Menu
Close
.svg)
Things feel genuinely promising in the pharmaceutical and biotech industry these days. After a period of uncertainty after the last election, it feels as though we are returning to an era of stronger pipeline productivity and renewed scientific momentum. Capital appears to be flowing back toward innovation, and despite the continuing turbulence in Washington, the overall tone within biopharma feels noticeably more optimistic -- at least from where I sit.
As a result, my team and I at ThinkGen are spending a tremendous amount of time helping companies place new target product profiles (TPPs) in front of customers.
At ThinkGen, early-stage TPP testing is something we do constantly. It is among the most common types of studies we conduct -- and, frankly, among the most fascinating. As I wrote in a recent post thanking physicians who participate in marketing research, TPP testing offers a rare privilege: the opportunity to glimpse the future before it arrives. I still relish sitting down with physicians, nurses, pharmacists, patients, and other stakeholders to walk through emerging therapies and collectively imagine how they might eventually fit into the future treatment landscape. And, more importantly, into the real rhythms of everyday clinical practice.
And over the last several years, as many who follow my writing know, we’ve continued embedding Habit Lens as the “Intel inside” of ThinkGen’s methodologies. The more we’ve done this work, the more I’ve found myself thinking about something I believe our industry still underexplores during TPP testing.
Not simply whether a physician "likes" a new product. But whether the product has the characteristics to become a physician’s regular “go-to,” a therapy they reach for repeatedly, confidently, and almost instinctively in the appropriate clinical situation.
That is a very different question from what is typically asked in TPP testing studies. And increasingly, I believe it may be one of the most important questions we should be asking.
Traditionally, TPP testing revolves around the familiar dimensions:
These are essential considerations, obviously. But they largely evaluate products through a rational and comparative lens. Which product looks stronger? Which profile appears more compelling?
What often gets overlooked is the behavioral layer.
The question that I am increasingly asking is this: how naturally does this product fit into repeatable clinical behavior? How easy is it for physicians to recognize the right patient? How quickly and clearly does the therapy reinforce confidence after it is used? What aspects of the product foster conviction and repeated use over time?
Ultimately, commercial success is not driven solely by stated preference.
It is driven by whether a product becomes part of the physician’s default decision pathway.
We learn a lot simply by listening to doctors talk about the drugs they use everyday. When they describe therapies they routinely rely upon, the language they use is often remarkably behavioral.
They know exactly when to use the product. The patient type is recognizable. The expected outcome is relatively predictable. And importantly, the feedback arrives clearly enough to reinforce confidence.
That concoction of elements, especially the feedback loop, matters enormously.
Within Habit Lens, we often think about habits as stemming from three things:
When those three elements align repeatedly, confidence builds. The behavior becomes easier. Less effortful. More automatic. We call that "investment," a term we borrowed from Nir Eyal's Hook model.
Eventually, the physician stops “considering” the product each time and she simply reaches for it instinctively in the appropriate clinical situation.
That is what a true “go-to” looks like behaviorally.
This is where I think behavioral science has something fundamental to contribute to TPP testing. Because not all therapeutic feedback is created equal.
In some categories, the feedback loop is very clear and objective. HIV is a prime example. The physician relies upon measurable biomarkers, i.e., viral load, CD4 lymphocyte counts, and a clear therapeutic objective. The doctor knows what success looks like numerically and can see progress relatively quickly.
That creates an unusually powerful behavioral environment for habit formation. And the feedback loop is strengthened by the fact that people living with HIV are thriving.
The physician observes: when I use this therapy in this type of patient, the numbers move in the right direction.
That reinforcement builds confidence rapidly.
By contrast, in categories where improvement is more subjective -- COPD is one example -- the feedback loop can become murkier. Like Alzheimer's disease, the overall context is one of decline. Symptoms fluctuate. Patients adapt. Improvement may be gradual or difficult to quantify. Inhaler technique, adherence, and co-morbidities complicate interpretation.
The result is a much noisier behavioral system. And noisier systems are more difficult to transform into habits.
This is why I increasingly believe companies need to think much more carefully about the feedback architecture surrounding a product while it is still in development.
Not just:
In categories where traditional endpoints do not fully communicate the impact of treatment, additional evidence generation may become critically important.
This might include:
I say this because If the feedback is difficult to perceive, the habit becomes more difficult to establish.
And if a team wants its product to become a physician’s trusted default option, it needs to understand what data and experiences will foster that level of conviction.
Years ago, when we first started working in the area of behavioral science, we internally referred to the methodology as “Habit Engineering.”
One of our earliest clients wisely cautioned us that the phrase could create the wrong impression. In an industry already sensitive to public perception, the idea of “engineering habits” understandably sounded problematic.
And he was right.
So we evolved the language: first to “Behavioral Economics Plus,” or “BE+,” and eventually to Habit Lens. That evolution reflected something important philosophically.
Our objective is not to create inappropriate dependency or manipulate customers. It is to better understand the behavioral conditions under which appropriate and beneficial therapeutic usage naturally becomes more repeatable, reliable, and sustainable.
That is a very different undertaking.
Increasingly, I’ve come to believe that habit should not be viewed as merely a commercial-stage consideration. Fundamentally, it belongs much earlier in the product lifecycle.
Companies should be asking during development:
These are not inconsequential questions. They are essential strategic ones.
Because products rarely succeed on differentiation alone. They succeed when they become embedded in real-world behavior.
As our industry becomes more sophisticated in applying behavioral science, I believe this will become an increasingly important dimension of TPP evaluation.
Not simply: Is the product attractive? And/or do the drivers imply commercial opportunity?
But: How naturally does it become part of habit? Does it have "go-to" potential?
We've consistently seen in our TPP testing studies that the therapies which ultimately win in the marketplace are often not merely the ones with the strongest profile on paper. They are the ones physicians can learn to trust, use confidently, and return to repeatedly in recognizable clinical situations.
In other words, they become part of the rhythm of practice itself.
