#039 Strategic Branding in Life Sciences: Why Most Companies Get It Wrong
Branding in life sciences is often treated as a purely aesthetic exercise. A new logo, a refreshed colour palette, perhaps a redesigned website - and the assumption is that the brand is “done”.
It isn’t.
At Zeeks, we consistently see a disconnect between what companies think branding is and what it actually needs to be: a strategic system that aligns perception, communication, and business intent.
In this blog we break down the most common issues and talk about what effective strategic branding actually requires.
Contents
1. Choosing a Colour Doesn’t Make a Brand
One of the most persistent misconceptions is that branding is the same as visual identity.
Yes, colours matter. Typography matters. Design systems matter.
But they are an expression of a brand, not the brand itself.
Startups often begin with visuals because they are tangible and immediate. A founder can approve a logo far more easily than they can define a positioning strategy. The result is that visuals look polished but the brand lacks substance and no one knows how/when to use content.
Larger organisations face a different version of the same issue. They may have highly developed visual systems, but these are often disconnected from a clear, updated strategic narrative. This is especially the case after mergers, pipeline shifts, or market repositioning.
In both cases, the outcome is the same: a brand that looks coherent on the surface but fails to communicate anything meaningful underneath.
A brand is not what you look like.
It is what people understand and remember about you.
2. Inconsistency: The Silent Brand Killer
Even when companies invest in branding, they frequently fail to apply it consistently.
The best stress test we can advice to do is to think “If we remove your logo, would we still recognise your brand?”. If the answer is “yes” – then congratulations!
If the answer is “no” – then we need to do some work.
This is particularly evident in life sciences, where communication happens across:
Investor decks
Scientific presentations
Conference materials
Websites
Social media
Internal documents
Without a structured system, each of these touchpoints becomes slightly different; visually, verbally, or both.
This is especially the case when infrastructure to maintain consistency is lacking and everyone just tries to do something. Assets are created ad hoc, messaging evolves informally, and different team members interpret the brand in their own way. What happens are assets that neither feel like the brand, nor speak to it.
The issue is not effort to create something, the challenge is to keep clear alignment.
A brand only becomes recognisable when it is repeated consistently across contexts.
Think of examples like Coca-Cola, Barbie, or Starbucks.
Even without the logo, the branding weaves through everything – product, colours, packaging, positioning, etc.
3. The “Everyone Is Innovative” Problem
If every biotech company describes itself as “innovative,” “disruptive,” or “novel,” those terms cease to function as differentiators.
And yet, they dominate life science branding.
This is not surprising. Scientific progress is, by definition, innovative.
But from a branding perspective, simply stating that fact adds no value.
The result is a crowded landscape of indistinguishable claims.
If everyone is “innovative and different”, then no one really is.
From a strategic standpoint, this is a failure of differentiation.
Branding should answer a sharper question:
What makes you really different and why does it matter to your audience?
If the answer relies on generic descriptors, the brand is not doing its job.
4. What Actually Works: The Brand Identity Prism
To move beyond these issues, branding needs structure. One of the most robust frameworks for this is the Brand Identity Prism, developed by Jean-Noël Kapferer.
It forces organisations to define their brand across six dimensions:
Physique: What are the tangible, recognisable elements? e.g. visuals, design, product form
Personality: If your brand were a person, how would it behave and communicate? e.g. smart, casual, agile, sporty, friendly, …
Culture: What values and principles underpin the brand? e.g. sustainability, trust, partnerships, fast gain, ...
Relationship: How does the brand interact with its audience? e.g. approachable, friendly, professional, intellectual, 1-to-1, ...
Reflection: How does the brand portray its target audience?
Self-image: How does the audience feel about themselves when engaging with the brand? e.g. smart, different, unique, must-have, ...
Most life science companies over-index on physique and underdevelop everything else. The result is a visually defined brand with no behavioural or emotional coherence.
Using the prism forces a more disciplined approach.
It ensures that branding is not just about how things look, but about how they mean something, consistently, across all interactions.
5. A Benchmark Example: Apple
To understand what strong branding looks like in practice, it is useful to step outside life sciences and look at an example that aced branding.
Apple is not successful because of its logo or colour palette.
Those are recognisable, but they are not the core.
What Apple has achieved is alignment across all six dimensions of the Brand Identity Prism. So let’s look at them.
Physique: Minimalist design, clean interfaces. This is a design-feature and philosophy that made especially “iPod mini” truly revolutionary.
Personality: Confident, precise, slightly understated
Culture: Design excellence, user-centric thinking
Relationship: Simplifying complexity for the user
Reflection: Creative, forward-thinking individuals
Self-image: “I am capable, modern, and discerning”
Crucially, this is consistent across every touchpoint: products, packaging, advertising, retail environments, and digital presence.
Let’s do the “remove the logo test” - If you remove the logo, you can still recognise an Apple product or communication instantly.
That is strategic branding.
6. The Questions Most Companies Avoid
Strategic branding requires you to ask uncomfortable questions:
How would I describe our brand, without defaulting to generic terms?
If I remove our logo, would our communication still be recognisable?
Who exactly are we trying to resonate with? And what do they actually care about?
What do we want people to feel when they encounter our brand?
Are we consistent across every touchpoint, or only in controlled environments?
If these questions are difficult to answer, the issue is not branding execution but branding strategy and we advise you to go back to the drawing board.
Using the Brand Identity Prism can be a useful structured approach.
Closing Perspective
Strategic branding in life sciences is not about making companies look more “innovative.” It is about making them understandable, differentiated, and trustworthy in a highly complex and competitive environment.
The organisations that succeed are those that:
Move beyond surface-level design
Commit to consistency across all touchpoints
Articulate clear, specific differentiation
Build branding systems that scale with the business
A logo will not achieve that. A colour palette will not achieve that.
But a well-defined, well-executed brand will.
And in an industry where trust, credibility, and long-term relationships are everything, a well-defined brand is a must.
Comments