Health Guy's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/174644/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/79615-failure-to-deliver-meaningful-roi-online-for-pharma?source=feed#comment-256025 256025 Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:20:43 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/79615-failure-to-deliver-meaningful-roi-online-for-pharma?source=feed#comment-197304 197304
I certainly think its possible to draw a connection between someone who at some point saw an online ad and their eventual arrival at the doctor's office, but I dont know if you can tie this outcome as close as you might in a more unique lead generation hybrid model. But hey, every little bit helps. And the larger point of my article isnt about what methods of innovation will work the best, but simply that in order to get Pharma to move we all must innovate more. And to the extent that Quality Health and others are doing that I tip my hat.
]]> Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:26:28 -0400
I certainly think its possible to draw a connection between someone who at some point saw an online ad and their eventual arrival at the doctor's office, but I dont know if you can tie this outcome as close as you might in a more unique lead generation hybrid model. But hey, every little bit helps. And the larger point of my article isnt about what methods of innovation will work the best, but simply that in order to get Pharma to move we all must innovate more. And to the extent that Quality Health and others are doing that I tip my hat.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/79615-failure-to-deliver-meaningful-roi-online-for-pharma?source=feed#comment-182007 182007
Thanks for your comments. And I agree, vertical sites that offer users more substantive, focused content are likely going to gain traction in the coming years as the general portals are unable to "be all things to all people".

And as you suggest, Pharma would be smart to understand how a smart, targeted spend in sites like these could impact their business, either via new scripts or for CRM/retention purposes.

Finally, I also concur (hope) that the more effective products/websites are more than mere publishing houses that are so prominent today.
]]> Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:15:57 -0400
Thanks for your comments. And I agree, vertical sites that offer users more substantive, focused content are likely going to gain traction in the coming years as the general portals are unable to "be all things to all people".

And as you suggest, Pharma would be smart to understand how a smart, targeted spend in sites like these could impact their business, either via new scripts or for CRM/retention purposes.

Finally, I also concur (hope) that the more effective products/websites are more than mere publishing houses that are so prominent today.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/78192-google-health-unveiled-open-the-flood-gates?source=feed#comment-172691 172691
But I dont think Google Health represents any additional value to cause any investor to buy Google stock. And this is a website about investing, right?]]> Fri, 23 May 2008 12:21:41 -0400
But I dont think Google Health represents any additional value to cause any investor to buy Google stock. And this is a website about investing, right?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/78192-google-health-unveiled-open-the-flood-gates?source=feed#comment-172663 172663
B) Google already has ADAM and every other content provider integrated into their search results.

C) Google already is the leader in the online health ad space.

D) Nothing about Google Health inidicates that they can gain traction with users or make money. Just saying that a market is "a billion dollar industry" doesnt make it so. In fact, I dont know anyone who is making any money in PHR field.

My point here is simple: broad, general statements that have no historical fact or logical assumptions are useless. And how investors usually get burned....]]> Fri, 23 May 2008 11:41:48 -0400
B) Google already has ADAM and every other content provider integrated into their search results.

C) Google already is the leader in the online health ad space.

D) Nothing about Google Health inidicates that they can gain traction with users or make money. Just saying that a market is "a billion dollar industry" doesnt make it so. In fact, I dont know anyone who is making any money in PHR field.

My point here is simple: broad, general statements that have no historical fact or logical assumptions are useless. And how investors usually get burned....]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/78192-google-health-unveiled-open-the-flood-gates?source=feed#comment-172197 172197
Google should just stick with search. After all, they already eat WebMD's lunch by taking the majority of Pharma ad dollars already.]]> Thu, 22 May 2008 18:31:55 -0400
Google should just stick with search. After all, they already eat WebMD's lunch by taking the majority of Pharma ad dollars already.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/76727-blue-nile-ziprealty-down-webmd-monster-up?source=feed#comment-168436 168436 Thu, 15 May 2008 19:37:47 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/72295-cbs-digital-acquisitions-what-s-next?source=feed#comment-151189 151189 Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:58:50 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/71368-time-to-buy-webmd?source=feed#comment-146717 146717
The fact of the matter is that WebMD is 100% opposite of what you call "niche content". The vast majority of their content is rented from health publishers whose content is easily found all across the Internet. I am speaking of firms like Healthwise, Harvard Health publications, MayoClinic, etc. Anyone with money could start a website tomorrow with 80%+ of the same content as WebMD.

And while you note that WebMD does have large reach there are a few problems. One, organic growth is likely saturated based on the data you provide. Two, ad agencies across the country hate to work with WebMD who is arrogant and overpriced. Three, CPM revenues are declining as Pharma is putting pressure on online health portals to deliver more "action" and less banner ads which are ineffective at delivering the ROI required to meet their needs.

And of course there is much more competition today than even one or two years ago. Back then WebMD was the only kid on the block and had free reign. Not any more. Users are tired of their inch deep and mile wide content and have migrated to deeper, "long tail" websites. Competitors like Revolution Health, Everyday Health, and Microsoft are coming on hard and fast competing for both ad dollars and user attention. WebMD has done a good job with Medscape which will be more difficult to supplant although new sites like Sermo have an interesting model and are gaining traction.

As I said at the start of my comment, there may be a financially sound reason to buy WebMD at these levels but not a strategic business reason. I suspect as the recession deepens WebMD is likely to test its IPO price of $17. And if the institutions get scared or need to liquidate for other reasons this could be a low teens stock by summer.]]> Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:36:40 -0400
The fact of the matter is that WebMD is 100% opposite of what you call "niche content". The vast majority of their content is rented from health publishers whose content is easily found all across the Internet. I am speaking of firms like Healthwise, Harvard Health publications, MayoClinic, etc. Anyone with money could start a website tomorrow with 80%+ of the same content as WebMD.

And while you note that WebMD does have large reach there are a few problems. One, organic growth is likely saturated based on the data you provide. Two, ad agencies across the country hate to work with WebMD who is arrogant and overpriced. Three, CPM revenues are declining as Pharma is putting pressure on online health portals to deliver more "action" and less banner ads which are ineffective at delivering the ROI required to meet their needs.

And of course there is much more competition today than even one or two years ago. Back then WebMD was the only kid on the block and had free reign. Not any more. Users are tired of their inch deep and mile wide content and have migrated to deeper, "long tail" websites. Competitors like Revolution Health, Everyday Health, and Microsoft are coming on hard and fast competing for both ad dollars and user attention. WebMD has done a good job with Medscape which will be more difficult to supplant although new sites like Sermo have an interesting model and are gaining traction.

As I said at the start of my comment, there may be a financially sound reason to buy WebMD at these levels but not a strategic business reason. I suspect as the recession deepens WebMD is likely to test its IPO price of $17. And if the institutions get scared or need to liquidate for other reasons this could be a low teens stock by summer.]]>