Menu
Close
.svg)
In healthcare marketing research—whether for pharma, biotech, or medtech—stimuli are often treated as contenders in a beauty pageant. Campaign concepts, messages, taglines, and imagery are shown to respondents who are asked to rate them, rank them, or tell us which one they "like" best. Or which one best motivates them towards a specific action or behavioral objective. The process is clean, digestible, and numerically satisfying. But this approach also can be misleading.
The larger truth is that human preferences—especially in complex categories like pharmaceutical treatments and other healthcare products—are not easily accessed through simple likes and rankings. What’s often missed is the opportunity to use stimuli not as answers to be graded, but as probes. As subtle provocations. As tools to help respondents show us who they are and what truly moves them.
A few months ago, I was working with a commercial team testing campaign ideas for a new dermatology asset nearing launch. We had three concepts, each grounded in a different emotional and strategic angle—one focused on its mechanism of action, another on patient empowerment, and a third on treatment simplicity. The team and agency partners, like many others, was eager to know which concept would "win." The assumption was that we'd take them into testing, ask DERMs and patients to score them, and then run with the top-ranked candidate.
But here's the problem: what someone says they "like" in the artificial context of an individual depth interview doesn't always translate to what will change behavior, spark engagement, or differentiate in-market. Worse, when the concepts are close in quality—as they often are—the differences in ratings can be statistically insignificant, but still drive major commercial decisions.
We recommended a pivot in perspective. Rather than asking respondents merely to rank or rate the concepts, we employed them as hypotheses. We approached each one not as a candidate to be voted on, but as a diagnostic tool. We asked open-ended questions: What stood out to you here? What did you find surprising or confusing? What does this remind you of? We listened not for consensus but for intensity. For unexpected emotion. For where the energy spiked—or flatlined.
What we found was illuminating. A concept that was trending towards a silver medal in preliminary respondent preference actually sparked the most curiosity and emotional reaction. Dermatologists leaned forward when discussing it. It felt... controversial on some level - in a good way. Patients used more personal, intimate language. It triggered stories rather than just flat feedback. In the end, it wasn’t that this concept was “better” in a traditional sense—it was that it unlocked richer conversations. And that, in turn, gave us the insight we needed to shape a more resonant campaign.
Great marketing research should make respondents reveal themselves. The point of stimuli isn’t to fish for compliments—it’s to open a door. To surface what's unresolved, unspoken, or latent in the minds of customers. When we present a message or concept and the respondent says, “That’s interesting—I hadn’t thought of it that way,” we’ve struck paydirt. That moment of self-reflection is far more valuable than a bland ranking on a 5-point scale.
This requires a shift in mindset. Instead of asking, Which concept is best?, ask: What does each concept teach us about the person across from us? What assumptions are they making? What language are they resonating with? What cognitive or emotional barriers are we surfacing?
Stimuli should be seen as evolving tools in an iterative process. We learn something from one round, refine our approach, and go deeper in the next. In early message development, for example, showing a half-formed idea can be even more revealing than a polished one. It gives the respondent space to fill in the gaps—to co-create meaning—and in doing so, expose what really matters to them. Give them a 3/4 mowed lawn and see which direction they take in mowing the rest of it.
Marketing is, at its heart, a dialogue. And marketing research should reflect that. Not a multiple-choice test, but a conversation guided by thoughtful stimuli that do more than seek approval—they spark revelation.
When we reduce stimulus testing to a popularity contest, we miss the deeper, messier, and ultimately more authentic insights that drive meaningful brand strategy. Let’s reframe how we use stimuli—not as items to be judged, but as mirrors that help our customers—and our teams—see more clearly.
Because when we stop asking “Which do you like best?” and start asking “What does this tell us about you?”, we get closer to the truths that great marketing is built on.
