Most biotech market research stops at proving there's a market, which the clinical data already suggested. The harder question is whether a payer will cover it, a physician will prescribe it first, and a patient will get through the referral pathway to receive it. We run the payer, physician, patient, and competitive research that answers those questions before launch decisions get locked in.
The Problem
Payer access surprises show up after pricing and positioning are already locked
Commercial teams frequently build pricing and access strategy around internal health economics models without testing how a payer's pharmacy and therapeutics committee will actually receive the value story. By the time formulary conversations happen post-launch, the positioning is set, the pricing is filed, and any gap between what the company believed and what payers require becomes a slow, expensive fix instead of a pre-launch adjustment.
KOL and physician insight gets gathered informally instead of through a real methodology
A lot of physician insight in biotech comes from advisory board dinners and conference hallway conversations – valuable, but unstructured, prone to selection bias toward the most enthusiastic prescribers, and rarely captured in a way that informs a specific decision. Companies end up with a general sense that physicians are excited without knowing which objection or workflow barrier will actually slow adoption once the drug is available.
Nobody has mapped the patient journey the therapy actually has to move through
Commercial teams often understand the clinical trial population deeply and the real-world diagnosis-to-treatment pathway barely at all – how patients get diagnosed, who refers them, how long that takes, and where they drop out before reaching a prescriber who could treat them. Launch plans built without that map consistently overestimate how fast real-world uptake will move.
Competitive pipeline intelligence runs on press releases instead of real signal
Teams tracking competitor programs through ClinicalTrials.gov updates and press releases get the announcements everyone else gets, on the same delay everyone else gets them. That's not intelligence, it's public record. Launch timing decisions made without a real read on competitive trial progress and likely data readout windows get caught flat-footed when a competitor's news actually breaks.
How We Help
We start by defining the specific commercial decisions the research needs to inform – pricing corridor, launch sequencing, positioning against a competitor, or which physician segment to prioritize first. Research without a decision attached becomes a report nobody acts on.
Strategy development builds the research plan against that decision: structured payer interviews if pricing and access are the open question, a KOL or physician panel with defined sampling if adoption barriers are the question, patient journey mapping if the pathway is unclear, or competitive pipeline monitoring if launch timing is the risk. We scope to what the decision requires, not every research type on every engagement.
Execution runs the primary research. Payer research means structured interviews with pharmacy and therapeutics committee members, not a survey. Physician and KOL insight means a panel built to include skeptics alongside advocates, so findings reflect real adoption resistance instead of an echo chamber. Patient journey research traces the real pathway from symptom to prescription, identifying where patients drop out. Competitive intelligence tracks trial registries and regulatory filings on a structured cadence instead of reacting to press releases.
Synthesis turns findings into commercial recommendations, not a findings deck. A payer objection becomes a positioning adjustment; a physician workflow barrier becomes a launch material; a referral bottleneck becomes a target for pre-launch physician education.
Measurement looks different from a typical marketing engagement – we track whether specific decisions changed based on the research, not engagement metrics. A finding that shifted a pricing conversation or moved a launch date is the outcome that matters.
What we deliver
- Payer research report covering formulary objections and access strategy implications
- KOL and physician insight panel synthesis, including adoption barriers from non-advocate prescribers
- Patient journey map from symptom through diagnosis, referral, and prescription, with drop-out points identified
- Competitive pipeline intelligence briefing tracking trial progress and likely readout timing
- Commercial recommendations memo tying every finding to a specific pricing, positioning, or launch-sequencing decision
Most biotech market research answers whether a market exists, which the clinical data already implied. The research that actually changes a launch answers whether a payer says yes, a physician prescribes it first, and a patient makes it through the referral pathway to get it — and those are three different research problems, not one.
