Winston Francois builds positioning for biotech and pharma companies that has to survive legal, medical, and regulatory review before it ever reaches an HCP. We embed as your fractional positioning team and do the work of turning approved label language into a message that actually differentiates.
The Problem
The Label Sets the Ceiling on Every Claim You Can Make
Most positioning frameworks assume you can say whatever makes the strongest case. In biotech and pharma, every claim has to trace back to approved label language, and legal/regulatory/medical (LRM) review will strike anything implying an indication, population, or outcome the label does not support. Marketing teams end up overclaiming and getting sent back to LRM, or underclaiming into statements that could describe any drug in the category.
The Incumbent Has a Narrower Claim Set and a Decade of Trust
Standard of care did not get that position by accident. It usually has fewer efficacy or safety claims than your product but a decade of real-world use, a familiar dosing routine, and physicians who have never had a reason to switch. Positioning against that is not a features fight, it is a trust and switching-cost fight, and lead with efficacy data alone and you lose to inertia every time.
Three Stakeholders Read the Same Claim and Weigh It Differently
An HCP wants to know how this changes what they do in the exam room. A payer wants to know what it costs relative to outcomes it can measure at the population level. A patient wants to know what changes in their daily life. A single positioning statement built for one audience reads as noise, or worse irrelevant, to the other two.
First-in-Class Mechanisms Have No Buyer Mental Model to Anchor To
When there is no existing category, HCPs cannot slot your product into a comparison they already know how to make, and that ambiguity reads as risk, not innovation. A novel mechanism needs the market educated on the problem before it can be educated on the solution, and most teams skip straight to product benefits because category creation feels slower than it is. The ones that win first-in-class launches teach the unmet need before they mention the drug.
Medical Affairs, Marketing, and Commercial Each Own a Piece of the Message and None of Them Reconcile
Medical affairs owns the scientific narrative, marketing owns the commercial message, and sales owns what actually gets said in the field, and in a lot of organizations these three groups work from different documents that were never formally aligned. An MSL says one thing about mechanism, a rep says something adjacent but not identical, and a payer account manager pitches a third framing to the P&T committee.
Positioning Gets Rewritten Every Time There Is a New Data Readout, and Nobody Owns the Update Process
A new trial readout, a label expansion, or a competitor's launch changes what you can credibly claim, but most companies treat positioning as a one-time launch deliverable instead of a living document with an update process. Six months after launch, sales is still using the pre-readout deck because nobody formally revised the positioning and pushed it back through the field.
How We Help
We start by pulling the actual label, the approved indication language, and whatever LRM review history exists, before we write a single positioning statement. That means reading the label the way legal reads it, so the framework survives review the first time instead of bouncing for a rewrite weeks before launch.
From there we map the real competitive set, which for most biotech and pharma products means standard of care, not just the other branded names in a comparison chart.
Next we build a stakeholder-specific evidence map. The HCP message leads with clinical and practice-pattern relevance, the payer message leads with health economics data that moves a formulary conversation, and the patient message leads with quality-of-life language grounded in what the trial measured – one architecture with three entry points, not three unrelated decks.
For first-in-class products, we build the category education sequence before the product pitch: naming the unmet need in language the market does not yet have, then sequencing content so the problem gets established before the mechanism does.
We run alignment sessions with medical affairs, marketing, and commercial in the same room, working from one positioning document with one owner – the step most consultancies skip, and the difference between a message that holds up in the field and one that fractures the moment an MSL and a rep talk to the same physician a week apart.
Finally, we build a positioning update cadence tied to your regulatory calendar, so a label expansion, a new readout, or a competitor launch triggers a defined revision process instead of a stale deck sales keeps using.
We work fractional and embedded, not project-and-disappear. The person who mapped your label constraints is the same person in the room when medical affairs pushes back six weeks later.
What we deliver
- Label-constrained claims matrix mapping every approved indication statement to a marketable claim, reviewed against LRM history
- Standard-of-care and incumbent differentiation framework built against real switching costs, not feature comparisons
- Stakeholder-specific positioning architecture for HCP, payer, and patient audiences, tied to one core claim
- Category education sequence and unmet-need narrative for first-in-class mechanisms
- Cross-functional alignment process bringing medical affairs, marketing, and commercial to one positioning document
- Field-ready messaging guide for MSLs and sales reps derived from the same source document
- Positioning update cadence tied to label changes, new data readouts, and competitive launches
The positioning problem in biotech is never that you lack a strong claim. It is that you have three audiences who need the same claim proven three different ways, and most companies only build the proof for the audience marketing understands best.
