One of the theoretical perspectives frequently covered in our courses is Diffusion of Innovations Theory, which is most closely associated with the work of Everett Rodgers. A recent article in The New York Times about the use of computer programs by pharmaceutical companies to promote prescription drugs to doctors describes a timely, real-world application of the theory’s principles. Diffusion Theory focuses on how interpersonal communication within a social group contributes to the adoption of new things, such as a new drug, by members of that group. According to this model, there’s a limit to how successful a central authority or promoter (such as a pharmaceutical company) can be in encouraging members of a social group (like doctors within a certain area of specialization) to adopt a new product or practice. The company can only reach so many people directly. Furthermore, there’s no way that they can be seen as credible by everyone or address the individual concerns of each person.
However, interpersonal communication within the group can also affect whether group members adopt. In some cases, it can help spur adoption of innovations. So if a doctor hears from a colleague that a new drug works particularly well, for example, he or she might be more likely to try prescribing it. The colleagues’ experiences may be seen as more relevant and more trustworthy than what they hear from a pharmaceutical representative. (It can also work the other way. If the word-of-mouth about the new drug is negative, doctors are less likely to begin prescribing it.) Another implication of the theory, however is that some members of the community are likely to be more influential than others. Some community members, for example, are likely to have more social ties than others (and thus know more people talk to) and to be more respected for their expertise than others. These community members are called “opinion leaders.” The idea is that if you can persuade them to adopt the innovation and then promote it to others, they will have an outsize impact on the adoption of the innovation within the group a whole.
The Times article, which was written by Katie Thomas, describes a software program that allows companies to figure out how physicians are connected to each other in order to decide who it makes the most sense to target with promotional efforts:
One company, Activate Networks, applies technology license from Harvard University to draw connections between physicians with patients in common, then uses those ties to accelerate the adoption of newly introduced drugs. . . . Mr. DeWan [the company’s Chief Scientific Officer] said his company assigned physicians a ranking based on how connected they were, which helped companies decide where to send a representative, or whom to invite to a talk about a drug.
In terms of Diffusion Theory, what they’re seeking to do is identify the opinion leaders, who have the social connections to talk up the new drugs to others, and can therefore amplify the company’s own promotional efforts. These efforts, do, of course, raise concerns about privacy. (The software reportedly uses information that’s been “de-identified,” so they don’t know the names of the patients whose connections they’re tracking.) It’s also an example of the way in which the distribution of information – raw data – and of ways to effectively harness that data to promote products is becoming something of an industry in itself.
