8 April 2019

How We Use Secondary Landscape Analysis to Build Confidence in Our Research Insights

We are coming towards the end of a qualitative research project and so far, so good; there was great collaboration with the client during the design stage, the fieldwork went really smoothly, and we gathered some great insights. What we do next with this wealth of collected data will determine the success of the project and whether or not there is buy-in to the research from our client’s wider brand team.

We do not want to just accumulate insights to send to our client but instead conduct a robust analysis which is rooted in the broader therapeutic landscape. Using our expert knowledge and targeted secondary research we are able to increase the confidence and relevance of our insights. This is crucial in providing our clients with insights they can rely upon and be confident presenting to their internal brand teams.

To demonstrate this approach in practice here is an example which is based on a recent project, part of which involved TDIs with physicians in the US where we asked about which therapies they were using.  

In the initial stages of the project we conducted a base lining secondary research exercise of a competitor product which highlighted:

  • The product received FDA approval for a label update >12 months ago to extend the shelf-life of the product
    • There had been a small update to the existing message house, but no new marketing campaign
    • The company had not presented data nor hosted symposia at recent medical conferences
  • The product was once a company priority
    • The initial launch returned lower than expected revenues
    • Over the last 12 months corporate communications were increasingly focused on its late stage pipeline in a different therapeutic area
    • The pivotal trials for one of these assets had recently reached primary completion indicating that the company would be preparing for regulatory submissions

During the project we continued to monitor the company and product; the product’s quarterly revenue was flat and there were no updates to marketing messages.

This baseline knowledge provided us with considerable context when, during our analysis of the market research interviews we came across this verbatim where a physician was not aware of the product’s label update:

“We don’t like to use [competitor product] because there is a short shelf-life. We have to pay out of pocket for the product and then try to bundle patients together to use it within the three-day window (…) No, I haven’t spoken with the rep recently.” Physician, US

The first thing for us to consider was whether this was an outlier opinion or a reoccurring theme. In this case it was a theme echoed amongst most of the sample. The physicians who were aware of the label update all happened to work for large clinics, in major cities.

Coupling the market research insights with our secondary analysis we were able to build a robust picture of this competitor asset highlighting opportunities for our client.

We outlined how the therapy was being disregarded by physicians outside of the major centres due to a lack of awareness about the crucial label update. This was compounded by a shift in corporate focus which meant that the company seemed to be limiting investment in the asset, as evidenced by corporate communications, lack of new marketing campaigns and a potential reduction in the sales force budget. 

This approach enabled us to go beyond the research data, presenting our client with commercially relevant insights which resonated with their internal brand team.

To discuss how our approach can benefit your research needs, please get in touch with us: contact@vox.bio