For Allergan Inc., a subtle offense has proved the best defense in the court of public opinion over Botox.
Observers give the Irvine drug maker good marks for its strategy in support of Allergan’s flagship drug as a sensational lawsuit over Botox played out in recent months.
“What Allergan did was smart and on target,” said Christopher Perez, senior vice president at the Corona office of New York-based Euro RSCG Magnet, a public relations and advertising agency. “They ignored anything to do with the specifics of the trial. But they fiercely defended their product and didn’t let any allegations go unresponded.”
Earlier this month, Allergan won big in a lawsuit filed against it and a doctor who prescribed Botox. A Los Angeles jury cleared Allergan and celebrity dermatologist Arnold Klein of wrongdoing in the high-profile case brought by the wife of former Hollywood movie studio head Mike Medavoy.
The suit wasn’t without embarrassing moments for Allergan, including mention of its payments to Klein to promote Botox. The practice proved surprising to some unfamiliar with the ways of the drug industry.
Dual Strategy
Allergan’s strategy outside the court was two-fold, according to Perez: recognizing what part of the battle it had to fight, and then “not letting your product get trashed without a defense.”
“They defended their product but didn’t try to be judge or jury on the trial,” said Perez, whose agency did investor relations work for Allergan about five years ago but doesn’t represent the drug maker now. “It kept them on the more pristine medical, pharmaceutical side without getting into the scandal-ridden, Hollywood wife story that was brewing.”
For their part, Allergan officials insist the case didn’t require damage control.
“If you look at our sales and marketing strategy right now, that has not changed in light of the lawsuit,” said Caroline Van Hove, an Allergan spokeswoman. “The sales force is conducting the same activity as prior to the lawsuit.”
Last year Allergan did run a “The Truth About Botox” ad campaign. But that was in the works long before the lawsuit was filed in early 2003, according to Van Hove. The intent was to counter misperceptions about the drug, including “rumors that Botox came from animals,” she said.
(Botox is a purified protein produced from the germs that cause food poisoning.)
“There really isn’t anything that we’re doing from a brand defense other than letting the evidence speak for itself,” Van Hove said. “Botox Cosmetic continues to be the No. 1 minimally invasive aesthetic treatment that’s currently in the market.”
In the second quarter, Allergan’s Botox sales were $177 million, up 23% from a year earlier. Third-quarter results are due Nov. 1.
During the trial, Allergan “turned up the volume a little bit,” according to Peter Duda, an executive vice president at New York public relations agency Weber Shandwick.
“In a situation where there’s a lot of negative messages creating confusion and clutter, you do need to elevate your efforts a little bit,” he said.
The court battle pitted Allergan and Klein against Irena Medavoy, a former actress and model. Her husband cofounded Orion Pictures and once was chairman of TriStar Pictures.
Irena Medavoy claimed high doses of Botox for migraines caused her chronic aches and pains.
Allergan is seeking approval of Botox for use against migraines. Even without it, doctors can prescribe Botox for “off-label” use against migraines or other treatments.
In fact, Botox gained fame for its off-label use as a wrinkle reducer before it was approved for cosmetic use in 2002. Botox originally was approved to treat muscle spasms in the neck and eye.
The Medavoys have said they plan to appeal the jury’s decision and a ruling by the judge to dismiss a separate claim of false advertising against Allergan and Klein.
A day before the jury’s ruling, Merrill Lynch & Co. analyst Gregory Gilbert wrote in a research report that anticipation of the verdict could have caused volatility in Allergan’s shares, “particularly as investors are in a heightened state of anxiety due to the recent Vioxx withdrawal.”
Merck & Co. withdrew its Vioxx arthritis drug from the market earlier this month because of safety concerns, rattling the drug sector.
Allergan has seen tough going of late on Wall Street. The company’s shares plunged in July after an FDA panel rejected its Tazoral psoriasis drug. Since then, Allergan’s stock is off about 20% and down nearly 10% for the year.
Banc of America Securities downgraded Allergan after the Tazoral rejection, saying the move “takes away one of the cornerstone products for Allergan in the long term” because the company expected peak sales of $200 million to $500 million for the drug.
The Tazoral setback made prevailing with Botox more important for Allergan. Even with a clear victory in the cayse, Allergan shouldn’t change its tack on Botox, according to Weber Shandwick’s Duda.
“They need to continue communicating with their important audiences,” he said. “This is not the time to be quiet, but to continue to talk to their doctors and to their consumer.”
Doctors’ Views
Southern California cosmetic surgeons using Botox said they didn’t see activity from Allergan representatives amid the Medavoy case.
The case even could spur more Botox usage, said Juris Bunkis, a plastic surgeon who practices in Rancho Santa Margarita.
“Whenever there is an ad campaign or something happens in the news, there’s a surge of interest in the procedures,in every procedure, not just Botox,” he said
The lawsuit “has had no impact on Botox sales, I’m sure,” said Alexander Rivkin, a head and neck specialist who operates a medical spa in Westwood Village, which he described as not “ground zero” for Botox.
Rivkin said he hasn’t seen an Allergan representative of late.
“I have the feeling that the reason I haven’t seen a rep is that so many people are doing Botox that they can’t keep up with it,” he said. “If they sent a rep out to every physician doing Botox, just within a two-block area of where I am, they’d be busy for a week.”
