Clinical Trials Could Use A Rebrand
A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of attending the Walgreens Clinical Trials Day celebration. I know — it’s doesn’t sound all that exciting. And, honestly, I certainly didn’t expect it to be the highlight of my week. But…
The focus of the day was related to diversity and inclusion in clinical trials. In short, while drugs are often intended for everyone, for a variety of reasons, clinical trial participants tend to be predominantly white males. After a day of inspiring panel discussions and keynote speakers, I left with a new appreciation of Clinical Trials (and Walgreens) and the need for change in how they are conducted.
However, as a branding professional, I also couldn’t help but think about the marketing challenge of clinical trials. In particular, I found myself struggling with the name “clinical trials” (the word “trial, in particular), and the stark differences with the more commonly known legal trials, which have some built-in perceptions.
- An accusation of guilt. While those on trial are not (legally) presumed guilty, there is typically an accusation of guilt that got them there. This definitely doesn’t seem like an appropriate premise for organizations that are trying to save/improve lives (pharmaceutical companies testing their product).
- Unsatisfying participation. While legal trials may be fun to watch on TV, they are generally not all that rewarding to participate in. Alternatively, clinical trials have the potential to positively change your life. Many would walk through fire and climb mountains to be a part of them.
- Decisions based on opinion. While lawyers do their best to reveal the facts of any given case, the decisions are often based on the interpretation and opinions of the jury. In clinical trials, while there is some room for interpretation and judgement, the data/facts are certainly much more clear.
- Impacting an individual. The results of a legal trial typically impact a single individual (the one on trial). Clinical trials have the potential to impact populations (in a very positive way). This impact cannot be understated.
- A selected jury. While legal trials are intended to have a “jury of your peers,” the reality is that lawyers go to great lengths to select a jury most likely to vote in their favor. Sadly, this seems somewhat similar to many (not all) clinical trials where participants are selected to help increase chances of positive results, even if the participants don’t fully represent the intended audience for the drug (i.e., women, minorities, etc.). This needs to change.
Maybe I’m reading into this a bit too much. But, as the industry seeks to make clinical trials more accessible to everyone, perhaps we reconsider what we call them in the first place. Yes, by definition they are trials. But, in the eyes of the many (if not most) who participate, they represent the hope that they’ve been searching for, and the possibility to change lives. Perhaps something like “possibility panels” would be slightly more appealing. What do you think?
Clearly, it will take more than a name change to address the issues with clinical trials. Most importantly, we must put the patients first and work to make these critical studies accessible to all those who they are intended to serve.
As always, I hope you enjoyed this post. Please feel free to share with others who you believe may find it of interest. And, please share your thoughts, comments and alternative name recommendations here.
