I can’t sit through a social health meeting without hearing about Sermo and its 100,000 physicians. Unity Stoakes from Organized Wisdom recently mentioned the 100,000 doctor number on Mashable. It’s the requisite statistic. Sermo, by the numbers, is everyone’s favorite example of how all the physicians have hopped on the social media love bus.
But when you think about docs and their networks it’s important to understand the difference between registered users and regular users. Just ‘cause you sign up doesn’t mean you’re on board. And defining ‘on board’ can be tricky. Engagement is, after all, in the eye of the beholder.
While we may understand this, we still love to hang on 100K. Perhaps because we all want 100,000 doctors every day sharing, collaborating and talking. We want doctors just as excited and engaged as the rest of us. Pharma and medical manufacturers want a place to sell their stuff. We’re all desperate for a really successful physician platform. We are in love with the concept of Sermo.
How many of Sermo’s 100,000 registered users access the platform everyday or every week is almost irrelevant because of what we want to believe.
We’ve got 100,000 doctors in one place and it serves our presentations well. Let’s not mess with it.
{ 13 comments }
I think you are asking some critical questions. We have to examine these numbers and what physicians are doing based on principles of learning and how physicians learn. Looking at just numbers and not examining what is learned, how is it applied, has the learning impacted outcomes, and the effect long term on care?
Sermo is a great example of MD SM but what are the outcomes in terms of new knowledge and outcomes?
Good points. Outcomes would be interesting. And I’m drawn to a piece of your conclusion: “Sermo is a great example of MD SM…” While this is assumed, I think it might be a statement better confirmed by the doctors who’ve tried it. I think it serves a defined population of doctors but it’s unclear whether it has fulfilled the role that we all hoped when it launched.
Thanks for jumping in.
According to Manhattan Research, that “defined population” constitutes no more than 16% of all US physicians…and possibly less, as that 16% represents all users of physician peer communities, including QuantiaMD, Within3, Ozmosis, et al., in addition to Sermo.
Hi Dr. Vartabedian-
I don’t know much about Sermo, other than what I read on blogs and the information provided on their website. Why has Sermo not sought to engage medical students (at least it seems they haven’t)? It would seem to their great benefit to sign-up medical professionals as early in their career as possible. This platform also seems like a perfect tool for the next generation of physicians who have been using social media extensively for the majority of their adult lives. Sermo could have some sort of limited access for med students and create forums for students to engage with each other. Just wondering if you had any insight into this.
Thanks-
Josh
I’m not sure what Sermo has done with respect to our next great generation. But I would agree that whoever succeeds in this space will need to embrace the students.
Of note, recently launched Doximity is actively recruiting medical students. They’re worth keeping close eye on. You can read about them here: http://33charts.com/2010/10/doximity-doctors-linkedin.html
The 100k number will server Sermo well too when they try to sell their site to someone else. Not to mention when they’re selling ads or other features of their site.
I have to say, I have gone to Sermo discussions, where mostly I have encountered at best whining and at worst hateful and insulting rhetoric. I have not really noticed much educational value or crowd-sourced wisdom, the two components that could make it a valuable resource. So, 100,000 means I am one of them, yet I rarely use it for anything other than shocking reminders of the dysfunction that can prevail in our community.
Anonymity is problematic, even for doctors, apparently. But it makes me wonder, is the dysfunction a platform or community problem? I suspect that it’s a community issue and one that might be fixed if people were accountable for their commentary.
Thanks for your insight.
There is, however, a growing body of social science research supporting the proposition that anonymous membership models in online communities of all sorts encourage a more hostile (because unaccountable) tone of conversation. Reading the comments section of any daily newspaper’s website provides all too clear a confirmation of this postulate.
Speaking of whining — did you see the latest about the NEJM Perspectives piece to broaden the scope of nursing? Whiny, insulting to midlevel providers, grandiose, you name it! Ridiculous!
https://app.sermo.com/posts/posts/69174?utm_source=et&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pick_SP122010act
Those that might someday want to put a value on Sermo, as part of an acquisition or a capital-raise, surely understand the difference between a registered user and an active user. Prospective advertisers understand this as well. And the value of data mined from these kinds of platforms also depends on active use, not registered users…again, this is understood by the people who would pay for such data.
The same goes for other web sites and companies that have a similar business model.
Has anyone been able to get a straight answer from Sermo to the question, “How many of those 100,000 who ever registered actually continue to use Sermo at least monthly?” I know we haven’t.
They could tell you, but they’d have to kill you.
{ 1 trackback }