Earlier this month, we published two Reed Smith polls: one about what marketing techniques hospitals will use in 2009, and another about what social media platforms for hospitals are most recommended.

Although the results were mostly as expected, they did reveal some compelling notions.

Poll #1: Marketing Techniques

Poll #1: A whopping 96 percent of voters want to use some type of social media in 2009.

Collectively, 79 percent of the respondents are actively using or looking to integrate some level of Web 2.0 into their marketing strategy.

That didn’t come as a complete surprise since many of our clients also have expressed similar intentions, but also because this was a Twitter-based poll…which means that voters were potentially skewed towards Web 2.0 since they are already Twitter users and are aware of its possibilities.

However, it was the 17 percent that said, “I would like to try SM, but hospital leaders said no” that was most fascinating. This is for two reasons:

• Add them to the 79 percent that are going to do some type of social media marketing, and that totals an impressive 96 percent of voters that want to use social media.

• Other than economic concepts like diminished marginal utility, social media platforms are usually free to use, so money isn’t a factor for leaders discouraging their use. What might be their reasons? Cast your vote on our new poll!

Poll #2: Recommended Social Media Platforms

Poll #2: It was not a surprise that blogs were the top choice for the most recommended social media.

Almost half of the voters (48 percent) recommended blogs. As we wrote previously, we fully agree that blogs should be a priority for social media.

Although the equal and popular support (14 percent each) for microblogs and social networks wasn’t a surprise, it wasn’t expected that more (19 percent) would recommend video.

Video certainly has significant benefits on a Website, but compared to microblogging and social networks—at least in the “if you have to choose just one” context of this poll—it simply doesn’t offer the efficiency, frequency, affordability and perhaps most importantly, the social component that make the others so unique.

As always, your opinions and feedback are encouraged!

Derek Rudnak | Communications Specialist | AVID Design

Tweet This Post

Last week, we published a Reed Smith poll about hospitals’ usage of Web 2.0 marketing tools in 2009. This week, he is running another interesting poll that answers a question we pondered last week: What Web 2.0 platform is most recommended for hospitals?

Like last week’s poll, the results are changing too quickly to offer an immediate analysis. However, we will certainly return to both polls soon to offer our take on the on results.

My Vote: Blogs

You might disagree—and you are certainly encouraged to share your thoughts—but I believe that blogging is priority number one in a Web 2.0 strategy.

Especially for hospitals, the concept of transparency and community are critical, and blogs like Paul Levy’s Running a Hospital and the Mayo Clinic’s Sharing Mayo Clinic do an excellent job of accomplishing that…and more.

Along with their blogs’ content, their blogsites also function as one-stop resources for other Web 2.0 platforms (which are also choice options in the poll) and useful, relevant links.


Derek Rudnak | Communications Specialist | AVID Design

Tweet This Post

The caduceus is a globally recognized icon of medicine and healthcare.

Although not everybody knows its name or how to pronounce it, most everybody can recognize the caduceus—that ubiquitous medical icon with the two snakes wrapping around a winged rod. (By the way, it’s pronounced “kah-DOO-shuss.”)

The caduceus is possibly one of the most ironic symbols ever invented—or more specifically, ever used. Although in modern times it is thought to represent compassion, life, science and other tenets of medicine and healthcare, the historic origins of its meanings present another story.

The Caduceus in Modern Times

The U.S. Army is often credited with making the caduceus the recognizable icon it is today. In 1902, the Army’s Medical Corps first started using it to recognize military physicians.

Prior to 1902, the caduceus’ history becomes a bit more uncertain. Although the caduceus had been used in general publishing in the 16th and 17th century, it wasn’t until the 19th century when it first appeared on a medical text. The reasons for either usage are firmly related to mythological symbolism.

The Caduceus: Echoes of Mythology

Printers in the 16th and 17th century related to the caduceus because of its connection to Hermes, the Greek messenger God. However, Hermes’ symbolic ties to medicine date back to the seventh century when scientists connected him to a then emerging interest in alchemy.

However, in mythology, Hermes is more often associated with two concepts that aren’t usually aren’t associated with modern medicine: magic and death. In mythology, Hermes would lead the dead to the underworld—precisely the opposite of what physicians try to do to their patients!

Asclepius: Snakes and Rods and the Caduceus

The rod of Asclepius is actually more symbolically relevant to medicine and healthcare than the caduceus.

So, how did Hermes become associated with the snakes, rod and wings that make a caduceus? Again, the answer can be found in Greek mythology—this time with Asclepius, a Greek god of medicine.

The rod of Asclepius, which is also used by medical associations, features a single snake wrapped around a cypress branch. The snake represents rebirth; the branch represents strength.

It is thought that the rod of Asclepius evolved into the caduceus, inspired by Hermes’ seventh-century connection to alchemy. Although there isn’t much consensus about the meaning of the second snake, most agree that the winged rod (which replaced the branch) symbolized magic—yet another bizarre concept that has little relevance with modern medicine!

Derek Rudnak | Communications Specialist | AVID Design

Tweet This Post

Web 2.0 is a collection of unique and evolving technologies that encourage two-way communication.

Part of the challenge of discussing Web 2.0 as a marketing strategy for healthcare or any industry that it is an abstract concept rather than a precise set of tools.

Furthermore, Web 2.0 involves a number of uniquely different and constantly evolving technologies, none of which were necessarily intended to be used for marketing; a virally spread commercial published on YouTube is a perfect example.

The related growth of mobile social networking is also helping expand the scope and popularity of Web 2.0, but it further complicates arriving at a complete definition.

The phrase “Web 2.0” was first articulated by O’Reilly Media in 2004. There are three distinct Web 2.0 technologies—blogs, wikis and RSS—all bound by an emphasis on collaboration and sharing.

Since 2004, those three technologies have evolved into the social networking phenomenon that includes MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Digg and dozens more.

Yet, despite their intrinsic differences, Web 2.0 and social media are bound by one very important and consistent characteristic: user-generated content. And it is precisely this trait that not only separates Web 2.0 from Web 1.0, but is also the reason why it has become the phenomenon it is.

Tweet This Post

Although it’s approaching two years old, Jakob Nielsen’s increasingly legendary eyetracking study continues to fascinate and inform best practices in healthcare website design and writing content at AVID Design.

Although the study is certainly complex, the results aren’t. Most simply, readers read in an F-shaped pattern: First across the headline, and then in a blinding (no pun intended) scan down the left margin of text, with less and less eye movement across the paragraph.

Red areas are where users looked the most; yellow areas, the least. This is the so-called “F pattern” people use to read online content.

Here’s How They REALLY Really Read

And the answer is: They don’t. While the study is eye-opening (again, no pun intended) for explaining how they read, what’s most revealing is with what they read—which is not very much.

So, then what best practices are advised if readers aren’t going to read?

Writing for the Web: Best Practices

Nielsen’s study includes suggested best practices of:

• writing concise content
• focusing content in the first two paragraphs, and
• starting subheads, paragraphs and bullet-points with information-carrying words.

Writing for the Web: Better Best Practices

Those eyetracking study-influenced best practices imply that you shouldn’t write much since it likely won’t be read.

Don’t be misled. Write as much as you want—or more accurately, as much as you need. Just be sure to use the F-pattern to influence your format and style.

For example, this blog: It’s actually quite long. But by breaking it up with bold headlines and bullets, the blog should still be informative to F-pattern readers.

Of course, you read every word, right?

Derek Rudnak | Communications Specialist | AVID Design

Tweet This Post