AstraZeneca Vaccine: A Trail of Mistrust
It should have been a resounding triumph – hailed with a fanfare of expectation, bathed in the glory of UK pride – the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine was on course to be the new penicillin, a British therapy to save the world. Three months later, not one day passes without another swinging criticism of the vaccine emanating from politicians and clinicians across the world. All this vitriol despite the seemingly irrevocable proof that the treatment is safe and efficacious and cheap and robust enough to deploy across the world. So what has gone wrong?
Kredo is a specialist in the launch and promotion of disruptive technologies. Typically, these innovations are hatched on the far side of understanding. The type of products that (within their field) require a detailed appreciation and maybe a leap of faith for the intended users to trust in the reliance of their operation. This trust becomes increasingly vital the higher the threat to personal safety or well-being which can include professional reputation and financial standing.
Our approach is guided by the VERITAS model – a home-grown pneumonic (Vision, Endorsement, Relevance, Independent, Truthful, Authentic, Strategy) that informs our messaging and wider marketing strategy. Hence, the process of engendering trust is at the heart of our campaigns for drones, autonomous cars, medical device technology, mmWave Technology (5G/6G), and IoT.
Before we review the list of AstraZeneca issues and their impact on public perception and trust, let’s mention the rather rare environment into which this vaccine was launched which may account for some of the mishaps. Some company executives have complained that they weren’t prepared for the intense ‘fishbowl of scrutiny’ into which they were launched having volunteered to save the world for no profit!
I have to say that it is a familiar lack of appreciation, among top executives, about how the media landscape has changed in recent years. The speed of online news reporting and social media commentary has transformed reputation management into a very live and minute-by-minute activity. Opinions can originate in the Midwest of the US, take hold in Asia, and be common knowledge in Europe in one day. AstraZeneca's response and counter commentary has been lamentably slow. The lack of a coordinated confidence campaign has been absent. No doubt a result of a relative media backwater being thrust into the global limelight. But then, these are difficult times and even Government press machines have faltered.
The road to mistrust
Initial trial doses were administered incorrectly – some had only half the second jab – AstraZeneca was openly surprised that the mismanagement seemed to improve mid-term results.
Q. Are these guys the experts or just fellow travellers?
Initial public results seemed to indicate AstraZeneca’s vaccine was only 62% effective, compared to 95% efficacy of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines.
Q. Why isn’t AstraZeneca aligned on bench test – apples and pears? Turns out the AstraZeneca vaccine may prevent 99% of deaths – surely that is what we wanted to hear in the headline?
France and Germany restrict the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine to the under 65s because of insufficient data.
Q. It would seem a major error not to select from a balanced pool of age groups? What’s going on? Heaps more doubt onto the efficacy of the vaccine worldwide – UK continues as older age groups covered by Phizer jab… Arrogance or incompetence?
Devastating news arrives, as Norway records instances of rare blood clots – especially in younger women. Following a temporary cessation, vaccines are cleared by the European regulator and proceed only to be dogged by further interventions by governments across continental Europe.
Q. There is a theoretical risk of blood clots – however, clinicians agree that despite the risk – not being immunised poses a greater threat to health – and Covid is far more likely to cause clots. Why was this argument not used in the counter briefing immediately? AstraZeneca relied upon health journalists to draw this conclusion – too late before digital media had compelled governments to take precautionary steps.
The VERITAS Model
At Kredo we utilise a simple model to ensure that client communication messaging is optimised to engender trust. This six-step guide enables us to calibrate the marketing and communications programmes of innovative technology companies. It seems appropriate therefore to use this tool to analyse AstraZeneca’s communications performance as it may reveal what went wrong.
Endorsement features heavily in all our introductory product campaigns. However positive a product sounds in answering a customer need or solving a problem, we test messaging against the typical customer question “they (the manufacturer) would say that wouldn’t they?”…
Verification through third-party endorsement is an essential step in engendering trust for disruptive technologies – especially innovations that pose a safety risk. Obviously, in a closely regulated sector like health, these endorsements are conducted by official regulators. However, it is universal to all markets that, in order to secure a positive response, the trial data or testing must conform to industry norms. What is remarkable with AstraZeneca’s vaccine is that, in comparison to other products, the medicine did not align with the testing regimes conducted in other efficacy controls. One can only wonder if this was due to incompetence or arrogance? Of course, the unprecedented speed of development is a major mitigating factor. However, other developers’ compliance with regulator requirements seems to undermine this position.
Relevant - many of the concerns and queries about the AstraZeneca vaccine have been unfounded because they were not relevant. If 77 people are affected by blood clots out of 31 million doses – is it an issue of safety? After all, the consequences of just 100,000 refusing to be jabbed would lead to 3000 fatalities. This is not to detract from the tragedy of thrombosis or the urgency to isolate the cause. It is simply the fact that the benefits far outweigh the negatives in reality. Politicians have acted on their initiative to stop and start programmes, seemingly outside the advice of Public Health Practitioners. This should have afforded AstraZeneca a robust response. Unfortunately, there is an absence of a rebuttal and hence the sensational media headlines have fanned the flames of further mistrust. Why has AstroZeneca failed to be forthright in their messaging – even with clinicians in support? Maybe they have chosen to withdraw from the public conversation. Importantly, this is not an option in this digital media world as we have explored earlier.
