PETER ROST: PHARMA MARKETING EXPERT WITNESS. AWP, MEDICAL DEVICE EXPERT.: I dare you, John Mack!!!
screen2largeMM

Dr. Rost provides services as a pharmaceutical marketing expert witness. For more info see: Drug Expert Witness. Dr. Peter Rost email. Copyright © 2006-2013 InSync Communication. All rights reserved. Terms of use agreement, privacy policy and the computer fraud and abuse act.
.

PETER ROST: PHARMA MARKETING EXPERT WITNESS. AWP, MEDICAL DEVICE EXPERT.

Peter Rost, M.D., is a former Pfizer Marketing Vice President providing services as a medical device and drug expert witness and pharmaceutical marketing expert. Judge Sanders: "The court agrees with defendants' view that Dr. Rost is a very adept and seasoned expert witness." He is also the author of Emergency Surgery, The Whistleblower and Killer Drug. You can reach him on rostpeter (insert symbol) hotmail.com. Please read the terms of use agreement and privacy policy for this blog carefully.

I dare you, John Mack!!!

John tries to prove in his post The Rost Self-Promoting Spin Machine is in Full Gear! that what I claimed in my post BrandweekNRX blows the whistle on the "Pharma Blogosphere Survey" is wrong.

Most importantly, he defends his survey and objects to my statement "It turns out that in the "biggest pharma blog survey ever conducted," John didn’t really do a survey of pharma blog readers. He simply ended up with responses from his own readers of his Pharma Marketing Blog."

So in his rebuttal, John writes:

"Yes, 73% of the 144 or so respondents claimed they read Pharma Marketing Blog (this excludes those that Never or Rarely read it). A respectable 31% of the survey respondents also read Peter Rost's blog (Question Authority) and 73% of those people also read Pharma Marketing Blog. If most respondents ALSO read my blog, that says more about the popularity of my blog than about "surveying ONLY my readers," which is how Rost sees it."

And John knows how to use statistics . . . as we all know there are lies, damned lies and statistics.

So if we instead look at the raw data in John's survey, and select only the respondents who actually read any blog once a week (anything less is hardly a regular reader), we find that only about 10% of the respondents read Question Authority at least once a week, however, almost 50% read the Pharma Marketing Blog - John's blog - once a week or more.

Based on John's comments above, clearly he feels this says "more about the popularity of his blog," the Pharma Marketing blog, than about the survey. Essentially he implies that he has more readers. But if he doesn't, that would prove, again, the survey is based on faulty premises.

As for me I stand by my original statement - John simply surveyed his own readers. Check the link for yourself to the raw data, above.

But let's make really sure that I'm right and John is wrong.

So here's my challenge to John: Show us your readership for the Pharma Marketing Blog over a recent six month period, the way I've done this below.

Here are my numbers, now, publish yours! (Already published once before, here.) If you don't come close, (or, really, generate 5x more readers) your survey is dead, since it has no relationship to reality.

Visitor data

And it certainly can't be used to ask for Brandweek to fire me, the way you did this when you wrote, "IMHO, Brandweek should seriously consider the data I have presented above, because it signals that BrandweekNRX may lose some of its credibility and usefulness, especially among its most important audience: pharmaceutical executives."

By the way, John is already back tracking from this statement, saying " I never strongly or otherwise suggested that Brandweek fire him."

Huh?

What did you suggest they do, based on your "data"?

Neuter me?

Change my name?

Seriously. John, don't you try to weasel out of this one.

You also wrote:

"So Rost as BrandweekNRX blogger makes perfect sense... if you intend to flush your blog down the drain as far as pharmaceutical industry readers are concerned -- except for their lawyers, that is."

and you stated, "BrandweekNRX's readership will drop (perhaps after an initial transient uptick attributable to curiosity"

and . . .

"The notoriety, however, will not last long. Perhaps that's why Rost hints his stint at BrandweekNRX may only be a temporary assignment (ie, "for a while"). Maybe it's destined to last only until Brandweek sees the numbers from its own reader research!"

Are you SURE you don't want Brandweek to fire me?

Stop messing around, John. We want your numbers. Now.

7 Comments:

Blogger PharmaFraud said...

How dare you go against the Godfather. I hope your life insurance is paid up.

8/07/2007  
Blogger John Mack said...

What numbers are you talking about now, Peter?

Why don't you "stop messing around" and spinning what I said? I WANT YOU TO SHOW everyone where I said "Brandweek should fire Peter Rost."

8/07/2007  
Blogger Peter Rost said...

Don't you think all the things you said above can be summarized well, with "FIRE HIM!"

I do.

Now, give us your readership numbers!

8/07/2007  
Blogger John Mack said...

No, I do NOT think it is fair to "summarize" what I said as "fire him!" When I want to say something, I say it and don't beat around the bush as anyone who reads my blog can attest.

As for my readership numbers, why should I tell you?

In any case, I already publicized my reader numbers and asked other bloggers to do the same. None have taken me up on the offer.

You probably missed that post -- find it here:

http://pharmablogosphere.blogspot.com/2007/05/stats-ill-show-you-mine-will-you-show.html

8/07/2007  
Blogger Peter Rost said...

"As for my readership numbers, why should I tell you?"

Well, I guess you kind of did just that by referring to your post. So Pharma Marketing Blog has about 10-15,000 page views per month.

Question Authority had over 60,000 per month. That is 5x as many.

So if your survey was connected to reality, it should have shown 5x as many people reading Question Authority regularly, as the Pharma Marketing Blog.

It didn't, in fact it showed the opposite.

And this proves my case. You essential ended up with your own readers, not a representative sample.

But this shouldn't be surprising, same thing would probably have happened if I the survey on one of my sites.

You just need to realize and acknowledge how the data is flawed, instead of pretending it is a good overall sample, and be more careful when you make public recommendations, such as the one you did to Brandweek!

That's all I'm asking for.

As for you not telling Brandweek to fire me . . . well, you didn't use those words, but anyone who didn't get that out of your message on how I would decrease readership AND credibility, would be rather daft . . . what else could you POSSIBLY have meant when you wrote that Brandweek "should seriously consider the data I have presented."

You sure as heck didn't mean they should give me a raise!

Or did I get that wrong too??

8/07/2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AHahahaha. Rost is so gay

8/08/2007  
Anonymous Juha S said...

"When I want to say something, I say it and don't beat around the bush as anyone who reads my blog can attest."

Oh deer John…

There is an expression that goes like this…
“Read between the lines”
We have the same expression in Sweden as well... I think it's an intrenational expression. In Sweden we say:
"Läsa mellan raderna"

I really believe that you will make better conclusions in the future if you know how to do that, I really do…
It’s very easy, just Google it…


What a heck… I might as well give you the link:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/read+between+the+lines

Just give it a try...

8/10/2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home