That's the issue a reader raised with us recently. What follows is the email trail with this customer. I'd be curious to know your thoughts if you wish to share them. Have we struck a reasonable balance?
-----Original Message-----
From: [email address deleted]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 1:06 PM
Subject: Re: Harvard Medical School Releases Special Health Report on Swine Flu
you really think you're doing a public service by charging $18 for this. you are absolutely shameless and I will make sure every editorial office of every paper in this country knows how you are taking advantage of what could turn into a terrible catastrophe. Shame on you!
[Name deleted]
-----Original Message-----
Dear [ ],
We charge only for the report, and most proceeds collected by Harvard Health Publications go back into Harvard Medical School to fund research and scholarships. The Flu Resource Center we created, http://www.health.harvard.edu/flu, is free and open to the public.
If you would like to speak further about this issue, I can have someone get back to you.
Thanks,
Raquel Schott
Associate Editor, Harvard Health Publications
-----Original Message-----
From: [ ]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 2:43 PM
if this isn't a case of price gouging nothing is! yes, I would like someone to get back to me. and you put the notice out like it was some great public service. as I said before it is shameless!
-----Original Message-----
From: Coburn, Edward
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 3:50 PM
Dear [ ],
Thank you for your note. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts.
Through our website and our newspaper column, as well as such websites as Newsweek.com, Intelihealth.com, Gather.com, and other websites, we have made a great deal of information freely available to the public on swine flu [including a Question & Answer article that we have made available to websites in English and Spanish].
After 34+ years publishing health information for the general public, we know there is a subset of the population that wants additional, more detailed information so we create special reports. These cost money to produce and proceeds from the sales of these reports enables us to create the content that we make freely available to the public. We have priced this report at the same level as all of the reports we publish. If we were price gouging, we would have substantially increased the price. That is not the case.
I trust you are compensated for the services you render to [your employer]. We also compensate the faculty and staff members who research and write our publications. Since Harvard Health Publications doesn't receive government grants or sell ads, selling publications provides the funding that makes it possible to produce the information that has helped millions of people since 1975.
I understand your concern but fundamentally disagree with your conclusions. I assume you can at least acknowledge that our position is reasonable and we may just have to agree to disagree.
Sincerely yours,
Ed Coburn
Publishing Director, Harvard Health Publications Harvard Medical School
______________________________
What do you think? Have we struck a reasonable balance?
Friday, May 8, 2009
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Swine flu or H1N1 flu?
We take great effort to provide thorough, authoritative health information to our customers. We know it's also important that our information is empowering and to do that it must be accessible, meaning we need to use the language you use. That's easy to say but sometimes harder in practice.
Let me tell you a little story ...
On Friday evening, April 24, our Editor in Chief realized the reports about swine flu coming from Mexico seemed likely to create an interest in authoritative information about this disease. Our editorial team jumped into action over the weekend, drafting a report called Swine Flu: How to understand your risk and protect your health. By Monday afternoon we had the report completed, as well as a Q&A, a newspaper column, and a video. By Tuesday morning the report was prepared and available for sale on our website. Pretty good for an organization that is used to turning out things on a monthly or quarterly basis.
This past Tuesday afternoon, we published the second edition of that report, updating it to reflect new information and new research. By the time we went to publish the second edition, the Federal government, purportedly under pressure from the pig farming industry, was referring to the disease as H1N1, which refers to the type of virus. I was surprised that H1N1 actually seemed to get picked up by some government officials and media very quickly.
But, most people were still referring to it as "swine flu." So, as publishers, what do we do? We want to use the official language but we also have to use the language our customers want. In the end we went with "Swine (H1N1) Flu" as the main title. It doesn't exactly roll off the tongue but let's face it, in the face of personal health concerns, people are probably more interested in solid, authoritative health information than examples of sparkling literature.
This recalled for me a similar dilemma we had a number of years ago when the medical community moved away from the term "hormone replacement therapy" or "HRT" in favor of simply "hormone therapy." This was not some arbitrary change but reflects the fact that many horomone treatments are not technically "replacements." We jumped to use the new terminology to reinforce that we are thorough and up to date in our research. Unfortunately, the general public, to this day, predomoninantly still refers to HRT and hormone replacement therapy. We've made appropriate adjustments.
Sometimes it's challenging to be both authoritative and accessible.
* If you want, find more about our swine flu, er, 2009 H1N1 Type A Influenza report.
For Harvard Health Publications customer service.
Let me tell you a little story ...
On Friday evening, April 24, our Editor in Chief realized the reports about swine flu coming from Mexico seemed likely to create an interest in authoritative information about this disease. Our editorial team jumped into action over the weekend, drafting a report called Swine Flu: How to understand your risk and protect your health. By Monday afternoon we had the report completed, as well as a Q&A, a newspaper column, and a video. By Tuesday morning the report was prepared and available for sale on our website. Pretty good for an organization that is used to turning out things on a monthly or quarterly basis.
This past Tuesday afternoon, we published the second edition of that report, updating it to reflect new information and new research. By the time we went to publish the second edition, the Federal government, purportedly under pressure from the pig farming industry, was referring to the disease as H1N1, which refers to the type of virus. I was surprised that H1N1 actually seemed to get picked up by some government officials and media very quickly.
