John Mack who writes the fascinating Pharma Blogosphere today revealed a tiny tidbit about the blog survey he's been doing.
And what did it say?
It said I had failed.
A full 9% of pharma respondents who regularly reads a blog thought that "Question Authority" was somewhat or very credible.
That is rather shocking.
I mean, clearly, these 9% should be fired, ALL OF THEM, for insubordination!
To imagine that pharma employees would like anything on these pages is like imagining Komsomol (Kommunisticheskiy Soyuz Molodiozhi (Коммунистический союз молодёжи), or "Communist Union of Youth") organizers reading Wall Street Journal and loving it.
You know what would happen with those little Komsomolskis if they admitted to loving the WSJ, and the same, of course, will happen to any pharma employee admitting to liking my message.
BUT, I think John Mack is hiding something. Clearly he has indicated that he will not reveal the overall data from his survey until he goes to some kind of drug summitt. So he's visiting the real drug lord hard-liners, and to those he will reveal all the juice he found out about us other bloggers.
So we don't know if maybe 90% of all non-pharma people who didn't read blogs on a regular basis LOVED my blog. Which would, of course, also be a COMPLETE failure, considering that this blog is designed to be provocative, confrontational, irreverent, mocking, impertinent, flippant, and impudent, in order to make as many people as possible, including fellow bloggers upset.
And in spite of this hard work to provoke everyone, I know that there is almost no other blog John Mack subconsciously loves more than my blog, no matter how hard I try.
How do I know that?
Because his blog lists his TOP OVERALL TOPICS in the right column:
Topics
BrandweekNRX (14)
Dr. Peter Rost (12)
Pharmalot (11)
PharmaGossip (8)
Journalists (7)
OK, so he loves Jim Edwards at BrandweekNRX a tiny weeny little bit more, but hey, I'm second in John's heart. And that makes me feel warm and fuzzy, considering that John still does quite a bit of work for the drug lords.
5 comments:
Peter,
I read all the blogs everyday that I can get online in the evening (ok..maybe at work), but I think you are the best one hands down. You represent! Please see the digg of your previous post I did for you.
You have our ears, keep up the rational good work.
JR
PS u never answered me about the baby
Thank you Joan!
And, no, I'm not aware of any baby on the way . . . would love a five more, but gotta get a way to feed 'em first!
Peter, you are right! I love your blog and missed it after taking it off my list (after you announced you were too busy to continue the blog). Glad to have you back.
A couple of things -- the 9% is only among the 50 or so pharma respondents to the survey, not the entire base, which I am sure rates you very high. In other respects as well Question Authority did very well in the survey.
Keep in mind that this survey is not scientifically accurate.
As to the summit meeting -- it actually is part of a larger meeting focused on consumer health -- so there will be a lot of physicians, payers, and patient advocates attending and probably few pharma people. In other words, it's not a typical pharmaceutical industry meeting, although I do speak at many of these meetings as well.
Recall, that I tried to get you "inside the tent" for the opportunity to piss out with me, but your schedule didn't allow it. I hope to be able to reprise that opportunity.
I also invite you to be a guest on my weekly Pharma Marketing Talk podcast. It's only one-half hour of your time and is done completely by phone. What do you say?
Thanks John for that clarification, I can't wait to see those results!
And, I love you too!
Now we just have to start swaying around the campfire...
Post a Comment