I don't want to make too much of this, but Advertising Age is running real time stats -- on the "percentage of positive conversations" involving top 200 brand-mentions in social media (Twitter, StumbleUpon, etc.). I think Viagra®'s truly-amazing showing (70 percent positive!) reflects an obsession I'd rather not indulge.
So, to be fair, I've also included Claritin® and Ambien®, below.
Do go read it all, though.
Brand % Positive No. of Conversations Ambien® 52.8% 4,350 Claritin® 39.1% 3,004 Gardasil® 16.9% 3,887 Viagra® 70.4% 24,023
Should Schering-Plough be concerned (with Claritin® firmly in negative territory)? I don't know. I guess drugs do poorly overall -- or so Ad Age claims (n.b. Viagra). . . .
I do think Merck ought to be concerned about Gardasil®, here -- as those are lots of conversations; and overwhelmingly negative conversations, at that.
As to Viagra's showing -- do that many old guys tweet? I guess so. [Or maybe their female counterparts do. . . hmmmm. I dunno.] Alternatively, it is possible, I guess that someone is paying for "astro-turfing" on that brand. How else is it so wildly out-of-line with other prescription meds -- and at eight-times as many conversations?