Novartis lung cancer site get an F

F If you want an example of just how far pharma is lagging in digital look no further than the Novartis Oncology lung cancer site.

Today “A” for effort doesn’t mean a hell of a lot and the Novartis Oncology website is a great example of doing something half-assed.  The site is supposed to inform and educate users about lung cancer but it’s apparent that the budget limited the agency who produced this site.  The site is not user friendly, has very little information you would expect and since it’s an unbranded site the lack of social media and a community is further indication that the people working at Novartis Oncology just don’t get it.


This is a prime example where an agency should have walked away from this project because this representation fails in every aspect.  This could have been a great platform to share patient stories, especially lung cancer patients & caregivers who never smoked, and talked about the initial symptoms and diagnosis.  Instead, it’s a shell, a half-baked effort that is not representative of a company that wants to be a serious player in the Oncology market.

You have only one chance to make a first impression and in the world of digital marketing that impression is microseconds as users click off.  Novartis gets an F for this website.


3 thoughts on “Novartis lung cancer site get an F

  1. That site was hard to look at Richard. As someone whom has worked in Pharma marketing for a dozen years and now works specifically within the digital industry, sites like this re-ignite my concerns over both agency relationships and gross apathy directed toward effective digital assets.

    Pharma has the privileged position to effectively impact patient and care taker quality of life through not only great medicine but great information. Investments in either of these regards should be directed from a position of patient first to ensure they are doing no harm. Sites such as the one you shared will not only poorly serve those seeking the comfort of information at critical times, but also potentially unintentionally redirect their attention toward less reputable sources of information that present a better UX.

    Is this a budget issue or an issue where agencies of record are overreaching their print experience to provide digital services??

  2. I think this was an issue where the budget drove what they could do. However, the agency that did this should have walked away because this is a really poor website

  3. Fantastic operate! This can be a form of details that you should embraced along the web. Disgrace about the search engines like yahoo for no longer ranking the following send top! Can happen in excess of in addition to talk to my personal site. Thanks Means)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *