Press Release Update 1
Obviously there is interest in releasing a press release to 60 Minutes, and various other investigative news organizations. So let’s keep moving forward. Here’s my current perspective:
1) We do not have to provide lots of medical and regulatory information in the press release. What we have to do is convince someone in investigative journalism that there’s a potential story there. In order to achieve that goal, the release has to be compelling, succinct, and presented by an expert or group of experts. That is my opinion, but I think I know how to do an effective press release, since my area of expertise is in marketing.
2) The press, based on their audience and journalistic mission, will decide what the “story” is about – we won’t. It could be about AMRN, it could be about the FDA, it could be about FDA/CDC. It could also be a highly positive piece about potential new life-saving drugs that are on the cusp of success (one of which is Vascepa). That decision is out of our hands.
3) Given the range of potential stories, there is likely some respectable editor/correspondent already working on some version of that story and would be interested in more information. So I am hopeful.
3) Should the press release result in inquiries, we should be ready and able to relay journalists to the best possible sources of information. Top of the list is EPADI. Other leading candidate would be researchers/professionals already familiar with either Vascepa or EPA in general. (Your ideas are especially welcome on this point.)
4) Our overall goal is not to hold the FDA’s feet to some fire – it is to expand public awareness of the value of getting Vascepa out to larger, more diverse patient populations. (If someone at FDA falls by the wayside as a result of collective efforts on behalf of Vascepa, so be it. It’s not what I’d call a victory for us.)
That said, we have time to do this outreach without unnecessary panic and anxiety. Let’s respect everyone’s various efforts. No matter who contacts outside news media sources, etc., it’s probably all good – there is no such thing as “bad press.”
JL, et al - Would you like to proceed along the lines I’ve outlined above?
