Payers, employers, and benefits consultants rely on analysts and evaluators to assess diabetes and cardiometabolic vendors before a deal begins. We create an analyst relations program that puts you into those evaluations with clinical evidence and positioning that withstand scrutiny.
The Problem
The evaluators influencing your deals are health-specific, rather than general tech analysts
In diabetes and cardiometabolic health, the people your buyers trust are benefits consultants, employer coalitions, digital-health evaluators, and clinical-outcomes reviewers – not the general enterprise-software analysts most AR programs chase. A founder who spends effort courting a mainstream tech analyst often misses the specialized evaluators who actually influence a payer or employer decision. Getting the target list wrong means investing in relationships that never touch a real deal.
Analysts in this market grade you on evidence, and a weak outcomes story derails the briefing
Health-outcomes evaluators do not grade a pitch on vision – they grade on clinical validity, adherence, engagement durability, and total-cost-of-care effect. A briefing built around product features and a big market number reads as unserious to an evaluator whose job is to tell a payer whether your results are real. Without an evidence-led narrative built for a skeptical clinical reviewer, the briefing that was supposed to help your credibility quietly damages it.
You have one briefing each year and cannot afford to squander it
Analyst and evaluator briefings are scarce and scheduled far in advance, so an unprepared or off-message session costs you a full cycle of influence at the exact moment buyers are consulting that analyst. Founders frequently walk into these sessions with the wrong materials, no clear proof points, and no follow-up plan, then wonder why coverage never improves. A high-stakes, low-frequency channel demands preparation that most companies simply do not do.
Competitors are already defining the category, and staying silent allows their story to stand
When you are absent from analyst conversations, better-funded competitors define what good looks like in diabetes and cardiometabolic care – and evaluators repeat that framing to your buyers. Your differentiation gets erased not because it is weak but because no one heard it from you. Left unmanaged, the analyst channel becomes a place where your competition writes your category story and you inherit it in every deal.
How We Support You
We start by creating the true influence map for your category – pinpointing the benefits consultants, employer coalitions, digital-health evaluators, and clinical reviewers who genuinely influence payer and employer decisions in diabetes and cardiometabolic health, then ranking them by their impact on your specific deals. This is intentionally narrower and more health-specific than a general analyst list, because attention from the wrong evaluator adds nothing to your pipeline.
Strategy transforms your evidence into a briefing narrative an evaluator will take seriously. We develop the outcomes story – clinical validity, adherence, retention, and cost-of-care effect – and position your differentiation against the category's current framing, linked to our wider [growth strategy](/services/strategy/) work so the analyst message aligns with what sales and marketing communicate everywhere else.
Execution creates the briefing materials, evidence summaries, and leave-behinds that stand up to a skeptical review, developed through our [marketing](/services/marketing/) practice and based strictly on your actual data. We prepare the founder or clinical lead for the real questions an outcomes evaluator asks, ensuring the limited briefing slot is used effectively instead of being lost to an unprepared pitch.
We also create the ongoing cadence – who is briefed when, which evidence to provide at every milestone, and how to give evaluators new outcomes data as it develops – and connect it to our [measurement](/services/measurement/) layer so the proof points shared with analysts are the same ones you can support with data.
Measurement in this context focuses on influence, not vanity: whether target evaluators now explain your category position correctly, whether you are included in the evaluations your buyers use, and whether analyst conversations surface in deals – not the number of briefings booked.
We are not applying a generic tech-analyst outreach playbook to a clinical evaluation process it was never designed to serve.
What we deliver
- An influence map of the health-specific evaluators who shape your deals
- An evidence-led briefing narrative that holds up under clinical scrutiny
- Positioning that reclaims your category story from competitors
- Briefing materials, evidence summaries, and founder prep for real analyst questions
- An ongoing briefing cadence tied to maturing outcomes data
- Influence-based measurement – accurate category positioning and deal presence
In diabetes and cardiometabolic health, the analyst serves as a proxy your buyer trusts to assess whether your outcomes are real – so analyst relations is not PR; it is persuading a skeptical evaluator to stand behind your evidence, meaning the entire program succeeds or fails based on the quality of your proof, not your pitch.
Our Methodology
Our 90-day sprint creates an analyst relations program focused on the evaluators who truly influence health deals. Days 1-30 cover assessment: we map the health-specific analyst and evaluator landscape, prioritize targets by their influence on your deals, examine how the category is currently framed and where your differentiation gets lost, and catalog the outcomes evidence you can credibly present in a briefing. This stage concludes with an influence map, positioning gap analysis, and evidence inventory.