Independent – one of the key assets for building trust is not always available in a typical commercial technology market – yet ‘Pharma’ has it in spades. The credibility of constant regulatory vigilance underpins the objectivity of the AstraZeneca message and provides ultimate credibility. Even within the negative environment of contra-indications, this independence can be used to defend the reputation of the vaccine. The very fact that the system monitors evidence of the smallest threat to programme participants should reassure everyone. The fact remains that one in every 600,000, unfortunately, die of these clots – why not compare that to other fatal eventualities? Tragically, 1,752 people died on UK roads in 2019.
Truth and Authenticity – some may be surprised to hear a PR argue the case for truth, however, we would advocate that it Is a core tenet and guiding principle for all communications, without which trust cannot be engendered. Naturally, there is no universal truth – just substantiated opinions.
Importantly, there is no suggestion that AstraZeneca has been anything but transparent in their dealings, if not slow and unresponsive in this digital communication age. Accusations by some EU and European State Government members of duplicity in AstraZeneca’s contractual obligations have inflicted wider damage to reputation. No doubt, most of these have arisen from misunderstandings and the automatic recourse of some politicians to distract voters from the actual cause of the slow rollout. There is a sense that commercial disputes on vaccine delivery have supported the growth of mistrust.
Strategically, AstraZeneca may have hoped for a smoother ride on this rollout and a certain degree of message protection from sponsoring Governments. One of the biggest surprises was that rivalry on vaccines has triggered counterproductive accusations between politicians leading to reckless statements that have ultimately undermined the ‘greater good’ arguments that are essential to public health. After all, the Oxford vaccine is offered by AstraZeneca at cost price. But this move may have been a mistake in hindsight? I'm guessing here, but the lack of communication management may indicate a lack of resource on the PR side of things? If AstraZeneca didn’t deploy a fully resourced comms team due to a lack of funding – then that would explain a lot and will prove to be a strategic mistake.
Read more about the VERITAS model in our free E-book here.
VERITAS
At Kredo we utilise a simple model to ensure that client communication messaging is optimised to engender trust. This six-step guide enables us to calibrate the marketing and communications programmes of innovative technology companies. It seems appropriate therefore to use this tool to analyse AstraZeneca’s communications performance as it may reveal what went wrong.
Endorsement features heavily in all our introductory product campaigns. However positive a product sounds in answering a customer need or solving a problem, we test messaging against the typical customer question “they (the manufacturer) would say that wouldn’t they?”…
Verification through third-party endorsement is an essential step in engendering trust for disruptive technologies – especially innovations that pose a safety risk. Obviously, in a closely regulated sector like health, these endorsements are conducted by official regulators. However, it is universal to all markets that, in order to secure a positive response, the trial data or testing must conform to industry norms. What is remarkable with AstraZeneca’s vaccine is that, in comparison to other products, the medicine did not align with the testing regimes conducted in other efficacy controls. One can only wonder if this was due to incompetence or arrogance? Of course, the unprecedented speed of development is a major mitigating factor. However, other developers’ compliance with regulator requirements seems to undermine this position.
Relevant - many of the concerns and queries about the AstraZeneca vaccine have been unfounded because they were not relevant. If 77 people are affected by blood clots out of 31 million doses – is it an issue of safety? After all, the consequences of just 100,000 refusing to be jabbed would lead to 3000 fatalities. This is not to detract from the tragedy of thrombosis or the urgency to isolate the cause. It is simply the fact that the benefits far outweigh the negatives in reality. Politicians have acted on their initiative to stop and start programmes, seemingly outside the advice of Public Health Practitioners. This should have afforded AstraZeneca a robust response. Unfortunately, there is an absence of a rebuttal and hence the sensational media headlines have fanned the flames of further mistrust. Why has AstroZeneca failed to be forthright in their messaging – even with clinicians in support? Maybe they have chosen to withdraw from the public conversation. Importantly, this is not an option in this digital media world as we have explored earlier.
Independent – one of the key assets for building trust is not always available in a typical commercial technology market – yet ‘Pharma’ has it in spades. The credibility of constant regulatory vigilance underpins the objectivity of the AstraZeneca message and provides ultimate credibility. Even within the negative environment of contra-indications, this independence can be used to defend the reputation of the vaccine. The very fact that the system monitors evidence of the smallest threat to programme participants should reassure everyone. The fact remains that one in every 600,000, unfortunately, die of these clots – why not compare that to other fatal eventualities? Tragically, 1,752 people died on UK roads in 2019.
Truth and Authenticity – some may be surprised to hear a PR argue the case for truth, however, we would advocate that it Is a core tenet and guiding principle for all communications, without which trust cannot be engendered. Naturally, there is no universal truth – just substantiated opinions.
