Building a social presence inside regulatory guardrails

In pharmaceutical marketing, there is no doubt about the importance of regulations. They exist for a reason. In my experience, though, they are often used as a scapegoat for why social media doesn’t work in the pharma industry. I think that can be an excuse. The real problem is usually in the content.

The rules on promoting medicines, reporting adverse events, and what employees can share belong to medical, legal, and pharmacovigilance colleagues, and ultimately to the PMCPA. However, I can speak to the other side of those rules: how audiences behave, what platforms reward, and why so much regulated social ends up being so ineffective that many write it off entirely.

The guardrails are real, and narrower than they look

As you likely know, in the UK, promoting prescription-only medicines to the public is prohibited by law and by the ABPI Code. The PMCPA's social media guidance, revised in February 2026, treats social platforms as aimed at the public, and is clear that engagement counts as well as publishing: activity "that could potentially alert one's connections/followers to an activity or material is likely to be considered proactive dissemination." A like or repost can make a difference, just as staff activities on their personal accounts can.

I’m not offering a secret shortcut. However, consider what these rules really cover: medicines, claims, and who hears about them. They reveal little about why scientists chose this work, what shifts in manufacturing entail, how patients influence trials, or what working there is like. Much of what makes an organisation recognisable exists outside of product promotion. The issue is that many approval processes treat every post as a product claim, resulting in a voice that resembles a press office, because essentially, it is.

Social feeds punish that voice harder than any other channel. People scroll past logos and stop for people. They respond to specifics, to faces, to someone saying something they can actually understand and relate to. You may understand the industry nuances of one drug over another, but the audience might not. Don’t lose that in the overly cautious sign-off process before a post even sees daylight.

Where marketing can make the difference

Decide what each channel is for

A lot of pharma accounts are corporate newsrooms by default: results, appointments, awards, repeat. My advice is always to think about how the audience segments down, and then understand where those segments naturally hang out online. LinkedIn is usually the strongest place for talent, partners, and industry peers. Patient and caregiver audiences are more likely to be found on Instagram or Facebook, and they need a different tone, different formats and, from reviewers, different scrutiny. An account trying to market to everyone ends up marketing to no one.

Build content pillars that live outside the product

Select two or three themes to post about weekly that don't involve a brand: topics like how science is conducted, the people involved, manufacturing and supply chains, patient participation, and corporate responsibilities. Consider the format as carefully as the subject matter. A quick 30-second clip of a scientist explaining an experiment's failure generally surpasses a polished graphic of the same news and is usually easier to get approved.

Treat tone of voice as an approved asset

When social media content is sent off for a risk review, it usually returns with the tone of voice stripped out. It happens because nobody agreed on the tone up front. Take the time to put together a simple tone of voice guidelines document, with real examples: how posts open, which words to avoid, how to apologise, how to say "we can't discuss that here" without sounding like a locked door. Get it signed off once. Reviewers can then check against an agreed standard instead of rewriting from taste every time.

Take community management as seriously as posting

Everyone thinks about posts, but very few have a plan for community management. Comments reveal whether a brand sounds human or not. They are also what keeps a compliance officer up at night, because they are often handled in real time, which creates risks. Safety and medical teams must oversee these replies. Marketing should ensure responses are clear, friendly, monitored, and timely – within hours, not days. If resources are lacking, I’d still avoid turning off comments completely. Just be transparent: set the expectations about replies and timings in the profile’s bio.

Think human-first, but with edges

Because likes and reposts can count, the easy answer is to tell employees to say nothing. It's safe, and it's why so many pharma people are invisible online while patient advocates, clinicians, and journalists shape the conversation about their industry. Compliance should draw the lines: what's always fine, what's never fine, what to check first. Marketing should simplify the process: use prompts instead of scripts, offer assistance with writing, and have designated experts like a medical director or research lead who regularly contribute on agreed topics.

Bring reviewers in earlier

When medical and legal colleagues see an idea at the planning stage, they can help shape it. When they see a finished draft, all they can do is cut. Share the content calendar a month or two out, explain what each post is for and why it will work, and batch similar content so it's reviewed together. Track approval turnaround, reach, and engagement. If posts take a fortnight, nothing timely gets through, and timeliness is key to social activity.

Measure the right things

Counting followers is no longer important. Follower numbers can mislead and inflate perceptions. A more meaningful metric is engagement. This includes comments from external audiences, shares from targeted viewers, applications from those mentioning the content, and the time people spend watching, rather than just impressions. These metrics indicate whether the message resonates and give reviewers specific reasons to endorse effective strategies.

Compliance sets the edges; marketing fills the middle

I'm not requesting anyone assume additional risk. Everything discussed in this article sits comfortably within the rules and, for the most part, they could actually simplify compliance teams' work by replacing a series of individual judgement calls with established standards and a consistent schedule.

The rules tend to focus on what can’t be said. Figuring out what's worth sharing and expressing it genuinely has always been the proud job of the marketing team.

About the author

Phil Treagus-Evans is the co-founder and CEO of Giraffe Social, a healthcare marketing agency in the UK. He is also author of Human-First Marketing: The Art of Being Seen, Trusted and Remembered.