HarrisCom Blog has moved!

December 6, 2011


We’ve moved!   Please visit us at http://harriscom.com/harriscom-blog/.

Advertisements

This morning, my client  Scientia Advisors released a global market review of the parenteral drug delivery device market–that is, devices that penetrate the skin to get medication into the bloodstream or specific tissue.

  The main message is that companies will need to rethink their strategies as new therapies and decentralization, in which patients manage their own care, become more prevalent.

The study reviewed the growing market for parenteral technologies such as infusion, injection, catheters and implants that penetrate patients’ skin so that medication can be released into the bloodstream or local tissue.

Based on intensive primary and secondary research and proprietary analytic techniques, Scientia projects market growth of 7%, from $11.8B in 2007 to 16.7B in 2012. Growth in the parenteral market will be driven primarily by the increasing use of biological drugs such as insulin and monoclonal antibodies, which must be delivered through the skin. (If taken orally, they are digested by the gut and rendered ineffective).

While established markets (hospitals, clinics, laboratories, ambulances and the like) are sizable, the segment’s greatest growth will come as individual consumers increasingly manage chronic diseases—such as diabetes—on their own.

Companies would do well to focus on unmet needs for absolute sterility in the production and testing processes, on new formulations for pain-free injections, and on needle-free systems.

The review is available for download from Scientia’s Web site at www.scientiaadv.com.

Scientia Advisors, based in Cambridge, MA and Palo Alto, CA, is a global management consulting firm specializing in growth strategies for health care and the life sciences.

Blog.harriscom.com is published by the Harris Communications Group, a marketing communications and public relations firm in Cambridge, MA. We also publish the New Cambridge Observer.


 On Wednesday, July 15, 2009, media consultant Doug Bailey wrote in an  op ed column entitled  “Got a comment? Keep it to yourself” that space for comments at the end of online newspaper articles should be eliminated because they downgrade the quality of news. 

Bailey,  who does not disclose that he’s a  former Globe editor, suggests that rather than enhance communication, newspapers online forums are “insidiously contributing to the devaluation of journalism, blurring the truth, confusing the issues, and diminishing serious discourse beyond even talk radio’s worst examples.”

He  points out (without naming names) that  the comment sections allow  “anonymous”, “unverified,”  “agenda-driven”  “boneheads” to post inaccurate information that  can be picked up by bloggers and then by legitimate traditional reporters who publish “missives” –unaware that the bloggers’ information came from their newspapers’ own Web sites.

Yes, this is a problem–and  it is, as Bailey puts it, a bit  “insane”. But rather than ban readers’ comments, wouldn’t it make more sense for reporters to verify all sources?  Certainly, real reporting takes time–and traditional journalists are increasingly harried in these days of cost-cutting and layoffs.

But it is verfication and objectivity that separate  independent journalism from  disinformation. And, it is truth, and allowing readers a stake in it–that, in the end, will give us a reason to  pay for news.

Bailey ends his column saying, “By the way, don’t bother posting any comments directly to me when this article appears on the Web. I won’t see them. Instead, go start your own website or blog or buy a legitimate newspaper or write a letter to the editor, or an op -ed (and sign your own name to it). If  you really have something interesting to say, I’ll find you.”

(I was  amused–and glad–to see 168 comments after the online posting.

  • “Kachunk” says he’s posting for “the irony”
  • “Oldpink “says it’s ” nice for ordinary citizens to be given an opportunity to add something that should have been in the original column, while allowing others to rebut.Messy? Often a bit mean? Commonly inaccurate? Absolutely. Isn’t democracy grand?”
  •  “Sensibleman,”  writes that he’s using  the first amendment to tell Bailey “to stop submitting articles so if intelligent life ever scans our internet to determine how critical it is to stop at Earth they don’t pass over us due to stupidity.”)

I read Bailey’s column in the print edition–which is delivered  to my door (late, but that’s another story)  every day.   But the Globe allows almost no print space for letters to the editor which, in days past, might have helped keep reporters and columnists on their toes.  Hence, this posting–and comment #169 after Bailey’s piece, online.

But if  I did write in, I’d  include my name and  prior affiliations– and make  clear that like Bailey’s,  my not-so hidden agenda is to attract customers to  my consulting business.  

 Hint, hint:  Anita Harris, a former national journalist,  is president of the Harris Communications Group, of Cambridge, MA.

PS  Comments welcome!

%d bloggers like this: