Lab coats and microscopes in marketing: Does science still sell in pharma advertising?

In 2018, the leading pharma trade organization PhRMA launched a $10+ million campaign aimed at distancing the industry from then-pharma bro fraudster Martin Shkreli with an emphasis on “more lab coat, less hoodie.”

More than four years later, after a global pandemic that featured endless images of scientists in lab coats, glass vials rolling off assembly lines and serious people peering through microscopes, is it time to take off the lab coasts and tone down the overused science imagery?

Marketing experts and healthcare agency professionals agree that there likely have been too many scientists in white coats attempting to impart trust even as the science itself shifted rapidly underfoot during the pandemic. The real problem though isn’t just that science imagery is clichéd or overused, but that it potentially creates a negative boomerang effect.

Pew Research reports that confidence in medical scientists is down — only 29% of US adults say they act in the best public interest in a 2021 year-end poll, down from 40% just one year earlier. A current series about trust in science from the American Association of Medical Colleges sums up the issue by pointing out that medical science is “emerging from the darkest days of the pandemic with both lifesaving discoveries and a crisis in credibility.”

However, the current dip in science trustworthiness is not only thanks to Covid-19 fallout. Long before the pandemic — or the appearance of modern-day high-profile crooks — pharma companies used scientists and science as authoritative, trustworthy symbols to connect to consumers’ health. That dates back to the 1990s when the FDA first allowed pharma companies in the US to advertise directly to consumers.

Today’s increased digital and social media use with scads of contrasting science opinions, side-by-side with the pandemic’s evolving and changing science-based recommendations, have accelerated the declining confidence in science. And that’s led to a conundrum for pharma marketers where science sits squarely at the center.

Hallie Fenton

“Science is truly foundational, right? We wouldn’t have these therapies without science. But from a marketing perspective, it’s really a story of duality,” Hallie Fenton, Klick Health VP and group creative director said. “We have emotion and storytelling and that’s what breaks through and that’s what gets people to stop. Once we have their attention, we use the data and the science, and that’s what helps build our credibility.”

For pharma marketers then, while science is the backbone of the drug development business, it doesn’t always have to be its face.

“Scientists, scientific ideas and the use of actors should no longer be the focal messaging points in pharma ads and communications, as consumers question the motivations, authenticity and trustworthiness of each,” said Adam Marquardt, associate professor of marketing at the University of Richmond. “Instead, pharma marketers should draw on these areas to complement core stories of real people that have used and benefitted from their product offerings.”

Liz Kane

Still, it’s not as simple as throwing the science out with the bathwater. While science imagery may be overused to the point of overall diminished effects, experts agree that scientific information and data are still necessary for pharma communications. It’s the content of the science messages and the targeting of appropriate audiences that are important for effective pharma marketing.

“What’s happened in the last 20 years across over-the-counter, direct-to-consumer and healthcare professional communications means that featuring the science or the lab or language around that is probably not going to create a really compelling brand story,” said Liz Kane, Ogilvy Health chief strategy officer.

She relayed a tongue-in-cheek email that one of the Ogilvy Health planners sent her after she asked the team what they thought about science in marketing.

“Every concept we come up with should have a healthcare professional in the lab holding test tubes and feature the words science in the copy and maybe even show the molecular structure of the drug,” according to the joking email.

Stereotypes or tried-and-tested tradition?

That humorous stereotypical mash-up isn’t far from the reality for some biopharmas trying to keep pace with consumers’ and physicians’ changing preferences, even as they face regulations and guardrail guidelines. Sometimes, default science imagery is just easier.

Pharma marketers may want to consider though that beyond the use of scientific imagery and scientists as just a bit lazy and boring, it can also be condescending to educated physicians and consumers.

Maureen Byrne

“We’ve done work with the neurofibromatosis community over the years and I remember some of the caregivers in that space referred to themselves as ‘momcologists’ to describe how advanced they were in understanding their children’s disease — including the science of the disease and the medicines,” said Maureen Byrne, Evoke Kyne president.

She pointed out therapy areas such as rare diseases, oncology and neuroscience, and particularly when talking to healthcare professionals, leading with a scientific story can be effective.

“The science provides that common point of interest or point of entry before getting into more direct messaging around any one medicine, vaccine or diagnostic,” she said. “There isn’t a one size or one approach fits all. We try to be very rigorous at getting into the mindset and insights of the stakeholders we’re trying to engage.”

