#038 Positioning Life Science Brands: The Mistakes That Hold Companies Back (and How to Fix Them)
In very simple terms, positioning is the definition of why you matter, to whom, and in what unique way you create value compared to alternatives.
Yet, we often see that this is misunderstood, mixed up with branding, and only considered in an afterthought.
In the following blog, we talk about the most common pitfalls we see across early-stage biotech startups or established, multi-billion pharmaceutical companies.
Contents
1. Confusing a Tagline with Positioning
One of the most frequent errors is reducing positioning to a slogan.
A tagline is a surface-level expression.
Positioning is a strategic decision.
It defines where you sit in the market, who you serve, and why you matter in a way that others do not.
Startups often feel pressure to distil their work into a single catchy line. But by focusing on this, the result tends to be either too vague and interchangeable, or too in-depth and non-trivial.
In both cases, the issue is the same: the external message is not anchored in a clearly articulated strategic position.
Positioning requires answering difficult questions:
What specific problem are you solving?
For whom, exactly?
Why is your approach meaningfully different?
Why should anyone care now?
Without these answers, communication defaults to generic statements that fail to differentiate, and you end up with generic “Innovation rediscovered” taglines that don’t provide any insight.
2. One-Size-Fits-All Messaging
One of the biggest issues we encounter is that life science companies often communicate as if their entire audience were a single homogeneous group.
It isn’t.
A small biotech startup might be speaking simultaneously to:
Investors or shareholders
Potential partners and distributors
Regulatory bodies
Clinicians
Patients
Each of these audiences operates with different priorities, levels of expertise, and decision-making frameworks.
Yet we frequently see a single, undifferentiated narrative which is (a) either way too technical and loaded with jargon or (b) too generic to actually provide value. If we want to oversimplify: the first is usually written by scientists who think about their product/service features, while the latter is typically written by marketing, trying to serve all audiences.
The result is that no one feels that the product/service speaks to them as customers.
To solve this, you need segmented messaging that understands your different audiences. One audience, one message.
Bonus points if you also apply this to different communication channels.
For example, someone who is further down the marketing funnel is more likely to be interested in technical details.
3. The “We Are Innovative” Trap
“Innovative. Cutting-edge. Transformative.”
These terms appear everywhere. And as every company claims innovation, no one is truly innovative anymore.
Therefore, it no longer differentiates.
Startups lean heavily on this language to signal novelty.
Established organisations use it to maintain relevance.
But neither group typically substantiates the claim.
The problem is not the intent, but the lack of specificity.
Innovation is only meaningful when it is contextualised:
What exactly is new?
Compared to what?
Why does it matter in practice?
4. Feature Dumping Instead of Value Framing
Another issue we see regularly is the tendency to include details and features rather than value. This is especially common among scientifically driven teams.
The instinct is to demonstrate technical detail:
Platform capabilities
Assay sensitivity
Algorithmic performance
Pipeline breadth
And yes, these details are important, but these features are rarely what your audience actually cares about.
Investors care about risk, scalability, and return potential.
Clinicians care about outcomes and usability.
Patients care about impact on quality of life.
Partners care about strategic fit and integration.
So instead of features and details, focus on the value “why it matters”.
Be specific, and don’t leave room for interpretation.
5. Failing to Engage: Communication That Doesn’t Land
Even when the science is strong, the way it is communicated often fails to engage.
What are the things you remember?
Technical details or simple stories?
Feature information or the piece of equipment that you touched yourself?
A list of bullet points or the one problem they solved?
This is not about “dumbing down” complex science. It is about structuring and framing information in a way that is cognitively accessible and relevant.
Don’t use:
Jargon-rich or dense language
Lack of narrative structure
Absence of clear takeaways
No consideration of how the audience processes information
6. Underutilising Channels and Strategies
Now you have amazing communication and positioning, what do you do with it?
Write one social media post and hope people see it?
Unfortunately, we see this. A lot…
So what should you do?
Think about your customer journey:
where do they see your information e.g. on Linkedin or YouTube
how do they travel across media e.g. from your newsletter to your website
how often do they need to see something before taking action e.g. could you run paid ads
Create the “ideal scenario”.
And then think “how can I make this happen”.
For example, if your customers are not on TikTok, don’t waste resources, but focus on where they are.
Include calls to action, telling them exactly what to do, such as “register here”.
Effective positioning requires:
Channel selection aligned with audience behaviour
Consistent messaging across touchpoints
Strategic sequencing of content
Feedback loops to refine approach
7. Expecting Quick Wins in a Long-Cycle Industry
Perhaps the most fundamental mismatch we observe is the expectation of rapid results. Life science is not a short-cycle sales environment. Decisions are slow, risk-sensitive, and evidence-driven.
Yet many organisations approach communication with a that a marketing campaign of 2 months will create immediate traction.
Sorry to disillusion you, but these expectations will lead to frustration when results do not materialise quickly.
In reality, effective positioning in life sciences is cumulative.
It builds over time through:
Consistent narrative
Repeated exposure
Credibility signals
Trust development
Startups in particular need to understand this.
Visibility does not equal validation.
And building relationships, networks, and trust takes time.
Conclusion
Positioning is not a branding exercise that is done by choosing a tagline.
Positioning is a very strategic decision.
The companies that succeed are the ones that can clearly articulate:
What they do
Why it matters
For whom it matters most
And they do so consistently, across time and channels.
Comments