Menu
Close
.svg)
Pharma message testing is a well-established discipline and, for us at ThinkGen and I imagine other firms in our space, among the most frequently commissioned types of healthcare marketing research, with a broad range of qualitative and quantitative methodologies in use. From MaxDiff and TURF to newer behavioral science and simulation-based models, commercial teams have no shortage of tools and methods available to evaluate message effectiveness.
Yet despite the range of methodologies, qual and quant, one perennial and often-debated question remains: Should a Target Product Profile (TPP) be introduced to respondents before they evaluate individual messages or sets of messages?
There are solid arguments on both sides. Some assert that the TPP provides vital context. Others insist it fosters bias and should be omitted until after message evaluation. The real answer, however, isn’t binary and it depends on when and how message testing is being conducted, and what you’re trying to learn.
In our experience at ThinkGen, when the goal of research is to uncover which messages resonate most deeply with healthcare professionals (HCPs), context is essential. In the absence of a TPP, respondents are often left guessing: “What’s the product? How does it work? How is it given? Who is it for?” That ambiguity can dilute or distort the perceived impact of any individual message.
By showing a TPP before the message evaluation, we ground respondents in the clinical and therapeutic background and framework of the product. This enables more accurate, nuanced, and actionable feedback on the message content that will drive a specified behavior. Especially in early-stage research -- when the objective is to understand which messages align with the product’s unique value proposition -- the TPP doesn’t bias the results; it clarifies the lens through which messages are judged.
In other words: the TPP doesn’t bias the message testing, it grounds it.
The counterpoint is not without merit. Critics suggest that in real-world settings, especially in non-personal promotion (NPP), messages are often encountered in isolation. Think of a digital ad on Medscape, or a snippet from an email campaign. The HCP doesn’t have access to a TPP or the rep’s being in front of them to elaborate and explain. Therefore, messages should be tested in similar isolation to reflect that fragmented delivery reality.
Moreover, exposing a TPP before message review could create a cognitive halo --respondents may rate all subsequent messages more favorably simply because they now believe the product is high-value. It becomes difficult to isolate the intrinsic merit of any individual message from the overall impression of the product.
This is where both sides of the debate can be reconciled: by aligning the use of the TPP with the stage of research and the communication channel being modeled.
In the early phases of message testing, whether using traditional qualitative (IDI/TDI) or quantitative (MaxDiff, TURF) data collection methods, presenting the TPP first helps identify which messages are most congruent with the product’s differentiated value. Contextual grounding at this stage ensures that evaluative judgments reflect actual clinical relevance—not just linguistic polish.
But as messages move into applied channel testing, such as when inserted into IVAs, brochures, websites, or email flows, testing should shift to simulate these touchpoints. At that point, we typically recommend removing the TPP in order that the respondent can examine and judge the messages as they would be experienced in real life. Are they relevant and clear? Do they hold up? Are they believable? Do they create enough curiosity to prompt an HCP to seek more information?
This phased approach mirrors the natural progression of communication development: from strategic story framing to tactical execution.
This is where ThinkGen’s ThinkSMART Message Optimization model provides both clarity and flexibility. Unlike rigid methodologies that rely solely on individual message ratings or statistical hierarchies, ThinkSMART recognizes that effective messaging is about storytelling, not just isolated statements.
At its core, ThinkSMART is a layered, real-world, behaviorally informed approach to message testing that evaluates both the performance of individual messages and their performance in combination. It’s not about ranking headlines; it’s about constructing platforms that build interest, inspire trust, and ultimately move customers to act.
Here’s how ThinkSMART reframes the debate about TPP inclusion:
The genius of ThinkSMART is that it moves beyond traditional models like MaxDiff and TURF, which often fail to account for message synergy, story progression, and channel-specific adaptation. It combines advanced modeling with a consultative lens, allowing brand teams to simulate trade-offs, identify diminishing returns, and align message platforms with strategic positioning.
It also leverages both stated and modeled diagnostics, revealing when stakeholder choices diverge from their stated preferences—a critical insight in a category where what HCPs say they value often differs from what actually drives decision-making.
So, should you include the TPP in a message testing study? Yes—when it helps you simulate how messages will perform when customers understand the broader product story. And no—when you're testing final execution or channel-specific constraints where that context won’t be present.
ThinkSMART doesn’t treat the TPP as a confounder or a constant. It treats it as a strategic input, varied intentionally depending on the research phase, the messaging goal, and the simulated environment.
As omnichannel communication becomes the norm and story coherence becomes as important as message content, methodologies like ThinkSMART give brand teams the structured flexibility they need—not just to pick the best messages, but to build the optimal message architecture.
