Merck and Pfizer's actions are something for the courts to decide. However, concerns about the cardiovascular safety of the cox-2s were being raised in medical publications as early as 2001. Rumors grew, concerns were voiced. Then on 30 September 2004, Merck announced that, following the analysis of three-year's worth of data in a post-marketing study, Vioxx would be voluntarily withdrawn worldwide.

AstraZeneca's Parton says that honesty and openness are the only options for long-term success. "If Pfizer or Merck are shown to have misled deliberately then no one will trust the company anymore, and that would affect all other brands. It is good business to be ethical. It is not in our interests to by sly and crooked. Otherwise you end up like Enron. We are not whiter than white, but being honest is best for business."

Wood agrees and suggests that product brands should have a strategy for handling such events—including their own withdrawal. His advice is to "be ready, have a plan, be open and honest, and reinforce the parent brand by being smart and responsible. Step one is to recognize that there is always the potential for issues because we work in a very difficult industry. And the fact is that no amount of clinical trial testing can truly and adequately simulate actual years in the marketplace. Also learn that safety is the number one issue for society and that is what corporate brands need to stand for. Safety and responsibility.

"This is the kind of situation in which whatever you've been saying about yourself, and having your corporate brand stand for, must be mirrored in your actions," Wood continues. "Merck has long held a reputation of strong ethical responsibility with its consumers and customers, represented by their 'people before profits' mantra.… However, their lack of fast action, and demonstrated commitment to doing the right thing, were doubtless seen to run counter to the kinds of statements they had been making about themselves."

Rea also notes that Merck tended to respond to developments as Merck, whereas Celebrex often came out with Celebrex press statements. "By responding badly you affect how you go forward as a company. It is not just Vioxx but Merck that is damaged now. On the other hand Pfizer has lost Bextra and may lose Celebrex, but we probably won't lose Pfizer."

Wood, in contrast, suggests that such major issues should be given adequate attention from top management. "The companies could probably have used their corporate brand and top management to much better effect. The standard in handling this kind of event was set by J&J and McNeil years ago during the Tylenol poisoning, when the chairman took personal responsibility, acted fast, and communicated openly and fully with all relevant constituencies. Unfortunately top management of both companies was largely silent on this occasion," he continues, referring to Merck and Pfizer.

The advice all sounds obvious, really: good behavior gets results. But does it really make much difference? Rea admits that, as with a lot of branding, it is difficult to measure, but he does think that the contrasting situations of Pfizer and Merck today may stem from their handling of the cox-2 catastrophe. Appropriate and "on brand" behavior, even in a crisis, may be enough to make the difference between failure or survival. In this case, it may have influenced the FDA's decisions when it reviewed all the cox-2 data in February 2005. "The panel was very split. It is difficult to say that the final decision was due to a difference in the molecules or marketing, but it could be a bit of both," says Rea. "Not everyone agreed that the risk profile of Celebrex was okay to leave it on the market. But maybe Pfizer just looked a bit more credible and a few votes were swayed in its favor."

Nevertheless, whether Merck or Pfizer comes out of this affair intact, it has had a devastating effect on the credibility of the pharmaceutical industry as a whole. No matter how well a pharma company manages its brand, chances are its reputation will still rank lower than most tobacco companies. "It's not just the responsibility of individual companies—the industry as a whole must make a more concerted effort to not simply counter negative publicity, but to tell its story to a public that frankly knows very little about the realities of the [...] industry," states Wood. "We need to be careful about demonizing an industry, which, ultimately, is about improving and saving human lives. But the industry must start helping itself, and these recent events have served only to set it back."     

[9-Jan-2006]