A poster from Yahoo sent this. "Dr. Kelly, G
Post# of 154836
(Total Views: 1111)
Posted On: 07/21/2020 12:52:55 PM
A poster from Yahoo sent this.
"Dr. Kelly,
Good morning.
I’m sure you have more important things to focus on, but SOMETHING has to be done regarding the crafting of these PR’s. They are awful and this is not the first time the company has issued a critical PR that was confusing, lacked structure, deviated from conventional standards and negatively impacted the share price. I was once in charge of corporate communications for a small company that had a national footprint. Please consider a few changes in the future. Here are some pointers.
1. The PR should start with an encompassing headline; not details. The PR starts with “39% of Patients in Placebo Arm Had SAEs as Compared to Only 14% of Patients in Leronlimab Arm Had SAEs, Which Were Unrelated to Leronlimab.” It should have started with something more like “Leronlimab Demonstrates a 58.4% Reduction in Serious Adverse Events with ZERO SAE’s Attributed To Leronlimab.” That was your headline! That’s what captures the reader.
2. Numbers aren’t presented uniformly. Your bi-line states, “Leronlimab: 5 patients out of 56 (about 9%) reported serious adverse events, none were related to leronlimab”. But in the body of the PR it states, “Eleven (11) SAEs were reported in 6 patients (6/28; 21.4%) receiving placebo compared to eight (
SAEs in 5 patients (5/56; 8.9%). In one place, the PR refers to “9%.” In another, the PR uses “8.9%” to refer to the same number. Since the two statements aren’t adjacent, the data is more confusing.
3. The author’s framework is completely lacking and had they incorporated better emphasis for the different data points, we would have had a much better communication. For instance, start with the more mild data points and then move towards the most critical cases or vice versa. But, at least have a framework. Start each section with an encompassing statement and then drill down on the data. Sell the sizzle, then present the steak. For instance:
a. “Adverse Events. Leronlimab showed a marked 32% reduction in Adverse Events. 14 out of 28 patients (50%) in the placebo group experienced adverse events whereas only 19 out of 56 (34%) patients in the Leronlimab arm had an adverse event. The between group difference was 32%. None of the adverse events were attributed to Leronlimab."
b. "Serious Adverse Events. Leronlimab showed a 58.4% reduction in Serious Adverse Events. 6 out of 28 patients (21.4%) in the placebo group experienced a serious adverse event whereas only 5 out of 56 (8.9%) patients in the Leronlimab arm had an adverse event. The between group difference was 58.4%. None of the adverse events were attributed to Leronlimab."
c. "Deaths. Only ONE death was reported in the entire trial. The death was not attributed to Leronlimab."
I’ve tried to communicate this to management previously. Apparently, it fell on deaf ears. I pray, the company starts applying a more scientific approach to the crafting of these PR’s. Your stock is down today but for one reason: the PR was poorly crafted. Once is a mistake. Twice is a problem. We shouldn’t need to follow up PR’s with multiple videos. That’s not the way a Fortune 500 company communicates. And yes, that’s the way management needs to start thinking about this. You are now on the global stage and these missteps can’t continue.
I’ve brought quite a few shareholders to the company and my position is x figures. I hope you are open to constructive criticism from those that have a vested interest in the company’s success.
Regards,"
"Dr. Kelly,
Good morning.
I’m sure you have more important things to focus on, but SOMETHING has to be done regarding the crafting of these PR’s. They are awful and this is not the first time the company has issued a critical PR that was confusing, lacked structure, deviated from conventional standards and negatively impacted the share price. I was once in charge of corporate communications for a small company that had a national footprint. Please consider a few changes in the future. Here are some pointers.
1. The PR should start with an encompassing headline; not details. The PR starts with “39% of Patients in Placebo Arm Had SAEs as Compared to Only 14% of Patients in Leronlimab Arm Had SAEs, Which Were Unrelated to Leronlimab.” It should have started with something more like “Leronlimab Demonstrates a 58.4% Reduction in Serious Adverse Events with ZERO SAE’s Attributed To Leronlimab.” That was your headline! That’s what captures the reader.
2. Numbers aren’t presented uniformly. Your bi-line states, “Leronlimab: 5 patients out of 56 (about 9%) reported serious adverse events, none were related to leronlimab”. But in the body of the PR it states, “Eleven (11) SAEs were reported in 6 patients (6/28; 21.4%) receiving placebo compared to eight (
SAEs in 5 patients (5/56; 8.9%). In one place, the PR refers to “9%.” In another, the PR uses “8.9%” to refer to the same number. Since the two statements aren’t adjacent, the data is more confusing. 3. The author’s framework is completely lacking and had they incorporated better emphasis for the different data points, we would have had a much better communication. For instance, start with the more mild data points and then move towards the most critical cases or vice versa. But, at least have a framework. Start each section with an encompassing statement and then drill down on the data. Sell the sizzle, then present the steak. For instance:
a. “Adverse Events. Leronlimab showed a marked 32% reduction in Adverse Events. 14 out of 28 patients (50%) in the placebo group experienced adverse events whereas only 19 out of 56 (34%) patients in the Leronlimab arm had an adverse event. The between group difference was 32%. None of the adverse events were attributed to Leronlimab."
b. "Serious Adverse Events. Leronlimab showed a 58.4% reduction in Serious Adverse Events. 6 out of 28 patients (21.4%) in the placebo group experienced a serious adverse event whereas only 5 out of 56 (8.9%) patients in the Leronlimab arm had an adverse event. The between group difference was 58.4%. None of the adverse events were attributed to Leronlimab."
c. "Deaths. Only ONE death was reported in the entire trial. The death was not attributed to Leronlimab."
I’ve tried to communicate this to management previously. Apparently, it fell on deaf ears. I pray, the company starts applying a more scientific approach to the crafting of these PR’s. Your stock is down today but for one reason: the PR was poorly crafted. Once is a mistake. Twice is a problem. We shouldn’t need to follow up PR’s with multiple videos. That’s not the way a Fortune 500 company communicates. And yes, that’s the way management needs to start thinking about this. You are now on the global stage and these missteps can’t continue.
I’ve brought quite a few shareholders to the company and my position is x figures. I hope you are open to constructive criticism from those that have a vested interest in the company’s success.
Regards,"
(34)
(0)