But, most people were still referring to it as "swine flu." So, as publishers, what do we do? We want to use the official language but we also have to use the language our customers want. In the end we went with "Swine (H1N1) Flu" as the main title. It doesn't exactly roll off the tongue but let's face it, in the face of personal health concerns, people are probably more interested in solid, authoritative health information than examples of sparkling literature.
This recalled for me a similar dilemma we had a number of years ago when the medical community moved away from the term "hormone replacement therapy" or "HRT" in favor of simply "hormone therapy." This was not some arbitrary change but reflects the fact that many horomone treatments are not technically "replacements." We jumped to use the new terminology to reinforce that we are thorough and up to date in our research. Unfortunately, the general public, to this day, predomoninantly still refers to HRT and hormone replacement therapy. We've made appropriate adjustments.
Sometimes it's challenging to be both authoritative and accessible.
* If you want, find more about our swine flu, er, 2009 H1N1 Type A Influenza report.
For Harvard Health Publications customer service.
Why do we sell special reports to subscribers?
A while ago I received an email from an unhappy customer. It said ...
__________________
Subject: Not pleased with the promotions in your Harvard Heart Letter.
Dear Sirs,
I receive both the Harvard Heart Letter and the Harvard Men's Health Watch and am considering not renewing their subscriptions when they run out because of your aggressive promotion of special reports.
I subscribe to both newsletters expecting to receive medical information that is important to me, and the newsletters provide that. But they also promote special reports (for a fee) that indicate their content is very important but only provides the information I need about that subject if I purchase the special report. I would have expected that important information to be included in the newsletter for which I have already subscribed, not left waiting for that information until I pay an additional fee.
Since my expectations when subscribing to the newsletters was to receive important information, and much of that important information is provided only if I pay for additional special reports, I will be searching in the future for similar newsletters from other sources that do not include these heavy promotions.
_________________________
I understood the concern and appreciated him sharing it with us. At the same time, I have a different perspective I’d like to share with you.
We began creating special health reports almost 20 years ago, at the request of subscribers who wanted more information on a particular topic than we could provide in an 8 page monthly newsletter. Initially, we sent these special health reports to all subscribers for free. That was wonderful for the people who wanted such additional information.
We received letters (no emails at that time) from subscribers who said they weren’t interested in that topic. They objected to receiving these reports that they would just throw away and felt we were making them pay for something through their annual subscription fee which they didn’t want. So, we began selling these report separately, making them beefier now that people were paying additional money for them.
You do not need to purchase any of our special health reports. We publish them as a service for people that want additional detail that you can provide in 48 pages on a topic that we could never get into a newsletter article. Our newsletter editors and our report editors work independently so I can absolutely assure you there is NO coordination to withhold the really good information from our newsletter subscribers. By their nature, the newsletters provide main points and summaries while the reports provide more detailed information. They are complementary but truly are distinct.
As for our promotions, I don’t agree with the characterization of them as “aggressive” since there are no extreme promises or hype. I do concede we’re persistent. With over 50 titles that we keep up to date on a regular basis, we have a lot of reports to tell our subscribers about and we take most opportunities available to do so.
You will find our practices are typical of and consistent with other publishers. And of course you are under no obligation to purchase a report from us ever.
I was pleased to learn the customer reconsidered his decision to let his subscription lapse.
__________________
Subject: Not pleased with the promotions in your Harvard Heart Letter.
Dear Sirs,
I receive both the Harvard Heart Letter and the Harvard Men's Health Watch and am considering not renewing their subscriptions when they run out because of your aggressive promotion of special reports.
I subscribe to both newsletters expecting to receive medical information that is important to me, and the newsletters provide that. But they also promote special reports (for a fee) that indicate their content is very important but only provides the information I need about that subject if I purchase the special report. I would have expected that important information to be included in the newsletter for which I have already subscribed, not left waiting for that information until I pay an additional fee.
Since my expectations when subscribing to the newsletters was to receive important information, and much of that important information is provided only if I pay for additional special reports, I will be searching in the future for similar newsletters from other sources that do not include these heavy promotions.
_________________________
I understood the concern and appreciated him sharing it with us. At the same time, I have a different perspective I’d like to share with you.
We began creating special health reports almost 20 years ago, at the request of subscribers who wanted more information on a particular topic than we could provide in an 8 page monthly newsletter. Initially, we sent these special health reports to all subscribers for free. That was wonderful for the people who wanted such additional information.
We received letters (no emails at that time) from subscribers who said they weren’t interested in that topic. They objected to receiving these reports that they would just throw away and felt we were making them pay for something through their annual subscription fee which they didn’t want. So, we began selling these report separately, making them beefier now that people were paying additional money for them.
You do not need to purchase any of our special health reports. We publish them as a service for people that want additional detail that you can provide in 48 pages on a topic that we could never get into a newsletter article. Our newsletter editors and our report editors work independently so I can absolutely assure you there is NO coordination to withhold the really good information from our newsletter subscribers. By their nature, the newsletters provide main points and summaries while the reports provide more detailed information. They are complementary but truly are distinct.
As for our promotions, I don’t agree with the characterization of them as “aggressive” since there are no extreme promises or hype. I do concede we’re persistent. With over 50 titles that we keep up to date on a regular basis, we have a lot of reports to tell our subscribers about and we take most opportunities available to do so.
You will find our practices are typical of and consistent with other publishers. And of course you are under no obligation to purchase a report from us ever.
I was pleased to learn the customer reconsidered his decision to let his subscription lapse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