That preparatory rigor — research, analytics, surveying and testing across audiences — is key to developing what ultimately become successful communications and media strategies, the pharma and healthcare agency executives agreed.

Taegan Grice, Eversana Intouch managing director, creative, pointed to the complexity of oncology as an example of why marketing research is so important.

“If you need the science data to say this has a higher efficacy or higher tolerability profile or more safety, that’s important for a provider. A patient, however, may want to know more about the emotional or physical impact and is it more aligned with their lifestyle? That’s where maybe some of the science is important, but less so for the patient or caregiver mindset,” she said.

‘Trust us, we’re scientists’

It’s never been a smart communication strategy to simply say, whether directly or through images, “trust us, we’re scientists, we know better.” Especially today, trust isn’t just given, it has to be earned — even though that’s already a difficult task for biopharmas with myriad other issues around pricing, adverse drug effects and perfect panacea limitations to overcome.

“Especially in the clinician space, there have been way too many communications that have focused on literally showing the clinician in their environment or in some execution that shows they have power in the situation,” Kane said.

On the other hand, traditional science imagery sometimes can be legitimizing for up-and-comers in the industry.

Brandon Pletsch

Brandon Pletsch is a medical illustrator and managing director of Rad Science at 21 Grams, part of Real Chemistry. He pointed out that it’s not as simple or even desired to remove science imagery from communications. Many different stakeholders from patients, payers, caregivers, investors and physicians — with further breakdowns between physician specialties — require research and analysis on each one. And still, clients may lean toward tradition.

“Something interesting is, depending on the company — the biotech or pharma what have you — sometimes they want to look like other companies to sort of legitimize themselves as a real company,” Pletsch said. “The bigger they get, the more they want to break away from that and have a unique take, but I’ve worked with a lot of small startup biotechs that say ‘no, just make my visuals look like Novartis or Pfizer or whatever because I want to look legit.’”

Other marketing insiders and experts agree with the need for a nuanced view of science marketing and communications. As discussed earlier around advanced research, different target audiences require different considerations and different marketing strategies.

When communicating with patients, for instance, Klick Health’s Jasmine Singh, executive director, medical strategy said they use many different “lenses” to understand individuals.

“Where are they in the disease journey or treatment journey? How are they getting the data? What are the channels? How much are they relying on the doctor? How much are they relying on the pharmacist? There are so many different factors that we’re considering when we’re molding a story for that patient,” she said.

Focus on targeted science messaging

When it comes to the Pew and other researchers’ measurements around medical science and pharma trust, most of the experts cautioned against taking broad truisms and applying them to specific areas or conditions. And in fact, there is a positive historical foundation, Pew itself noted. In the US, 73% of adults agree that science and technology make our lives better, and they trust scientists and researchers to make important discoveries that help solve problems, Pew researchers wrote in early 2021.

Egbavwe Pela

So while people may say in a survey that they don’t trust the monolith of Big Pharma or the category of medical professionals, perspectives can, and often do, change when an individual or a loved one becomes a patient.

Pharma marketers and agencies note the difference between consumers with a dimmer view of the science world and people who are patients and want to know how and why specific, complex drugs may or may not work for them.

“For me, where we really push from is that motto from a few years ago of ‘right message, right place, right time,’ ” said Egbavwe Pela, SVP, media strategy at CMI Media Group. “We work with our clients to make sure we have the right messaging for the person we’re reaching on their particular path.”

Khari Motayne

Khari Motayne, CMI VP, media, added, “If you’re reaching folk within their circles of trust, it’s going to be a lot more effective than some professional who you and your colleagues might find compelling because of what they’re sharing, but that isn’t likely going to be compelling to folks in a particular patient community … Marketers should take a look at the fact that your audience is not a monolith just because they have or share a singular trait.”

In the end, despite being overused or tired or even cliched, scientific imagery, data and scientists themselves will continue to have a place in pharma marketing.

Madeline Corrigan

Madeline Corrigan, Syneos Health SVP, reputation and risk management, is a scientist by training who more recently transitioned into communications. She not only prefers science and data in pharma communications, but also believes it’s necessary when used properly.

“For me, it’s not about do you lean into it or not lean into it, it’s about doing it the right way. If you’re using an image of a person in a lab coat just for the sake of it, that’s not going to carry a lot of weight. But if it’s meant to reinforce the human element of the people who conducted the study, talking about the results of the study and the passion of the company in the work they put in and the understanding they gleaned through all the research, that’s a totally different thing,” she said.

fda
research
sell
medical
biotech
pharma
healthcare