In Argentina, fluff science pieces, parental perceptions of the “natural way” to raise children and a general weariness of industry and government have led to a rise in anti-vaccine movements. It’s time to take the science seriously and start discussing the facts, scientific communicators say.

At a time when anti-vaccine movements are growing and their dangerous consequences have started to attract attention throughout the world, Argentine mass media have not been alien to the immunization debate. At times they have had a positive impact, while at others, not so much.

In the first half of this year alone, the US has already recorded its highest number of measles cases in the past 20 years, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Given that the World Health Organization (WHO) has also issued an alert about the resurgence of poliomyelitis in several countries, a well-known Argentinian biologist and science communicator felt obliged to address the vaccination issue in its weekly column in the magazine of La Nación, a leading Argintine newspaper. Diego Golombek himself stated that his articles in the above-mentioned Sunday magazine are characterized by “a sometimes light view, which we expect to be entertaining—though not less rigorous—view on science and its circumstances.” He subsequently explained, “It’s time to get serious about a situation which has caught the media’s attention again and is of utmost importance: the decision, taken by many parents, not to vaccinate their children.”

The spark that lit the flame of controversy was an article published in another magazine, mainly targeted at female readers, called OhLaLá. Under the headline: “Vaccines: yes or no? The author posed a false dilemma, lightly presenting vaccination as optional. A few days later, a new article published in La Nación looked at the topic from the following angle: “an X-ray of the parents that do not have their children vaccinated.”

The superficial manner in which this issue has covered has concerned the Argentine Scientific Journalism Network (RADPC). The network, which consists of 80 specialized journalists from across the country, issued a press release entitled “Vaccines: dangerous misinformation.”  In it they declare their “serious concern about some articles which, with the pretext of analyzing alleged ‘controversies’, assume flagrant misinformation on widely accepted public-health matters.”

Anti-vaccine activists claim to seek a return to “natural things;” they think that the perceived “excess” of mandatory vaccines is related to some kind of collusion between the pharmaceutical industry and the State. They also claim that the application of so many vaccines may generate diseases such as autism. Or, perhaps due to all these reasons altogether, the anti-vaccine movements are spreading throughout the world. In view of this gloomy outlook, we should underscore the importance that the public should be made aware of this issue and that, above, all, discussion of this issue deserves a serious, evidenced-based approach it deserves by people who know what they are talking (and writing) about.

The post The Risk of Misinforming when Talking about Vaccination appeared first on GLOBALHealthPR.

Quantifying the social impact of any discipline is not easy, and public relations is no exception. Globally, when it comes to establishing specific parameters to properly measure social impact, there are still “gray zones.”

Nonetheless, as communication professionals, we should strive to achieve objective outputs with every strategy and tool we use. It starts with reaching a single reader, viewer or follower, and can extend far into the collective social conscience. Even though the impact is unpredictable, this communication ultimately provides access to information that can be quantified and valued in any number of ways:

• Generation of quality content
• Investment in professionalization and training of journalists and media
• Coverage of a known fact from a new perspective

Most importantly, collaborating on a client project as equals allows us to build that sense of community. The end result: A simplification of complex scientific, technological, medical, industrial, financial or corporate languages found by listening to the clients’ needs and guiding them through the complexity of modern life.

Here in Mexico, the public relations industry has grown on average 9.1% in the past six years, and is worth about $1.9 billion Pesos ($150 million USD)[1] annually. There are over 5,000[2] PR consultants in Mexico focused on raising awareness on behalf of companies, and the impact of their advocacy comes with a high level of credibility and for an affordable price.

Throughout my life I have sought to contribute positively to society. Undoubtedly, PR has been the best means to achieve this goal. From my perspective, the contribution of marketing to society has endless possibilities, and a great potential for multidisciplinary approaches. Leading the Healthcare Business Unit at PR Partners, I have witnessed the value and impact of public relations on Mexican society and industry, and strongly believe we still have much more to do to support healthcare and improve the quality of life from infants to seniors.

The post Finding Solid Ground: Using PR to Transcend the Intangible appeared first on GLOBALHealthPR.

As the saying goes, “we are what we eat.” Because of this, or perhaps due to the increasing amount of scientific evidence regarding the impact of food on health, over the recent months, the Argentine media has been reporting different news related to several aspects of our daily diet. Due to the increase in reports, the media has gradually been putting the debate about the impact of food on health on the local agenda.

