|
|
Post by mango on May 24, 2019 17:06:26 GMT -5
The mobile version of the Afrezza website is not user friendly. It is extremely difficult to have a pleasant experience while browsing, and the gigantic safety info box probably is 90% of the issue. Why not make it a smaller size? I don't understand. The site needs a makeover IMO...font style and size, word choice, sentence structure, colors. Who is responsible for this? Garrett Ingram and her marketing team Nope. Garret Ingram joined MannKind in June 2018, and the Afrezza website was last updated on April 23, 2018. |
|
|
|
Post by awesomo on May 24, 2019 17:13:31 GMT -5
Garrett Ingram and her marketing team Nope. Garret Ingram joined MannKind in June 2018, and the Afrezza website was last updated on April 23, 2018. Lol wow. I assumed you were talking about who is responsible for a potential makeover. And even if she didn’t design the original website, she now owns it so it’s on her. |
|
|
|
Post by mango on May 24, 2019 17:54:27 GMT -5
Nope. Garret Ingram joined MannKind in June 2018, and the Afrezza website was last updated on April 23, 2018. Lol wow. I assumed you were talking about who is responsible for a potential makeover. And even if she didn’t design the original website, she now owns it so it’s on her. That's interesting, but what exactly is your point? What is "on" her? |
|
|
|
Post by travis1953 on May 24, 2019 18:05:32 GMT -5
Is there a link or information about it on the afrezza.com page? I would think someone looking for the program would go to afrezza.com first, but I couldn't find any reference to "insulinsavings.com" or the direct to patient sales program. Even the "save on afrezza" link just takes you to info about the discount card. |
|
|
|
Post by awesomo on May 24, 2019 18:10:32 GMT -5
Lol wow. I assumed you were talking about who is responsible for a potential makeover. And even if she didn’t design the original website, she now owns it so it’s on her. That's interesting, but what exactly is your point? What is "on" her? Ingram is responsible if the website is not mobile responsive, if the website design is archaic, if the content needs to be revised, if the style choices aren't good, etc. as this falls under marketing. Now if she has brought up these issues and Mike shoots her down, then it is on him. But, considering nobody has touched the website in over a year (this should be taken off the website since it looks amateurish) and they can't even be bothered to change the copyright year to 2019, it is pretty clear that the website is low on the priorities for the management team. Just like social media, digital marketing, and all these other cost-effective means of reaching out to PWDs. |
|
|
|
Post by ktim on May 24, 2019 18:18:56 GMT -5
It may not be directly connected to diabetes and you may not have specifically searched for diabetes, but you do browse other people's Instagram's posts right? You must have clicked on a diabetes-related post at some point. I have never browsed an Instagram post using my account that was in anyway related to diabetes. It doesn't have to have been related to where you see the adverts. You could have searched with Google and now Google is serving up ads following you around the internet. It's a handful of big firms that do the tracking of you and then they are simply paying companies like Instagram to allow them to target you with ads on their pages. |
|
|
|
Post by mango on May 24, 2019 19:44:50 GMT -5
That's interesting, but what exactly is your point? What is "on" her? Ingram is responsible if the website is not mobile responsive, if the website design is archaic, if the content needs to be revised, if the style choices aren't good, etc. as this falls under marketing. Now if she has brought up these issues and Mike shoots her down, then it is on him. But, considering nobody has touched the website in over a year (this should be taken off the website since it looks amateurish) and they can't even be bothered to change the copyright year to 2019, it is pretty clear that the website is low on the priorities for the management team. Just like social media, digital marketing, and all these other cost-effective means of reaching out to PWDs. You obviously do not understand copyright law nor how best to use a copyright notice to prevent and/or discourage infringement of website content. The 2018 copyright date notices provides no less protection today than it did a year ago simply because both of the patient and healthcare websites were last updated in 2018—thus, neither website contains content that needs to be protected by a 2019 copyright date notice because they are already protected by the 2018 copyright date notice. It's pretty clear who the amateur is here, and it's not MannKind! |
|
|
|
Post by mcbone on May 24, 2019 20:02:40 GMT -5
Ingram is responsible if the website is not mobile responsive, if the website design is archaic, if the content needs to be revised, if the style choices aren't good, etc. as this falls under marketing. Now if she has brought up these issues and Mike shoots her down, then it is on him. But, considering nobody has touched the website in over a year (this should be taken off the website since it looks amateurish) and they can't even be bothered to change the copyright year to 2019, it is pretty clear that the website is low on the priorities for the management team. Just like social media, digital marketing, and all these other cost-effective means of reaching out to PWDs. You obviously do not understand copyright law nor how best to use a copyright notice to prevent and/or discourage infringement of website content. The 2018 copyright date notices provides no less protection today than it did a year ago simply because both of the patient and healthcare websites were last updated in 2018—thus, neither website contains content that needs to be protected by a 2019 copyright date notice because they are already protected by the 2018 copyright date notice. It's pretty clear who the amateur is here, and it's not MannKind! He wasn't saying that MNKD is somehow losing copyright protection by not updating the notice. He was merely pointing out that management has dropped the ball on some really easy low-cost ways to promote the drug. It's shameful that they can't even keep the website up to date. |
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on May 24, 2019 20:04:36 GMT -5
Thank you because I was getting really confused:-)
|
|
|
|
Post by mango on May 24, 2019 21:10:48 GMT -5