Our Methodology
Our engagements run as a scoped sprint rather than a fixed template, because payer research, physician insight, and patient journey mapping require different methods and timelines. Phase one is decision scoping: we define exactly which commercial decision – pricing, positioning, launch sequencing, or segment prioritization – the research needs to inform, and design the plan around that decision instead of running a generic market study.
Phase two runs the primary research using the method the decision requires: structured payer interviews, a physician or KOL panel built for balanced sampling, patient journey mapping through referral pathway analysis, or competitive pipeline monitoring through registries and filings. We prioritize structured interviews and panels over surveys wherever budget allows, because pricing and access decisions deserve more than a Likert scale.
Phase three synthesizes findings into a commercial recommendations memo built for the specific decision-maker who needs to act on it – a pricing recommendation for finance, a launch material adjustment for medical affairs, a segment prioritization for sales. We present findings against the decision they inform, not as a report that sits in a shared drive.
How We Work
Engagements typically run 6 to 10 weeks depending on which research types are in scope – payer interviews and physician panels take longer to schedule than desk-based competitive intelligence. The first two weeks scope the decision and finalize the research plan and interview targets. The middle stretch runs the primary research, with payer and physician interviews often taking 3 to 5 weeks given scheduling constraints in a clinical audience. The final two weeks synthesize findings into the recommendations memo and present it to the decision-makers who need it.
Our team includes a research lead who designs the methodology and owns recruitment, an analyst who synthesizes findings, and where needed, a clinical advisor who helps frame interview questions credibly for a payer or physician audience. From your side we need a defined decision owner, access to any existing KOL or payer relationships that speed recruitment, and availability at synthesis to pressure-test the recommendations.
Weekly updates during the research phase cover recruitment progress and any early signal worth flagging before the full synthesis. We don't wait for the final readout to surface a finding that should change a near-term decision – if a payer interview surfaces a serious objection in week three, that goes to the decision owner immediately.
- Clearer payer positioning ahead of formulary conversations
- Physician launch materials addressing real adoption barriers instead of assumed ones
- Launch sequencing informed by an actual patient referral pathway, not the clinical trial population
- Competitive readiness based on structured pipeline intelligence rather than press release monitoring
If your biotech & pharma company needs market research & insights 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
How much does a market research engagement cost for a biotech or pharma company?
Most engagements range from $35K-$90K – payer interviews and physician panels cost more to recruit and run than desk-based competitive monitoring. A focused engagement answering one decision, like a pricing question ahead of a payer meeting, runs toward the lower end.
How is this different from the market research our internal team or a CRO already does?
Internal teams often have deep trial data and less capacity to run structured commercial research like payer interviews or balanced physician panels. CROs are built for clinical operations, not commercial insight.
Can you help if we're pre-launch and don't have real-world prescribing data yet?
Yes – pre-launch is when this research matters most, because pricing, positioning, and launch sequencing decisions get made before any real-world data exists. Payer interviews, physician panels, and patient journey mapping all work off clinical trial data, competitive context, and structured interviews rather than prescribing volume, which is exactly the situation most pre-launch companies are in.
How do you recruit payers and physicians for interviews without an existing relationship network?
We use a combination of professional research panels, healthcare recruiters, and any existing KOL or advisory relationships you have. Payer-side recruitment typically goes through specialized panels since payer contacts are harder to reach directly. Recruitment timing is usually the longest part of the engagement, which is why we start it in week one.
What makes Winston Francois different from a traditional market research firm?
Most market research firms deliver a findings report and consider the engagement done. We scope every plan against a specific commercial decision and deliver a recommendations memo built for the person who has to act on it, not a data readout. We push back if a research request won't actually change a decision – a smaller, sharper study beats a broad one nobody uses.
What type of biotech or pharma company is the right fit for this service?
Companies approaching a pricing decision, a launch within 12 to 24 months, or a positioning question ahead of a competitive readout get the most value. It also fits earlier-stage companies that need payer or physician insight for a Series B narrative or partnership conversation. The first step is a strategy call to define the decision the research needs to answer.