Based on ethical and environmental considerations in health matters, vegetarian diets have increased in popularity among Argentineans. What does the Argentine Nutrition Society (SAN) have to say about this issue? The media in Argentina is increasingly interested in knowing the answer to this question.  “Vegetarianism is being adopted by an increasing number of people. In light of this fact, we consider that SAN, as the organization that sets nutrition standards in our country, cannot be absent from this discussion,” explained SAN Chairman Dr. César Casávola. Casávola also clarified that vegans (who avoid eating animal products entirely) are at a higher risk of suffering from anemia and other nutritional deficiencies than ovo-lacto vegetarians (who avoids eating meat, but eat eggs, milk and milk products).

Another piece of news related to this issue was a study conducted by Austrian scientists and published in PloS ONE, a journal. According to this study, “vegetarians have a lower quality of life”, as reported by Clarín, a leading newspaper.

In addition to addressing the question of vegetarian diets, Argentine newspapers have often  taken advantage of the visits paid to our country by experts on the matter, reported on the debate about the safety of processed food, controls imposed on organic and the reason why “natural” does not necessarily mean good and healthy. “Most of the food we ingest is, to some extent, processed. Food processing is not a new invention; human beings have been doing this for thousands of years. Canning and cooking food are examples of the way in which our mothers, grandmothers and great-grandmothers process and preserve food. Coffee is processed, and so are cookies, milk and even packaged food; most of the food we put on our table is processed,” explained Janet Collins, President of the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT), a U.S.-based organization that visited Argentina to participate in the Argentine Congress of Food Science and Technology organized by the Argentine Association of Food Technologists (AATA). After explaining that all the products currently available on supermarkets’ and groceries’ shelves have been previously analyzed and approved by the pertinent supervisory entities, both national and international, the expert added: “Consumers usually think that food labeled as organic, or natural, or non-packaged food is healthier than processed food whereas, in fact, from the nutritional point of view, there is no difference between them”.

All in all, the debates about which foods are healthy and which are not, safety levels of non-caloric sweeteners, and the long-term impact that different ingredients have on health, are widely addressed by the Argentine media. And there are a great number of voices and positions. However, the audience is not yet able to decode the different and multiple messages.

The post Nutrition in Argentina: The Growing Debate on Vegetarianism, Processed Foods and Organic Products appeared first on GLOBALHealthPR.

The post EXTRA! EXTRA! Print Not Dead! appeared first on GLOBALHealthPR.

Image: FIFA

Today’s blog post comes to us from Mayra Lopes of GLOBALHealthPR Brazil partner, Tino Comunicação.

There is a common saying here that Brazil is o país do futebol, or “country of football.” It is easy to understand why: Brazilian players wear five stars on their jerseys, one for each World Cup the country has won. Some of the sport’s most famous stars – Pelé, Garrincha, Ronaldo, Kaká and now Neymar – are Brazilian. And, Brazil invented the so-called “Art of Football.” So yes, most will easily agree that Brazil is revered in the sport. Seven years ago, when FIFA President Joseph Blatter confirmed that Brazil would host the tournament in 2014, the country was abuzz with both positive and negative reactions. Now, a few months away from the event, there is still a lot to do and the country’s critics are speaking out through the international press on an almost daily basis.

PR opportunities at the World Cup? Not so fast

What could have been a great opportunity to generate PR has become taboo. Only the official sponsors of the World Cup are allowed to use the event’s name, logo and mascot. Also, TV Globo is the only TV license holder in Brazil, meaning no other channel can broadcast any match. Together with FIFA, they have created a number of rules and consequences for those who use the event’s name without the right permission.

The Arena Castelao in Fortaleza, Brazil
Image: CNN/SI

Nation Branding

Countries use sporting events to attain visibility and to work on what some call “cultural diplomacy,” and what others call “nation branding.” Simply put, it aims to measure, build and manage the reputation of countries. Philip Kotler, world-class marketing expert, defines nation-branding as: “The sum of beliefs and impressions people hold about place. Images represent a simplification of a large number of associations and pieces of information connected with a place. They are a product of the mind trying to process and pick out essential information from huge amounts of data about a place.”[1]

The 2010 World Cup in South Africa and 2012 London Olympics are the latest examples of successful ‘nation branding’ plans. South Africa managed to surprise the whole world and break old stereotypes. It left the country an enormous legacy, promoting its image as a trustworthy and hospitable place to visit. The Olympics also left a positive mark on Britain:  the Nations Brand Index research, which rates 50 nations on criteria such as culture and tourism, found that Great Britain now occupies the 4th place, whereas before the event it was in 5th.

After the Cup: Potential Changes in Brazil

Because of Brazil’s great reputation for football – combined with its increasing relevance in the global sphere as a leader of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) – Brazilians are beginning to worry about the future. They worry that the country’s current infrastructure (from airports to urban mobility and violence) will not support the torrent of visitors, and that the Brazilian team won’t win their sixth star.

