From Overlap to Opportunity: Leveraging Primary Marketing Research to Make Portfolio Co-Positioning Work

Why Co-Positioning Matters

These days, biopharma companies rarely bring just one therapy to a therapeutic area. More often, they cultivate portfolios of treatments, sometimes with overlapping indications or patient populations. This has real advantages: it signals long-term commitment to the disease area and patient community, and provides multiple options to meet the needs of different patients.

But overlap brings risk. Without a clear strategy and effective execution, two brands from the same company can end up competing with each other, leaving HCPs scratching their heads about which product to use when. The result? Confused customers, squandered promotional spend, internal tensions, and sub-optimal performance across the portfolio.

Done right, though, co-positioning delivers clarity to HCPs, payers, and patients, while optimizing performance and fortifying market leadership.

‍

A Common Scenario: From Stand-Alone Therapy to FDC

One situation we've handled frequently at ThinkGen is when a company develops a fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy that includes a drug already marketed as a single agent.

On paper, the FDC looks like a natural upgrade, particularly with the right "dance partner." But in real clinical practice, the single agent often remains relevant, whether for HCPs who want regimen flexibility or for patients with specific clinical needs. Unless the company builds a clear narrative about which patients benefit from which product, and in what circumstances, both products risk cannibalizing each other.

‍

A Systematic, Research-Driven Approach

Because internal bias can creep in, especially when teams feel loyal to their brand, a structured, evidence-based process guided by voice of customer insights is essential. Best practice typically involves five key steps:

1. Align on Market Structure and Patient Segments Kick things off with an objective view of the market. What segments exist? What is each segment's distinct needs, and what drives prescribing choices? Primary research with HCPs and patients is critical to avoid relying on assumptions.
2. Assess Competitive Dynamics Compare each brand’s ability to meet segment needs against current and future competitors (including generics or biosimilars). Scenario planning helps anticipate regulatory and marketplace changes.
3. Map Assets to Segments Decide which product matches best with which patients. This balances clinical fit, opportunity size, and long-term financial goals. Sometimes it also involves targeting different HCP segments -- however this requires caution, since many HCPs prescribe across multiple patient types.
4. Craft Distinct Positioning Statements Each brand needs a crisp, unambiguous narrative that leaves HCPs with no doubt about its role in the treatment pathway.
5. Elevate to a Portfolio Proposition Finally, articulate how the full portfolio adds value beyond the sum of its parts. Shared patient support programs, research investments, or real-world data commitments can differentiate the portfolio as a whole.

‍

Case Study: HIV Treatment Portfolio

Here is a case study that our team worked on directly, and that delivered tangible results in terms of the eventual dominance of our client's brands in the marketplace. At the time, their two antiretroviral (ARV) products were commercialized in the HIV marketplace:

• Product A: A once-daily FDC, designed for treatment-naïve patients who value simplicity.
• Product B: A dual NRTI backbone, intended as a flexible partner for a third agent of the physician’s choosing.

Research revealed that each addressed different needs: newly diagnosed patients sought the convenience and reassurance of Product A, while HCPs treating patients with potential adherence challenges (or otherwise requiring a third agent besides the one included in Product A) valued the adaptability of Product B.

By positioning Product A as the “start strong” option and Product B as the “build your own regimen” choice, the company fostered clarity, credibility, and simplicity. Both products quickly found their lanes, minimizing cannibalization while maximizing patient coverage.

‍

Beyond Clinical Differentiation

It’s also worth remembering that differentiation doesn’t always come solely from clinical data. Superior patient services -- such as adherence support, reimbursement navigation, or nurse helplines -- can be decisive in shaping prescribing decisions. In crowded categories, these services often tip the balance for both HCPs and patients.

‍

Getting It Right vs. Getting It Wrong

The difference between success and failure in co-positioning often comes down to process.

• Getting it right means: clarity of positioning for all stakeholders, alignment across internal teams, stronger performance across the portfolio, and often market leadership.
• Getting it wrong means: brand team infighting, muddled messaging, wasted resources, and missed opportunities.

That’s why a research-driven, systematic approach matters so much. Co-positioning isn’t about choosing one brand over another; it’s about giving each the space to thrive and ensuring patients get the right treatment at the right time.

‍

Final Thoughts

As portfolios grow more complex -- with new formulations, next-generation mechanisms, and fixed-dose combinations -- co-positioning will only become more critical. The best strategies lean on robust research, disciplined analytics, and collaborative decision-making across functions.

With that foundation, companies can turn potential overlap into opportunity, ensuring that every brand contributes to the broader portfolio mission -- and every patient finds the treatment that fits their needs.