Our Methodology
We run in 90-day sprints because that is enough time to build a positioning framework pressure-tested against LRM, medical affairs, and a payer conversation, not just marketing's internal review. Days 1-15 are the audit: label language, competitive landscape against standard of care, existing message documents across medical affairs, marketing, and commercial, and where those versions diverge. Days 16-45 are the build: the claims matrix, the stakeholder-specific evidence map, and for first-in-class products, the category education sequence. Days 46-75 are alignment and field translation, where cross-functional sessions turn the framework into field materials MSLs and reps can use, pressure-tested against LRM before it ships. Days 76-90 are handoff, plus the update cadence.
This differs from a traditional brand agency engagement in one way: we build positioning inside the constraint of your actual label and review process, not as a creative exercise handed to LRM afterward to soften. A message rewritten after legal review is not a finished deliverable, it is a delay. We treat the constraint as an input to the work, not an obstacle to route around.
How We Work
The first 30 days are diagnostic. We pull the label, the competitive set, and every existing positioning document across medical affairs, marketing, and commercial, and come back with a gap map showing where the three groups disagree, not a generic brand audit.
Days 31-60 are the build and alignment phase. We draft the claims matrix and evidence map, then run working sessions with medical affairs, marketing, and commercial so the framework gets stress-tested by the people who have to defend it in an LRM review or a P&T meeting, before launch rather than after.
By day 90 you have a positioning document that has been through LRM review, translated into field materials, and mapped to a payer-specific evidence package. From there we typically stay on as a fractional team, cadence set by your regulatory calendar – active during a label change or new readout, lighter once positioning is stable.
If your biotech or pharma company needs product positioning, we should talk.
- Claims that clear LRM review on the first pass instead of bouncing back for rewrites
- One consistent message across medical affairs, marketing, and sales instead of three divergent versions
- Differentiation built against real physician switching costs, not a generic feature comparison
- Payer conversations grounded in the evidence payers actually weigh
- A category education sequence for first-in-class mechanisms instead of a features pitch nobody has context for
- A defined process for updating positioning when the label, the data, or the competitive set changes
If your biotech & pharma company needs product positioning 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 do you build differentiated positioning when the label limits what we can claim?
We start from the approved label and build the claims matrix from what is actually there, not from what would be strongest if the label allowed it. Most products have more room in the approved language than the marketing team is using, and the real work is mapping every phrase to a claim that is both compliant and differentiated, rather than defaulting to generic category language.
How do you position against standard of care when the incumbent has fewer claims but more physician trust?
We build the case around the actual switching cost a physician faces, not a side-by-side efficacy chart. That means being honest about where standard of care still wins – familiarity, established dosing, years of real-world use – and building differentiation around the specific situation where your product changes the physician's calculus, instead of pretending the incumbent has no advantages.
Can you build one positioning framework that works for HCPs, payers, and patients at the same time?
Yes, that is the core of the work. We build one core claim with three stakeholder-specific evidence paths – clinical and practice-pattern relevance for HCPs, health economics data for payers, quality-of-life language for patients – so the message stays consistent while the proof each audience sees is the proof that moves them.
How do you position a first-in-class product when there is no existing category to compare it to?
We build a category education sequence that establishes the unmet need before we introduce the mechanism, because a novel product pitched without that context reads as ambiguous risk rather than innovation. This usually means content sequenced over the first several months of launch, not a single message repeated regardless of what the audience already understands.
How do you keep medical affairs, marketing, and commercial aligned on one message?
We run joint working sessions where all three groups build the positioning document together instead of marketing writing it and handing it downstream for sign-off. That single-document, single-owner process is what prevents an MSL, a rep, and a payer account manager from describing the product three different ways in the field.
What does a product positioning engagement cost for a biotech or pharma company?
Engagements are scoped fractional, typically in the range of $15K-$35K per month depending on how many stakeholder audiences and how much cross-functional alignment work is involved. That covers the embedded team through the full 90-day build and field translation, not a fixed slide deck delivered once and left to age.
How long before we see the positioning working in the field?
The framework is typically ready by day 60, with LRM review and field translation done by day 90. Whether it is working shows up in earlier signals first – MSLs and reps using consistent language, fewer LRM rejections – and in commercial signals like payer progress or physician message recall over the following two to three quarters.