Despite the fearful conversations and the lack of progress at building sites, our leaders are optimistic. Simon Anholt, another expert on the topic, says that “nation branding” should not over-promise or try to make a country appear to be something it is not. “Marketing teaches us that people cannot be deceived for long; that the higher you raise their expectations, the more completely they reject your offering when they are disappointed.”[2]

With the big tournament just months away, the country’s anxiety level is growing. Neymar, the golden boy, just got injured and became mixed-up in polemics. To top it off, a major construction accident happened in the stadium where the World Cup’s opening is supposed to take place. The clock is ticking and if Brazil wins the World Cup and everything goes smoothly, great. If not, let’s hope Brazilian leaders have a good crisis management plan and some other good tricks up their sleeves.

The post World Cup in Brazil: Opportunity or Challenge? appeared first on GLOBALHealthPR.

2013 was not a good year for the media in Spain, according to a new annual study of the Madrid Press Association. Last year, a total of 4,434 journalists lost their jobs and 73 media companies closed. The closings included newspapers, TV channels, magazines, corporate communications agencies, free publications, radio stations, digital press and digital agencies. Of course, for those still employed we must also consider reduced salaries, changes in work conditions (full-time to part-time, for example), underemployed workers and other factors.

Despite this difficult situation, the 4th Adecco Study of Workplace Happiness revealed that journalists who kept their jobs were among the happiest employees in their workplaces in 2013, next to firefighters, teachers, pharmacists and engineers. . Nearly 82% of Spanish journalists affirmed that they are happy with their profession, despite being some of the hardest hit not only by Spain’s economic crisis, but also by the crisis in the industry mentioned in the study.

The study results reveal that, regardless of profession, almost 8 out of 10 Spaniards are happy at their jobs. This is 1.8% higher than in 2012. The study found that the keys to being happy at work were feelings of serving a “true calling”, a positive workplace environment, and camaraderie amongst coworkers.

Thirty-nine percent of those surveyed thought that the secret to workplace happiness has to do with enjoying what they are doing. As journalists work in a profession where they fulfill their calling and attain a high degree of professional achievement, it’s unsurprising that these statistics are as high as they are among journalists.

The post Spain’s Journalists: Happy Professionals? appeared first on GLOBALHealthPR.

Is there a new game-changer in Brazilian journalism? Laís Cattassini of Tino Comunicação, GLOBALHealthPR’s partner in Brazil discusses.

Protesters in Rio de Janeiro.
Celso Barbosa-Futura Press/Veja

Here in Brazil, there is no question journalism has seen a dramatic change over the years. Although I am not old enough to have experienced what some would call “the good old days,” my generation is now part of a new way of making news. 

One group of young people is trying to do it differently—trying to change the way we produce and consume the news. They call themselves “ninjas.” Not as in warriors or as in spies. Well…maybe. NINJA is an acronym for “Narrativas Independentes, Jornalismo e Ação” (Independent Narratives, Journalism and Action). Unlike big-media journalists, these ninjas are part of the action, sometimes even provoking the facts.

Their notoriety began with the protests that took over Brazil in June. Trying to tell the “true” story of the protesters and what was happening in the streets, young journalists from all over the country went to the protests with mobile cameras and tablets, using 3G internet to report live from centre of the action. What they did, according to them, was give a true and raw view of what was going on, something the regular press hadn’t been doing. But that active participation is a tricky issue. Those who do not agree with the ninjas say they are very fast to demonize political organizations they don’t agree with.

The ninjas themselves admit they have strong political views and are not afraid to report on those. During protests in Rio de Janeiro two “activist-journalists” were arrested and continued broadcasting live on the internet. This led to massive public support. Consequently, the ninjas also got more credibility. They were not just seeing things from the outside like traditional journalists, they were being arrested like many other protesters. They could speak on behalf of the people in the streets.

Their way of making journalism, however, doesn’t have a long shelf life outside of this scenario. Trying to cover the Pope’s visit to Rio de Janeiro, they failed miserably because of what was perceived as superficial coverage amid the commotion. The same happened when they got an exclusive interview with Rio’s mayor, Eduardo Paes. Unprepared, they asked obvious questions and seemed unaware of many government  projects.

Like it or not, the ninja media is defying traditional media. They are inviting young and passionate journalists to report, which is something newspapers, magazines and broadcasters are not doing. And, they are not afraid of telling what their political tendencies are.