Importantly, there is no suggestion that AstraZeneca has been anything but transparent in their dealings, if not slow and unresponsive in this digital communication age. Accusations by some EU and European State Government members of duplicity in AstraZeneca’s contractual obligations have inflicted wider damage to reputation. No doubt, most of these have arisen from misunderstandings and the automatic recourse of some politicians to distract voters from the actual cause of the slow rollout. There is a sense that commercial disputes on vaccine delivery have supported the growth of mistrust.
Strategically, AstraZeneca may have hoped for a smoother ride on this rollout and a certain degree of message protection from sponsoring Governments. One of the biggest surprises was that rivalry on vaccines has triggered counterproductive accusations between politicians leading to reckless statements that have ultimately undermined the ‘greater good’ arguments that are essential to public health. After all, the Oxford vaccine is offered by AstraZeneca at cost price. But this move may have been a mistake in hindsight? I'm guessing here, but the lack of communication management may indicate a lack of resource on the PR side of things? If AstraZeneca didn’t deploy a fully resourced comms team due to a lack of funding – then that would explain a lot and will prove to be a strategic mistake.
Read more about the VERITAS model in our free E-book here.
VERITAS
At Kredo we utilise a simple model to ensure that client communication messaging is optimised to engender trust. This six-step guide enables us to calibrate the marketing and communications programmes of innovative technology companies. It seems appropriate therefore to use this tool to analyse AstraZeneca’s communications performance as it may reveal what went wrong.
Endorsement features heavily in all our introductory product campaigns. However positive a product sounds in answering a customer need or solving a problem, we test messaging against the typical customer question “they (the manufacturer) would say that wouldn’t they?”…
Verification through third-party endorsement is an essential step in engendering trust for disruptive technologies – especially innovations that pose a safety risk. Obviously, in a closely regulated sector like health, these endorsements are conducted by official regulators. However, it is universal to all markets that, in order to secure a positive response, the trial data or testing must conform to industry norms. What is remarkable with AstraZeneca’s vaccine is that, in comparison to other products, the medicine did not align with the testing regimes conducted in other efficacy controls. One can only wonder if this was due to incompetence or arrogance? Of course, the unprecedented speed of development is a major mitigating factor. However, other developers’ compliance with regulator requirements seems to undermine this position.
Relevant - many of the concerns and queries about the AstraZeneca vaccine have been unfounded because they were not relevant. If 77 people are affected by blood clots out of 31 million doses – is it an issue of safety? After all, the consequences of just 100,000 refusing to be jabbed would lead to 3000 fatalities. This is not to detract from the tragedy of thrombosis or the urgency to isolate the cause. It is simply the fact that the benefits far outweigh the negatives in reality. Politicians have acted on their initiative to stop and start programmes, seemingly outside the advice of Public Health Practitioners. This should have afforded AstraZeneca a robust response. Unfortunately, there is an absence of a rebuttal and hence the sensational media headlines have fanned the flames of further mistrust. Why has AstroZeneca failed to be forthright in their messaging – even with clinicians in support? Maybe they have chosen to withdraw from the public conversation. Importantly, this is not an option in this digital media world as we have explored earlier.
Independent – one of the key assets for building trust is not always available in a typical commercial technology market – yet ‘Pharma’ has it in spades. The credibility of constant regulatory vigilance underpins the objectivity of the AstraZeneca message and provides ultimate credibility. Even within the negative environment of contra-indications, this independence can be used to defend the reputation of the vaccine. The very fact that the system monitors evidence of the smallest threat to programme participants should reassure everyone. The fact remains that one in every 600,000, unfortunately, die of these clots – why not compare that to other fatal eventualities? Tragically, 1,752 people died on UK roads in 2019.
Truth and Authenticity – some may be surprised to hear a PR argue the case for truth, however, we would advocate that it Is a core tenet and guiding principle for all communications, without which trust cannot be engendered. Naturally, there is no universal truth – just substantiated opinions.
Importantly, there is no suggestion that AstraZeneca has been anything but transparent in their dealings, if not slow and unresponsive in this digital communication age. Accusations by some EU and European State Government members of duplicity in AstraZeneca’s contractual obligations have inflicted wider damage to reputation. No doubt, most of these have arisen from misunderstandings and the automatic recourse of some politicians to distract voters from the actual cause of the slow rollout. There is a sense that commercial disputes on vaccine delivery have supported the growth of mistrust.
Strategically, AstraZeneca may have hoped for a smoother ride on this rollout and a certain degree of message protection from sponsoring Governments. One of the biggest surprises was that rivalry on vaccines has triggered counterproductive accusations between politicians leading to reckless statements that have ultimately undermined the ‘greater good’ arguments that are essential to public health. After all, the Oxford vaccine is offered by AstraZeneca at cost price. But this move may have been a mistake in hindsight? I'm guessing here, but the lack of communication management may indicate a lack of resource on the PR side of things? If AstraZeneca didn’t deploy a fully resourced comms team due to a lack of funding – then that would explain a lot and will prove to be a strategic mistake.
Read more about the VERITAS model in our free E-book here.
