If you haven’t heard of “America’s most hated man” by now, his name is Martin Shkreli and he is the chief executive of Turing Pharmaceuticals. Earlier last week he raised the price of the drug Daraprim, used to treat patients with AIDS, by 5,000 per cent. It’s no surprise that public outrage on social media exploded, sending this story to the top of the trending list.
So, what if I suggested that this was the plan all along?
After all the outcry and controversy, Shkreli stated on ABC News, “We’ve agreed to lower the price on Daraprim to a point that is more affordable and is able to allow the company to make a profit, but a very small profit. [. . .] We think these changes will be welcomed.”
Turing Pharmaceuticals may just be using our own voice and medium against us by knowing and taking advantage of exactly how we respond to certain actions through social media. After the obvious shock and outrage against the incredibly unjustifiable price change from $13.50 to $750 a pill, they now plan to lower the price to an amount that still constitutes a considerable increase, which gives a sense of power to the public through network media while simultaneously projecting the company as one that listens and cares. If this was an illusionary sense, it would be an ugly marketing strategy.
Martin Shkreli might play an impossibly insufferable role in this. There is no way a big pharmaceutical company would let the 32-year-old be an actual detriment to big business on purpose. I’d say it’s reasonable to assume he’s playing a deliberate part to cause commotion.
Shkreli volunteers to be the face that people can direct their anger towards, as opposed to the corporation itself, when they realize that debt will come to those who can no longer afford the medication that their lives depend on.
If my theories are correct, then this act is business-genius. Shkreli even seemed to fuel the fire of controversy through Twitter by quoting rapper Eminem with, “and it seems like the media immediately points a finger at me. So I point one back at em, but not the index or pinky,” giving off the stinky cologne of a wannabee gangster K-Fed-type that is almost too easy to hate.
As the old adage goes, there’s no such thing as bad press.
If the controversy didn’t catch social media’s hook and cause the outrage that it did, or if they did intend to raise the price so exorbitantly, the company would still be left with the 5,000 per cent increase lining their already stuffed pockets. It’s a win-win-win situation.
In light of all this, I find that as our generation steps forth as masters of networking and social media, we need to be careful with issues that go ‘trending’ and how we perceive them. Twitter is still a relatively new platform that we can use to make change and promote new ideas, but it could be used with precise intention to shape and mould ideas that we think are ours — but may well be premeditated by big business.