It is easy to criticize ninja journalists and ask for unbiased news and objectivity. It is easy to shout at them and ask who is funding their ambitious project. However, the ninjas are showing how passionate journalists can be and how important it is to tell stories about people. How the public itself is hungry for action and participation more than they are hungry for facts. They are showing how the internet can be a bigger ally to the traditional media and how things must change.

Is this the future of journalism? I don’t really know, but it’s a start.

The post They Call Themselves “Ninjas” appeared first on GLOBALHealthPR.

Q: In Portugal there is a lot of pressure of the government to cut the budget of health and medicines. What response should take brands and companies to this situation?

Companies should fight the misperception that pharmaceutical products are the chief health care “budget busters.” They should fight this fight with data. Pharmaceutical products have always ranked among the most cost-effective health care solutions. Decision-makers should honestly compare the cost of surgery or disability or lost productivity due to the poor treatment of disease, with the cost of prevention or optimal treatment. They will find that medications are, in general, much more cost-effective. Governments should not become penny-wise but pound-foolish. We’re about to learn the hard way in the US as we contend with the obesity crisis, and the resulting diabetes, heart disease and disability.

Q: Citizens have the idea that the health industry and medicine is a powerful lobby. Do you think this idea is correct? How can big companies do in order to change this idea?

In the U.S., politicians enjoy blaming lobbyists for the “special interests.” On close examination, however, who are these special interests? Pharma companies make up only part of the mix of organizations with great interest in promoting continued emphasis and favorable attitude of elected officials toward investment in health care. These other interests include disease and patient advocacy organizations, including rare diseases and the need for increased funding in medical research.

However, the real issue lurking behind global, public criticism of health industry is the relationship between providing and, what’s more, improving human health care with the fact that the drivers of health care innovation and delivery are for the most part, businesses. Is it ethical for a business to profit from creating and providing an innovation to prevent, cure or treat disease? Many people do not understand that a host of scientists and medical researchers and investors work hard and take risks every day toward improving lives, easing pain, promoting quality of life, and reducing mortality. We need the best minds, not lowest-cost minds to conquer Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes and pancreatic cancer, for example. These risk takers require incentives. It’s economic gain, as unsavory as it sounds, remains the international currency of motivation.

Q: Legislation on health communication is very different around the world. What limitations are reasonable?

People deserve protections from unfounded or unproven health claims that are associated with products or procedures. There is little debate on that. By the same token, patients deserve to know about life-saving treatments as well as the best quality care possible. The question comes down to value, access to medication and education.

In the U.S., direct-to-consumer promotion of prescription products is still allowed, and I’m not aware of any serious legislation proposed to ban it. In most other countries, however, DTC is banned because it might create demand for products that the country’s health system cannot afford. What is the best way to gauge the value of health care? Is the best way to manage health care costs a ban on delivering information that communicates the best treatment for patients?

Q: In the network Global Health PR, which is the market that produces the best work in this area? Why?

At GHPR all of the affiliated countries do a great job promoting the best communication healthcare practices. We can develop international PR campaigns using the local expertise of countries from all continents. The best part is that all can contribute with different knowledge from digital healthcare to crises management. For example teaming up with Guess What from Portugal gave us the opportunity to best understand the culture and health care communications regulations of the pharmaceutical industry in this country. No longer can you export a global health public relations campaign to another country and expect that it will be effective or even lawful. Each of the GLOBALHealthPR partners is indigenous, in that they provide genuine, expert insights that cannot be synthesized by overseas networks who make assumptions or merely speak the same language.

Q: Marketing budgets in Europe are being cut. It’s happening the same in healthcare? Which are the dangers of these decisions?

When companies, health care or not, cut public relations budgets, whether they stem from corporate or marketing departments, they effectively are saying that organized, strategic communications and relationships with their audiences are not important. Relationships aren’t worth spending on. If they cut marketing communications or public relations, it’s the same as siphoning fuel from the tank of your automobile. How far do you want to drive?

I like the expression “nature abhors a vacuum.” The space left open by uncommunicative health care organizations will be taken up by other organizations competing for your business that recognize the importance and opportunities offered by managed public relations.

The post An Interview with John J. Seng, Founder and President of Spectrum in Washington, D.C.; Chair, GLOBALHealthPR appeared first on GLOBALHealthPR.

One of the goals we strive for at my Washington, D.C.-based health communications firm, Spectrum, is flawless performance for clients. We invest the time to ensure that we completely understand our clients’ needs in the U.S. marketplace, and design creative, strategic plans grounded in science and research. We then move forward with every expectation of “smooth sailing.”