Days 31-60 focus on execution. We create the briefing narrative and materials, prepare the founder or clinical lead for the precise questions outcomes evaluators ask, and start scheduling and conducting priority briefings. Each claim is linked to your actual data and reviewed before an analyst sees it, because overstating an outcome during a briefing is worse than having no briefing at all.
Days 61-90 address cadence and measurement. We put the ongoing briefing rhythm in place, monitor whether target evaluators now explain your position correctly and whether you are included in the evaluations buyers use, and document the program so your team can maintain it. Analyst influence grows gradually, so the sprint establishes a lasting motion instead of promising instant coverage.
Our Working Approach
During the first 30 days, we collaborate with your founder or clinical lead and the person responsible for your outcomes data, since both the influence map and evidence narrative require a clear understanding of your actual results and buyers. Expect working sessions to prioritize evaluators, pressure-test your outcomes story, and determine where competitors are currently shaping the category.
Days 30-60 shift to creating materials and conducting briefings. Instead of simply giving you a target list, we develop the narrative, produce the evidence summaries, ready your spokesperson for difficult evaluator questions, and participate in preparation for priority sessions. Each claim is supported by your data and reviewed before release, and we consider the first briefing far too valuable to improvise.
Days 60-90 center on cadence and influence tracking. We establish the ongoing briefing rhythm, monitor whether target evaluators begin describing your position correctly, and assess whether analyst conversations are appearing in deals. Since analyst influence develops over quarters, most engagements last 4-6 months to build genuine standing rather than deliver one short outreach burst.
The team includes a strategist responsible for positioning and the analyst narrative, a content specialist who creates evidence-led briefing materials, and a measurement resource who monitors influence and deal presence – scaled according to the number of evaluators you are targeting rather than a set package.
- Presence in the evaluations payers and employers actually consult
- Evaluators describing your category position accurately instead of a competitor's framing
- Briefing materials and prep that turn scarce sessions into credibility gains
- An evidence narrative that survives a skeptical clinical review
- Analyst influence that shows up in real deals, tracked as influence not vanity coverage
If your diabetes & cardiometabolic health company needs analyst relations leadership, we should talk.
Expand your marketing team output with our experts
Let us take a custom approach to your growth goals by assembling and leading the best-in-class marketing team to support your next stage.
Frequently asked questions
What does an analyst relations engagement cost for a diabetes or cardiometabolic company?
Engagements typically cost $10K-$25K/month, based on the number of evaluators you target and the volume of evidence-led material we create. Pricing reflects the scope of the influence map and depth of briefing preparation, rather than a guaranteed number of coverage mentions. Since analyst influence directly shapes payer and employer deals, the investment is considered against the value of the contracts gated by those evaluations.
Which analysts are most important for a cardiometabolic health company?
The relevant ones are generally health-specific – benefits consultants, employer coalitions, digital-health evaluators, and clinical-outcomes reviewers your buyers already use – rather than the broad enterprise-tech analysts targeted by most AR programs. We create the influence map by identifying which evaluators genuinely affect payer and employer decisions within your category. Pursuing the wrong analyst wastes an entire cycle, so the ranked list is among the first deliverables we produce.
What do these analysts want to see during a briefing?
Outcomes evaluators assess clinical validity, adherence, engagement durability, and total-cost-of-care impact – not vision or market size. They need to know if your results are genuine and whether they can confidently repeat them to a payer. We structure the briefing around your real evidence and prepare your spokesperson for the difficult, detailed questions these reviewers raise, because a weak outcomes story causes more damage than not briefing at all.
How can you stop competitors from defining our category with analysts?
We assess how the category is presently framed, pinpoint where your differentiation is getting lost, and create positioning that takes back your story through a specific, evidence-backed perspective. We then put that narrative before the evaluators echoing the competitor's framing to your buyers. Staying silent allows the better-funded competitor's story to stand, so the answer is a consistent, well-prepared presence rather than one briefing.
How do you determine whether analyst relations is working?
We track influence rather than vanity – whether target evaluators now communicate your position correctly, whether you are included in the evaluations buyers rely on, and whether analyst conversations surface in actual deals. Briefing totals and mentions are inputs, not results, so we monitor the change in how the people trusted by your buyers genuinely discuss you. Since influence builds over quarters, we report the trend instead of anticipating an overnight shift.
What does the process of starting analyst relations involve?
We begin by mapping the health-specific evaluators who influence your deals, prioritizing them by impact, and cataloging the outcomes evidence you can credibly present during a briefing. This provides a clear view of who should be briefed and whether your evidence is prepared before using a limited briefing slot. If your diabetes or cardiometabolic company continues losing the analyst conversation to competitors, we should talk.
