

By: Adam

Adam — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:49:21 +0000

Sounds about as kosher as a bacon sandwich to me.

By: aidel

aidel — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 12:18:12 +0000

I say traif. Definitely traif. (=not kosher)

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:15:47 +0000

I cannot speak on behalf of Cohn & Wolfe, but I can say that I work for a PR agency that sensitively handles brief for corporate clients and not-for-profit/educational institutions at the same time and in a completely ethical way. It is not in the agency’s interest to blur these boundaries. If EASL in anyway suspect C&W are giving preferential treatment or providing privilaged information to a corporate sponsor then it will damage the agency’s reputation and future business potential. As Julie points out, this is not something new. It can be done without anyone’s interests being compromised.

By: Bob goldberg

Bob goldberg — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 05:35:21 +0000

should PR firms representing groups trial lawyers also represent groups that get direct funding from the same trial lawyers.. Or how about PR firms that represent hospitals, hmos, health advocacy groups like families USA also handle PR for meetings for health affairs or federal agencies such as ahrq.

This obsession with drug company coi reveals a deep bias bordering on addiction…

By: Rene

Rene — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 03:06:05 +0000

Good point re. situations where there may not be a conflict.

In my experience as a marketing consultant (different from PR but similar state of play) we often came across the conflict of interest issue – usually when a prospective client raised concerns about our involvement with competitors in their industry.

While the agency was quick to make promises about 100% partitioned teams, secure sub-directories, and the like, the reality was that none of this came to pass.

At the end of the day, agencies whose livelihood depend on getting the best results for their clients will ultimately do all in the power to get the best results for their clients and as such cannot be trusted to self-regulate.

By: Julie

Julie — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 22:44:25 +0000

So not a new issue as this has been going on for years. I used to work for both PR firms (and pharma companies) and while we didn’t actively pursue these types of engagements, if they happened, it was an opportunity to showcase our work (i.e., media relations skills) to potential clients.

As Denise says there really isn’t a church and state wall within PR firms…despite what they tell you…someone always knows what is going on.

Should this be allowed…well I am somewhat indifferent about it, but to keep things pure/clean I would say no. There are many smaller PR firms and/or freelancers who can handle these jobs (and would do a great job if I might add).

By: rob

rob — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 21:50:06 +0000

On the surface no.

But did the Society approach the PR firm because it did good work for a pharmaco and wanted to reach a similar audience? If the PR firm has done good work, why wouldn’t the society want to work with it.

Should the PR firm turn down business when approached by the society? It’s not like there are an unlimited number of clients out there.

By: Denise Graveline

Denise Graveline — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 21:36:08 +0000

Well-reasoned thoughts, Bob, and I especially agree that competitors should be outraged.

I have to say I’ve never seen a big PR firm with a “church-state wall” internally, as you’ve described here (and how would they prove that to one’s satisfaction?). Even if a PR firm offered its services pro bono to a scientific society for such a purpose, the entire operation would be considered a way to demonstrate skills and get new business for the firm, just as this foray might. (It has to be billed somewhere, in the end.) Even without an apparent conflict, the firm might easily have another agenda than the research at hand–its own marketing and future client base. The society signs up for much more than press room help with such an arrangement.

By: Bob Finn

Bob Finn — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 21:12:22 +0000

I’m of two minds about the outsourced press room issue. About 90% of me says, yes, this is definitely a conflict. But the other 10% can imagine some ways there wouldn’t be a conflict.

Small PR firm with pharma and society clients: always a conflict.
Huge PR firm with hundreds of clients, including pharma and societies: maybe not.

If totally separate divisions of the large PR firm were handling pharma and societies, there would be no conflict if there were a church-state wall between them.

Or suppose that a PR firm handles only a pharmaceutical company’s line of psychiatric drugs. Then it’s possible it could run a liver meeting without conflict.

But I think those scenarios are fairly far fetched. And even with those, even if there were no actual conflicts of interest, there would certainly be the perception of a conflict.

I think reporters should complain about this. But frankly I think that competing pharmaceutical companies have reason to complain even louder. How much of a fair shake will they receive when their competitor’s PR firm is running the press room and choosing which stories to highlight?