You obviously do not understand copyright law nor how best to use a copyright notice to prevent and/or discourage infringement of website content. The 2018 copyright date notices provides no less protection today than it did a year ago simply because both of the patient and healthcare websites were last updated in 2018—thus, neither website contains content that needs to be protected by a 2019 copyright date notice because they are already protected by the 2018 copyright date notice. It's pretty clear who the amateur is here, and it's not MannKind! He wasn't saying that MNKD is somehow losing copyright protection by not updating the notice. He was merely pointing out that management has dropped the ball on some really easy low-cost ways to promote the drug. It's shameful that they can't even keep the website up to date. What he said was it is amateurish to have when the websites were updated, and insinuated that management is lazy or doesn't care simply because they have not change the copyright year to 2019. "But, considering nobody has touched the website in over a year ( this should be taken off the website since it looks amateurish) and they can't even be bothered to change the copyright year to 2019, it is pretty clear that the website is low on the priorities for the management team." It is common to have when a website or webpage was last updated, and FDA does this all the time. That was a really cheap and stupid attempt at bashing management. I can also see how someone may be misled into thinking that by not changing the copyright date notice to 2019 would mean that management has not updated the website—which in fact is not true since the HCP website was updated this year with the 2019 SKU Sheet. The 2019 copyright comment was cheap and would be easily convincing to someone who knows next to nothing about the subject, but makes for an illogical point for an argument if you know just a little bit about it. Why don't ya'll give some examples of what should be on the websites that is not currently there. The HCP website is rockin' and looks great. I can't think of anything that it needs or should have that would meaningfully promote the product better than the current content does. |
|
|
|
Post by ltta on May 24, 2019 23:26:11 GMT -5
He wasn't saying that MNKD is somehow losing copyright protection by not updating the notice. He was merely pointing out that management has dropped the ball on some really easy low-cost ways to promote the drug. It's shameful that they can't even keep the website up to date. What he said was it is amateurish to have when the websites were updated, and insinuated that management is lazy or doesn't care simply because they have not change the copyright year to 2019. "But, considering nobody has touched the website in over a year ( this should be taken off the website since it looks amateurish) and they can't even be bothered to change the copyright year to 2019, it is pretty clear that the website is low on the priorities for the management team." It is common to have when a website or webpage was last updated, and FDA does this all the time. That was a really cheap and stupid attempt at bashing management. I can also see how someone may be misled into thinking that by not changing the copyright date notice to 2019 would mean that management has not updated the website—which in fact is not true since the HCP website was updated this year with the 2019 SKU Sheet. The 2019 copyright comment was cheap and would be easily convincing to someone who knows next to nothing about the subject, but makes for an illogical point for an argument if you know just a little bit about it. Why don't ya'll give some examples of what should be on the websites that is not currently there. The HCP website is rockin' and looks great. I can't think of anything that it needs or should have that would meaningfully promote the product better than the current content does.
|
|
|
|
Post by awesomo on May 25, 2019 0:00:48 GMT -5
It is common to have when a website or webpage was last updated, and FDA does this all the time. That was a really cheap and stupid attempt at bashing management. I can also see how someone may be misled into thinking that by not changing the copyright date notice to 2019 would mean that management has not updated the website—which in fact is not true since the HCP website was updated this year with the 2019 SKU Sheet. The 2019 copyright comment was cheap and would be easily convincing to someone who knows next to nothing about the subject, but makes for an illogical point for an argument if you know just a little bit about it. Geez, do you work for MannKind's marketing department or something? Having when the website is updated is great, IF YOU REGULARLY UPDATE THE WEBSITE. Not so great and yes, amateurish, when you haven't updated it in over a year and you broadcast that fact to everyone on the website. You mean to tell me nothing in the world of Afrezza has changed in a year? No publications, no testimonials, no blog posts, no articles, no presentations, no videos, nothing? |
|
|
|
Post by mango on May 25, 2019 0:10:56 GMT -5
It is common to have when a website or webpage was last updated, and FDA does this all the time. That was a really cheap and stupid attempt at bashing management. I can also see how someone may be misled into thinking that by not changing the copyright date notice to 2019 would mean that management has not updated the website—which in fact is not true since the HCP website was updated this year with the 2019 SKU Sheet. The 2019 copyright comment was cheap and would be easily convincing to someone who knows next to nothing about the subject, but makes for an illogical point for an argument if you know just a little bit about it. Geez, do you work for MannKind's marketing department or something? Having when the website is updated is great, IF YOU REGULARLY UPDATE THE WEBSITE. Not so great and yes, amateurish, when you haven't updated it in over a year and you broadcast that fact to everyone on the website. You mean to tell me nothing in the world of Afrezza has changed in a year? No publications, no testimonials, no blog posts, no articles, no presentations, no videos, nothing? I'm struggling to understand you. First, having when the update was published is for legal reason. Second, MannKind cannot publish scientific information on the Afrezza websites that has not been green-lighted by FDA. Testimonials, seriously? Blogs? You really believe blog articles will result in rising scripts? 🤣 Look, you make no sense and so I am done here. |
|
|
|
Post by ktim on May 28, 2019 6:53:37 GMT -5
Ingram is responsible if the website is not mobile responsive, if the website design is archaic, if the content needs to be revised, if the style choices aren't good, etc. as this falls under marketing. Now if she has brought up these issues and Mike shoots her down, then it is on him. But, considering nobody has touched the website in over a year (this should be taken off the website since it looks amateurish) and they can't even be bothered to change the copyright year to 2019, it is pretty clear that the website is low on the priorities for the management team. Just like social media, digital marketing, and all these other cost-effective means of reaching out to PWDs. You obviously do not understand copyright law nor how best to use a copyright notice to prevent and/or discourage infringement of website content. The 2018 copyright date notices provides no less protection today than it did a year ago simply because both of the patient and healthcare websites were last updated in 2018—thus, neither website contains content that needs to be protected by a 2019 copyright date notice because they are already protected by the 2018 copyright date notice. It's pretty clear who the amateur is here, and it's not MannKind! Whew. As long as they don't update anything they will be safe. So I guess we can hope nothing new Glad you set everyone straight on that  |
|
