Menu
Close
.svg)
Last week, I had one of those past-meets-future experiences that reminded me why I still enjoy this business after all these years. As we were bringing a Habit Lens research study to a close for one of our top clients, I was struck by how much value can still be created after the interviews have been completed, the analysis finished, and the findings synthesized.
Alongside the traditional final readout -- a carefully crafted PowerPoint summarizing the objectives, methodology, findings, insights, and recommendations -- we decided to do something different. We brought together the marketing team and their agency partners for a two-hour facilitated working session. Rather than treating the research as the end of a process, to be presented and filed away, we treated it as the beginning of (and inspiration for) a strategic conversation. The objective was no longer simply to present what we had learned, but to help the team answer a much more consequential question: How are we going to align around what to do about it?
By the time the session concluded, it was clear that we had achieved something quite different than a conventional debrief. The research no longer felt like an external deliverable being wrapped up and handed over to the client. It had become something the team was actively working with, challenging, building upon, and ultimately making their own.
One observation has been on my mind for quite some time now. Collectively as an industry, we've become remarkably good at generating insights. We design increasingly thoughtful studies, ask better questions than we did a decade ago, recruit the right respondents more consistently, and weave the findings into narratives that help teams make sense of increasingly dynamic and complex markets. We and others come up with increasingly artistic and creative ways to present the learnings. AI is only accelerating that evolution, helping us analyze more efficiently, recognize patterns more quickly, synthesize larger volumes of information than ever before, and wrap it up beautifully.
HOWEVER, I sometimes wonder whether we over-index on the learning itself while under-indexing on what comes next.
In reality, though, even the most experienced marketing research agency or consultant cannot answer every strategic question effectively on its own. We bring our expertise of recruitment, data collection, analysis, plus a deep understanding of customer behavior, therapeutic category knowledge and years and years of experience. But the brand team brings something more indispensable. They understand the history of the brand, the commercial strategy, the competitive dynamics, the internal priorities, the regulatory realities, and the practical constraints that shape every decision. They know not only what could be done, but what can actually be done.
It has always seemed to me that the best strategic thinking happens where those two perspectives intersect constructively. Research provides an external lens on customers; the brand team provides an internal understanding of the business. When those viewpoints merge in the same room -- not simply to review findings, but to actively wrestle with what they mean -- the conversation moves beyond interpretation and toward decision-making. That, in my experience, is where marketing research can create the greatest value.
One phrase kept coming back to me throughout the workshop. It felt like we were bringing the research home.
Sometimes, even the best marketing research can feel as though it lives just outside the business. The MR agency conducts the interviews, analyzes the data, develops the narrative, presents the findings, and then moves on to the next project. The brand team, meanwhile, absorbs as much as it can before attention inevitably shifts to the next launch, the next meeting, or the next fire that needs putting out.
What struck me about this workshop was how much it reminded me of the earlier days of pharmaceutical marketing research, when clients would spend hours in the back room in a facility watching interviews unfold in real time. We would pause between respondents to debate what we had just heard, challenge one another's interpretations, jot down ideas on flip charts, consume M&M's, and then continue the conversation over dinner...long after the facility had closed. The research felt alive because everyone was participating in making sense of it together.
This workshop, in many respects, revived that spirit in a way that felt remarkably contemporary. Although conducted virtually, it transformed the team from passive recipients of a presentation into active participants in interpreting the evidence. People challenged assumptions, connected the findings to previous work, debated priorities, and gradually translated behavioral observations into strategic options. Somewhere during those two hours, the research stopped feeling like an external deliverable and started becoming part of the team's own thinking.
To me, that is where some of the greatest value in primary research is created: not just when insights are generated, but when they are collectively interpreted, challenged, refined, and ultimately owned by the people responsible for putting them into practice.
Very early in the session, I found myself slipping into a role that felt entirely familiar. I wasn't acting as a presenter. I was acting as a facilitator. The respondents simply happened to be the marketing team and their agency partners, and the discussion centered not on customer behavior itself, but on what that behavior implied for the brand.
