Menu
Close
.svg)
In biopharma marketing, we spend a lot of time trying to differentiate brands on clinical data. Hazard ratios. P-values. Subgroup analyses. Those things matter. They always will.
But after many years working with commercial teams across pharma, biotech, and medical products and technology, one thing has become pretty clear: clinical data rarely carries the entire commercial story on its own.
Some of the most effective promotional claims I’ve seen didn’t come from the clinical section of the label. They came from carefully designed market research.
Specifically, research built to generate non-clinical promotional claims.
These claims capture something clinical trials often can’t: how physicians and patients actually experience a treatment or medical product in the real world. When done properly, these claims can become some of the most versatile assets a brand team can have.
And yet, most organizations still underuse them.
Two weeks ago, I was in Philadelphia for our annual ThinkGen in-person meeting. During a break between sessions, I was messaging with a senior executive at a medical advertising agency we’ve partnered with on several projects.
We had recently collaborated with his team, both of us working on behalf of a small rare disease pharma company in the Philadelphia area -- on a research study designed specifically to generate non-clinical claims that could anchor a non-branded campaign.
Those claims ultimately became part of an unbranded educational initiative focused on a rare condition. His message to me was short, but it stuck with me:
"We really leaned on your research heavily during the creative process."
That’s exactly how this type of work should function.
The best claims research doesn’t just validate messaging after the fact. It gives creative teams something credible to build around from the beginning.
Instead of starting with a headline and hoping it survives MLR review, the creative process begins with insights that are already grounded in defensible evidence.
In rare disease especially, where education and awareness often matter just as much as promotion, that kind of evidence-based storytelling can be incredibly powerful. It helps ensure the message resonates with physicians and patients alike -- while still standing up to regulatory scrutiny.
Non-clinical claims are statements about the experience or perceived value of a therapy, rather than its clinical endpoints. They might reflect:
These claims don’t replace clinical evidence. But they can complement it by capturing how therapies fit into the everyday realities of care.
Claims like these also travel well across educational and promotional channels. Claims grounded in patient or physician experience often work just as well in a rep conversation as they do in digital media or disease education.
And in markets where clinical differentiation is narrowing, they can help brands tell a more complete story.
One thing I see fairly often is teams trying to extract claims from research that was never designed to support them. For example:
Pulling numbers out of an ATU study. Trying to build claims from a handful of qualitative interviews. Or retrofitting survey findings that were originally designed for something else.
The problem is that promotional claims require a very specific research design. If the study wasn’t built with that goal in mind, the findings usually won’t hold up in regulatory review.
Claims research has to be intentional from the start.
Over time we’ve developed a fairly structured approach to generating non-clinical claims. My colleague Tim Brewer has written about it and presented about this at a range of meetings. The process isn’t complicated, but it does require discipline and should be undertaken in coordination with an experienced regulatory consultant.
The first step is usually a working session with the brand team, insights leads, agency partners, and often medical or regulatory colleagues.
The goal isn’t to brainstorm taglines. It’s to identify claim territories.
What tensions exist in the market today? What do physicians wish worked better? What are patients struggling with?
From there we develop a set of claim hypotheses that can be tested. Getting alignment early tends to save a lot of time later.
Before initiating a larger study, we usually test the claim language with a small number of respondents. Participants read potential claim statements and describe what they think the statement means. It sounds simple, but it’s incredibly helpful.
Small wording differences can change interpretation dramatically. Phrases like “most patients,” “preferred,” or “trusted” can introduce ambiguity or unintended implications.
Catching those issues early prevents bigger problems down the road.
The core of the process is a focused quantitative survey designed specifically to validate claim statements. Typically this involves a sample of physicians or patients -- often a few hundred respondents depending on the therapeutic area.
A few design principles are important:
When done well, the output becomes a statistically defensible foundation for promotional messaging. Indeed, survey-generated claims, e.g., like willingness to use a therapy again or physician preference for certain attributes, can be surprisingly powerful in promotional settings.
Non-clinical claims still fall under promotional regulations, so the research needs to hold up to scrutiny. That means:
When those elements are handled properly, the claims often move through review more smoothly.
Once the research is complete, the team typically reconvenes to decide which claims are most valuable and where they should appear in the promotional ecosystem.
Some work best in personal promotion. Others translate better to digital channels, disease education, or patient-focused materials.
The important thing is that the marketing team now has a set of credible messages supported by data.
Over the past year we’ve conducted a number of campaign testing and performance research studies. One pattern shows up again and again.
Many campaigns are well executed creatively, but the messaging itself often feels generic. The language could apply to almost any product in the category.
When the underlying research produces specific claims, the messaging usually becomes much sharper. And compared with many other commercial investments, these studies are relatively cost-efficient.
For a modest research investment, brand teams can generate claims that work across multiple channels and can be used for years.
The insights function in pharma has evolved quite a bit over the last decade. The most effective teams today aren’t just reporting what customers think. They’re helping shape how brands communicate.
Non-clinical claims research is one practical and cost-efficient way to do that. It connects insights directly to brand strategy, creative development, and promotional messaging.
And occasionally, as that agency partner reminded me in a message from Philadelphia, the research doesn’t just inform the creative process.
It becomes the backbone of it.
