Fake Patient profiles on Facebook?

Comment by PhilBaumann on May 5, 2010 at 7:33am

Another great point - their focus on the electronic part is another example of labeling and narrowing people.

The ethics debate aside, I just don't see the marketing brilliance in what they're doing. And because we're talking about conversations, it only increases the likelihood that people will mock their efforts.

Putting the ethics aside, this has all the look an feel of "talk to the hand" mentality. People may "engage" with the Sara Baker's, but there's so much more value for both consumers and companies to simply be real. Simple as that.

Great post, Alicia!

Phil

Comment by Diana Lee on May 5, 2010 at 8:31am

My very first impression is how sadly obvious it is by this that they don't get us, us being the patient community. They don't know our basic terminology and they obviously don't know us as individuals or they would realize how off putting most of us would find this tactic. We don't liked to be tricked. Does anyone?!

Comment by Diana Lee on May 5, 2010 at 8:40am

Okay, I just spent some time on the oh so fake eSaraBaker's Facebook page. They put up pretend status updates! It looks like only people who were in on the secret replied to them, but what if someone who wasn't in on it reached out to engage with her? To be honest, that upsets me. As health advocates all we have is our ability to create relationships with other patients and the Internet is our main tool. If people start wondering if I'm some fake business gimic? Well that saddens me. I want people to feel comfortable using us as other people/patients. Just people/patients who happen to also be reliable, accurate, genuinely engaged sources of information.

You're right, Phil. If someone in that company had just created a professional, individual Facebook account & started reaching out it would go much further than this weirdness.

Comment by Liz S on May 5, 2010 at 10:06am

I continue to be struck by the outrage over the "fake epatient." It's no different than companies using actors to represent doctors. Whether or not you believe that the company did itself a disservice by creating an obvious fake profile, it's unrealistic to think that any 'Joe Patient' is capable of the responsibilities that come with representation.

The rhetoric goes both ways and the epatient rhetoric continues to grow. How about losing the outrage and make concerted, strategic efforts to communicate on a more broader basis what epatients are about and what they can offer companies. If you are truly about making change, become more visible, organized and real. Epatient Dave is a perfect example of what works. The whining over this FB page is a perfect example of what doesn't

I call it Epatients go Motrin Moms.

Next.

Comment by David Harlow on May 5, 2010 at 10:46am

This isn't the first fake Facebook page ever posted, and I'm sure it won't be the last. I agree with Phil that it's not a great idea to fake something in social media (sort of misses the whole point), but I believe that given the clear disclaimer on the page, nothing unethical happened here. (The page may violate Facebook's terms of service, but that's really beside the point here.) Using f-patients (Phil's neologism) is a tactic that's likely doomed to fail, but not one that threatens to tarnish the reputation or diminish the strength of true e-patients.

One issue that this episode points up is the difficulty of - and perhaps conflict of interest implicated by - recruitment of a true e-patient to be a spokesperson for a particular brand (hospital, physician practice, software vendor, DME vendor, whatever). I mean, we had Wilford Brimley hawking diabetes testing supplies on TV ... paid spokesman, yes, diabetic himself, but paid e-patient? what do you think?

Another issue this episode points up is that there is perhaps no need to even think about the previous issue. In a robust Web 2.0 environment, who cares about paid endorsements or spokesmodels? Folks take to heart endorsements posted by other credible folks in a variety of on-line locations: branded and unbranded forums, blogs, facebook pages, etc., etc. We expect that endorsements or recommendations are genuine and personal -- unless there is a clear notice about being compensated for the positive words (a requirement the FTC saw fit to promulgate as a rule relatively recently, probably because the staff felt that unacknowledged paid promotion via Web 2.0 channels had gone too far).

Is it necessary to monitor and call out future f-patients (as some have suggested it is necessary to monitor and call out bad medical advice posted on line) or is it sufficient to collectively post good material and rest assured that the wisdom of the crowd (and its influence on Google rankings) will favor the good over the bad?

What do you think?

Comment by Benatgeo on May 5, 2010 at 12:39pm

Social media comes with a different sort of social contract than marketing. It's the perception of authenticity that makes it so powerful. Consumers are very jaded by marketing these days. It's assumed that marketing is contrived and that messages are heavily massaged by professional communicators.

Within social media, people assume that the connection is real. You could walk through a hypothetical surgery as part of a marketing piece, for example, but it seems terribly dishonest to fake-tweet a hypothetical surgery.

This isn't the first fake person on social media to be sure. TGI Fridays ran a big facebook campaign last year where you friended "Woody" to get a free burger. Successful campaign overall, but there were some very angry people at the way the whole thing was approached.

Comment by Ellen Rossano on May 5, 2010 at 6:52pm

Thanks for writing about this Alicia. Social media tools provide platforms for people to have conversations. Creating "fake" people is not a great strategy to build trust in a community with existing or potential customers. There are too many "Empowered, Engaged and Educated" real patients who would be happy to have a platform from which to do all three.
Even with some kind of disclosure, why would I want to have a "conversation" with a fake "person?" And why would I trust a company or organization that could not fin a "real" e-patient to empower, engage and educate their community?
Social media tools are new, and there's a lot of learning going on. It would be interesting to find out who within the organization suggested that this would be a good strategy.

Comment by David Harlow on May 5, 2010 at 8:18pm

Ellen, I corresponded with the person responsible via twitter. Follow the link to my blog at the end of Alicia's post, and you;ll see that exchange at the bottom of my post.

Comment by epatientGR on May 6, 2010 at 7:01pm

Alicia it's not only the fake profiles on FB, they are everywhere. One has to be very cautious with the type of persons he engages. If you go to social media without a strategy you risk engaging with improper accounts, its better to focus on persons with same interests and track them for a while without befriending with them.

This practice of fake patients, may or may not be triggered by companies, but there are hints which in the long run are tell tale. I had two such examples last year and I blocked them.

Comment by TrishaTorrey on May 10, 2010 at 7:40am

Maybe these are "placebo patients" - "p-patients"? Fake... but sometimes they work anyway? (It actually reminds me a little bit of people who sign up for a new credit card in their dog's name....)

Cindy Throop first pointed out faux Sara Baker to me about 10 days ago -- I think her profile had been online only a day or two at that point. It truly creeped me out.

However -- a few different points of view. I have maintained for a long time that the LABEL "e-patient" creates its own problems because, unless you are someone who works in our world, the assumption is that the "e" relates to electronic - and suggests the online relationship. While most of us agree that we can't effectively be empowered patients without that ability to research online, we also agree that there are many people who are intimidated by the Internet, but not afraid to be empowered in other ways (asking questions, reading drug instructions, etc.) We do them a disservice using "e" when it just scares them away.

But the CONCEPT of the engaged patient is still vitally important.... It's why I have begun using "emPatient" instead -- because it is inclusive of everyone who wants to be empowered and engaged and doesn't scare them away.

Is it possible these faux patients are a result of misguided marketers trying to capitalize on "E" meaning electronic ?? And can we switch the conversation to make sure we are all understanding the same concept - to empowered and engaged?

How do we make that happen?

One other point - this, once again, shows us how vitally important it is to look behind the information we find online - following the money to be sure the information we find is objective, credible and valid.

Comment