Menu
Close
.svg)
Over the past few months, one theme has surfaced repeatedly in our primary marketing research work: switching. Whether it involves a new entrant in an established therapeutic category, a lifecycle management initiative, a reformulation, or a novel mechanism of action, many brands today depend on their ability to persuade patients (and physicians) to leave something familiar behind in favor of something new.
That may sound like a straightforward commercial challenge. In reality, it is one of the most complex behavioral obstacles in healthcare.
Case in point: I was recently interviewing a young woman about a potential switch from an injectable therapy to an oral alternative. As we began the conversation, I asked a fairly simple, open-ended question: if she could design the ideal long-term treatment for her condition, what would it look like?
She didn't hesitate. "A pill would be great."
Her reasoning was entirely sensible. Pills are easier to travel with, require less planning and paraphernalia, fit more naturally into daily life, and avoid the discomfort and inconvenience of injections. If one were designing the perfect therapy from scratch, the answer seemed almost self-evident.
So, almost on cue, I introduced a potential oral alternative product profile. And then something interesting happened.
As she began reacting to the profile, it became clear that she had no interest in switching.
Not because the injectable she was taking was more convenient. Not because she particularly liked it. But because she had invested so much effort into making it work; and it was working. She had mastered the administration process. She had incorporated it into her routine. She had developed confidence in it. Most importantly, she trusted it. And despite all of the data we could place in front of her, she remained unconvinced that a pill could truly be as effective as an injection. Somewhere along the way, she had developed a deeply intuitive belief that injections were simply more powerful.
What fascinated me was that both statements were true at the same time.
That small contradiction reveals something important about the psychology of switching. What people say they want in the abstract and what they are willing to change in practice are often two very different things.
What I noted most prominently about that conversation was that she wasn't really comparing an oral therapy against an injectable therapy. She was comparing a hypothetical future against a treatment she had already integrated into her life.
The injection carried memories of difficult onboarding, learning, adaptation, and eventually success. It represented months (years, actually) of accumulated experience. By the time we spoke, it was no longer simply a medication. It had become part of a routine she trusted.
This is something I see repeatedly in switching research. Commercial teams often assume customers evaluate new products by comparing attributes. In reality, they evaluate them against accumulated experience. A new treatment may offer compelling advantages that a respondent in a study will readily enumerate, but those advantages are being weighed against something that has already earned confidence.
The incumbent treatment may not be ideal, but it is well-known. And known has overwhelming psychological value.
That value extends beyond patients. Physicians bring their own history into the decision. They remember treatments that exceeded expectations and those that disappointed. They remember difficult conversations, successful outcomes, and the occasional surprise. Over time, those experiences become part of their decision-making framework, whether they realize it or not.
Switching, therefore, is rarely just a product comparison exercise. It is an exercise in understanding context, history, trust, and the subtle ways people become "invested" (to borrow a phrase from Nir Eyal) in choices they have already made.
This is where Daniel Kahneman's work becomes particularly relevant.
One of his most enduring observations was that people do not evaluate decisions purely on the basis of potential gains. They evaluate them through the lens of potential losses as well. In many situations, the fear of losing something outweighs the prospect of gaining something better. That's the essence of "loss aversion."
Healthcare is no exception.
Patients considering a switch are not simply reflecting on what they might gain. They are also asking, perhaps more prominently and powerfully, what they might lose. Could they lose disease control? Could they experience unexpected side effects? Could the switch disrupt something that currently feels stable? Could they end up regretting the decision? And... can I go back if I have regret, or is this switch a "one way street?"
Physicians face a similar tension. A new therapy may look superior on paper, but switching a stable patient introduces uncertainty into a situation that may already be working reasonably well. The current treatment may be imperfect, but it has already has built the psychological bank account of earned trust.
That is why so many switching conversations eventually become less about benefits and more about risk.
One of the mistakes commercial teams sometimes make is treating switching as a single decision point.
In reality, switching is a journey with multiple pitfalls where momentum can stall.
The physician must identify appropriate candidates, communicate the rationale, address concerns, navigate reimbursement challenges, and monitor for feedback and response. The patient must understand why the switch is being proposed, decide whether the benefits are worth the disruption, and gain confidence that the new therapy will fit into their life.
At every step, hesitation can emerge.
This is why some of the most valuable research we conduct has very little to do with product attributes themselves. Instead, it focuses on mapping the switch journey.
Some of the clearest examples of this dynamic appear in HIV. Patients who are virally suppressed and doing well often acknowledge the advantages of newer options while remaining reluctant to switch. The issue is rarely the data. The issue is that the current regimen has become woven into a stable life.
In these circumstances, the challenge is not proving that the alternative is better. It is helping patients and physicians feel comfortable leaving something that already works.
The most successful switching strategies I have seen do not simply communicate why a new product is better. They systematically address what customers fear they may lose by leaving the old one behind.
That may sound like a subtle distinction, but it changes the entire nature of the conversation. Companies who do this well see the challenge they are facing not as helping customers see the benefits of the future; more often, it is helping them let go of the present.