However, what worked last year in New Mexico, USA will probably fail in Mexico next year. Marketers must cast aside assumptions and avoid underestimating the challenges of effectively communicating in other countries.

Successful global pharma marketing communications compels health communications professionals and agencies to listen and understand first, and then think and act differently within each country to ensure success. In-depth knowledge of individual countries’ legal, cultural and regulatory environments is required – and then you need to figure out well in advance how to make it all come together effectively and efficiently.

National public relations and marketing communications managers often resist or outright reject implementing global strategies. Of course each country manager rightly believes he or she knows best what will work in their market. However, global continuity in strategy and messaging must count as the primary metric or deliverable.

Reconciling the inherent conflicts in universal goals otherwise pitted against local practice begins with mutual respect, engagement and listening. Ultimately, you will succeed by carefully tailoring your programs well in advance to individual countries’ needs and requirements while retaining the overall strategic vision and commitment to common goals related to your organization, products or issues.

Global pharma marketers face a primary challenge in simply understanding the basic, cultural differences between countries and how they impact communications programs. For example, how does each country communicate most effectively with media? While the days of mailing paper press releases are long gone in the U.S., other countries utilize technology and social media to far different extents. Do journalists access email easily? Do they communicate through Twitter or Facebook? Will they read blogs or watch You Tube videos? Sophistication varies widely, and technology evolves.

In addition, how you attract journalists to media events varies widely. In some countries, you “invite” journalists to an event as guests – and reimburse all their expenses. In other countries, that practice would offend the media; and elsewhere, it’s forbidden. And don’t assume that simple translation equates to cultural understanding or interpretation: For example, in Mexico, simply writing “For Immediate Release” at the top of your press release – a common practice in the US to denote free and clear use of a news announcement – instead insults journalists in Mexico who instead perceive that you demand instant action, reports Paola de la Barreda Becerril, Directora General of PR Partners in Mexico City.

At the same time, health care communicators must maintain an in-depth understanding of the legal and regulatory climate in each country and how that affects communications, says Neil Crump, Managing Director of Aurora, a healthcare communications firm in London. In pharmaceutical marketing in particular, pricing issues and the necessity of proving product benefits can greatly impact programs country to country. In Europe, generally, there is a push by governments to promote and ensure improved value. The pressure to reduce costs diminishes corporate marketing and communications budgets, although management expectations remain elevated. More is expected for less and in more compressed time periods than ever.

In Germany specifically, drug pricing is based on both the value of the product and its yearly market performance compared to other similar products already on the market. Of course pricing and reimbursement rates are vitally important to our clients not only in Germany but almost across the board. It is not simply enough to disseminate information on your product’s positive clinical trial results and good safety profile. Evidenced-based communications programs must be developed that continually showcase a product’s specific benefits versus its competitors in that specific market.

What is the best path to provide this information to varied target audiences? Is it primarily through media, and if so what kind – medical, scientific, business, consumer if allowed? Or perhaps the best path is informing and educating health and advocacy organizations, or reaching out directly to medical professionals. The answer varies based on the individual country and needs to be grounded in the realities of the marketplace.

A model that has worked effectively for us at Spectrum is to work through an established international network of health-focused communications firms, each providing strong local expertise and cultural understanding. Each partner understands what works and doesn’t in their marketplace, and communicates seamlessly for clients under one umbrella program. We rely on one another to provide the specific in-country strategic know-how, on-target research and marketplace details, that when bundled together, appropriately delivers for clients.

The post Global Pharma Public Relations – “Get Local” and Demonstrate Value appeared first on GLOBALHealthPR.

Today, Amanda Sellers shared the results of our global awareness campaign at the 2010 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) fourth annual National Conference on Health Communication, Marketing and Media. The “Find the Other 150″ campaign “found” 24 percent more children with a rare, fatal, and rapid aging disease called Progeria, a disease affecting less than .01% of the world’s population.

In creating and carrying out the campaign for The Progeria Research Foundation,  firms in 10 countries collaborated through GLOBALHealthPR, the largest independent public relations group dedicated to health communications worldwide.

Reaching out to media and medical professionals with culturally relevant and strategic communications methods, as well as using online tools such as the campaign website (www.findtheother150.org), the awareness generated more than 20 inquiries to PRF about potential children with Progeria in six months. From these inquiries, 13 new children with Progeria were identified from seven countries, increasing the total number of children known to have Progeria worldwide to 67 (a 24 percent increase). Watch below to hear more about the campaign from Amanda Selllers and click here to view the campaign poster and press release.

The post Technology Brings Global TV Interview Closer to Home: Skype™ Saves the Day appeared first on GLOBALHealthPR.