We had identified a handful of behavioral objectives that had emerged from the Habit Lens study and used those as the framework, the "planks," for the discussion. My role was less about presenting conclusions than facilitating a conversation around them -- keeping the discussion moving, drawing quieter voices into it, gently probing when an interesting idea surfaced, and making sure the group explored different perspectives without rushing toward the first acceptable answer. In many respects, the same instincts that foster a productive qualitative interview turned out to be equally valuable in helping a client team think through complex strategic questions.
I'll admit that I initially assumed this type of workshop really needed to happen in person. Instead, we conducted it over Microsoft Teams, and to my surprise, it worked remarkably well. People "raised their hands" when they wanted to jump into the discussion. I found myself calling on participants much as I would in a medical advisory board. Meanwhile, the chat window developed a life of its own, becoming a parallel channel of observations, ideas, and connections that enriched the conversation without interrupting its flow. Rather than feeling like a compromise, the technology actually enhanced the whole experience.
Behind the scenes, one member of our team captured the discussion in a structured worksheet as it unfolded, while another -- who had lived with the research from the very beginning -- stepped in whenever the conversation needed to reconnect with what respondents had actually said or done. That combination worked beautifully. The workshop never drifted into unsupported speculation because the evidence was always close at hand, but neither did it become constrained by the findings themselves. The discussion remained anchored in the research while allowing the brand team to bring its own experience, institutional knowledge, and strategic judgment into the room.
By the end of the session, it no longer felt like we had simply presented the results of a study. It felt like the team had begun making the research their own.
Perhaps the biggest lesson for me was that the final readout of a marketing research study should not necessarily represent the final deliverable. Increasingly, I think it should an inclusive, expertly-facilitated strategy session.
Whether conducted in person or virtually, workshops like these allow research to evolve from a presentation into a working tool. Rather than simply reviewing findings, teams begin interrogating them. They identify where habits need to change, where messaging needs refinement, where additional evidence may be required, and where the greatest opportunities for experimentation exist.
At ThinkGen, we often refer to the output of these sessions as a Behavioral Change Plan, because that is ultimately what good marketing is trying to accomplish. Research, by itself, does not change behavior. Strategies do. Messaging does. Well-designed support programs do. Better experiences do. The workshop becomes the bridge between understanding customers and deciding how to serve them differently.
That feels particularly important in today's day and age where everything is a sprint. Biopharma brand teams are operating under extraordinary time pressure, and every meeting competes with dozens of others for attention. Even an excellent readout can become another slide deck that is socialized, discussed briefly, and then quickly overtaken by the next priority. A facilitated working session asks something fundamentally different of the participants. It asks them not simply to absorb the research, but to engage with it, challenge it, build upon it, and ultimately take ownership of where it leads.
In my experience, that is where the value of primary marketing research increases most dramatically. Not when the findings are presented, but when they become the catalyst for better decisions.
Artificial intelligence is changing almost every aspect of pharmaceutical marketing research, and rightly so. It is helping us analyze faster, identify patterns more efficiently, summarize interviews in minutes rather than hours, and explore ideas that might otherwise have taken days to develop. Those advances are meaningful, and they will continue to reshape our industry.
What AI cannot do, however, is create alignment.
Only people can sit together, challenge one another's assumptions, debate competing interpretations, build on each other's ideas, and ultimately arrive at a shared understanding of what the research means for a brand. That process is rarely linear, and it is almost never captured in a presentation deck. It emerges through conversation. Through disagreement. Through someone connecting a finding from the study with a competitive dynamic, a previous launch, or an experience from the field that nobody else in the room had considered.
That is why I have come to believe that the capstone of a marketing research study should not simply be a presentation. It should be a conversation. The goal is not merely to deliver insights, but to create the conditions in which those insights become shared understanding and, ultimately, better decisions.
Perhaps that is what I mean by bringing the research home. The research ceases to belong to the agency that conducted it and begins to belong to the team responsible for acting on it. The findings become part of the brand's own thinking, and the discussion shifts naturally from "What did we learn?" to "What should we do next?"
At the end of the day, that may be the highest value we can create. Not simply producing a stronger report, but helping teams build stronger strategies because they have spent time thinking through the implications together.
