Menu
Close
.svg)
Not long ago, I brought a relatively young Pharma commercial team to a marketing research facility in New York for a full day of physician interviews -- some one-on-one, others conducted as triads. The study focused on campaign idea testing for a therapeutic category portfolio. For many of the team members, and especially those entering the industry or agency life in and around the pandemic, it was their first exposure to in-person research.
They were mesmerized. Respondents' body language, the offhand comments, even their quirky attire -- it all brought the data to life. But what struck them most wasn’t only what happened in the interview room; it was what happened in the back room. Undistractedly watching a discussion unfold and then immediately hashing out impressions as a group created an intensity and immediacy of insight they had never experienced. The team witnessed which ideas were working, which were falling flat... and most profoundly, came up with some fascinating new concepts on the spot. It was thrilling. (Not to mention the amazing dinner we shared afterwards!)
In years past, this was the norm. This was how I spent the first 20 years of my career. Teams routinely traveled to facilities in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles -- sometimes packing in 30 or 40 interviews over multiple days. The research was not just observed; it was experienced. Campaigns were scrapped, rebuilt, and sometimes reborn in those rooms. Some of the most award-winning ideas in pharma advertising were forged in the crucible of those shared, visceral debates. And many, many more ideas failed - which is OK!
The back room was more than a physical space. It was a laboratory of the commercial imagination. You watched, you felt, and you debated. Gut instinct was not dismissed but tested against the evidence right there in real time.
The alchemy wasn’t just about data points -- it was about shared experience. A team could collectively feel whether a narrative was resonating. They could sense if a detail aid was sparking interest, if a sequence of visuals fell flat, or if a metaphor hit the mark. There was immediacy, theater, and above all, accountability. For me as a moderator, it was a thrill to be on the stage, performing, and striving above all to get to that moment of singular truth.
Even the little facility rituals mattered: the shared meals, the bowls of M&Ms, the offhand jokes during breaks. These weren’t trivialities. They fostered an environment where teams felt safe to challenge assumptions and voice instinctive reactions.
I recall one research session where a team literally deconstructed a visual aid on the floor of a Schlesinger facility. Joachim Osther probably remembers this day as clearly as I do. Piece by piece, they rearranged it and tested the new version in the next interview. Boom, it worked! That direct feedback loop gave the commercial team the confidence to champion a new narrative flow -- backed not just by a report, but by lived experience. They made marketing magic in real time.
Today, most marketing research is virtual. During a recent conversation with David Berman, he noted that 70% or more of interviews and focus groups are conducted virtually. To be clear, remote methodologies offer reach, cost efficiency, and speed. Technology allows us to stream interviews and scale observation, which is particularly valuable when including global team members. And yes, teams occasionally gather at headquarters to watch interviews together. But let’s not kid ourselves: it isn’t the same.
The off-site nature of a facility meant a mental reset. Traveling to a different city, immersing in a different market, stepping away from daily distractions -- all of that heightened the focus. Watching respondents in person provided a multidimensional view of engagement, something no webcam can fully capture.
Most importantly, the back room created communal learning. Virtual interviews can too easily dissolve into individual note-taking and fragmented impressions. The electricity of immediate group debate is lost when people log off into their separate silos.
Insights leaders today are under constant pressure to economize. Senior management and their consultants argue for lower budgets, faster turnarounds, and increased reliance on data analytics. Primary research is often seen as transactional rather than transformational, its value degraded, perhaps, by the removal of the experiential element.
But if we care about truly shaping brand narratives that resonate with HCPs, patients, and other stakeholders, we cannot allow the back room to disappear. It is precisely in those moments of collective, immersive learning that breakthrough insights emerge. Those shared experiences give teams the courage to advocate for bold, breakthrough creative decisions, to refine campaign elements on the fly, and to align around a common sense of purpose.
This isn't simply nostalgia -- it’s pragmatism. The companies that fight to preserve or revive in-person research will find themselves with sharper campaigns, stronger narratives, and more cohesive commercial teams. Customers, too, notice the extra effort.
So how do we reclaim the back room in today’s environment?
The back room isn’t just a nostalgic relic; it’s a proven engine of commercial excellence. It is where insights cease to be abstract data and become shared conviction. It is where teams learn not just about their customers but about themselves as marketers.
If we allow cost pressures, time and convenience also, to erode this institution, we risk losing more than a proven methodology -- we risk losing the art of experiential learning that defines great marketing. Let’s not settle for transactional insights. Let’s fight to bring our teams back to the back room, where the sparks of game-changing ideas still wait to be lit.
