Healthcare

Health Policy Influencer Message Testing

In the evolving global health policy environment, a leading pharmaceutical firm aimed to validate the effectiveness of its corporate messaging strategy among key policy influencers. With increasing scrutiny on pharmaceutical players and growing demand for transparency and action on healthcare reform, the need to build a compelling, credible narrative became paramount.

Research Objectives

Approach

This study leveraged a multi-method; messaging evaluation approach tailored for B2B and policy engagement:

Quantitative Measurement: 10-minute online survey with structured open- and closed-ended diagnostics.
Audience-Centric Testing: Messaging tested with segmentation by role, geography, and job function, ensuring nuanced analysis.
Message Analytics: Evaluated clarity, uniqueness, importance, credibility, trust, and favorability.
Narrative Optimization: Open-ended diagnostics captured language effectiveness and areas of confusion.

Methodology

Sample Framework

Qualification Criteria
Respondents had to meet the following:

Age 25+
Employed full-time in health-related policy roles
2+ year’s experience on healthcare policy issues
Active readers of policy and healthcare news
Primary responsibilities: researching, writing, or advising on policy.

Message Evaluation Metrics
Each message tested was rated on:

Insights from Message Pillar 1: Outcomes for All Patients

Perceived Purpose: Most respondents associated this message with health equity and pandemic-driven resilience-building.
Liked Language: Phrases like “bridge providing infrastructure”, “resilient societies”, and “historic gains” drew attention.
Confusing Language: Some U.S. regulators found the term “transformational infrastructure” vague.
Effectiveness Rating: Scored 6.2/7 on average across both geographies.
Credibility: Highest among NGOs and academic stakeholders who perceived client's COVID-19 leadership as “proof of intent.”

Insights from Message Pillar 2: Innovating for Health

Resonant Themes: “Cooperative innovation”, “unlocking collaboration”, and “science for humanity” emerged as highly resonant, especially in Brussels and academic segments.
Differentiation: Viewed as more unique and proactive compared to standard pharma messaging.
Policy Credibility: The “intellectual property” system argument was polarizing endorsed by former legislative staff but scrutinized by NGO leaders.
Trust & Credibility: Belgium respondents rated credibility slightly higher than U.S. counterparts (6.3 vs 5.9).

Comparative Highlights:

Strategic Recommendations

Message Consolidation: Consider integrating the health equity urgency of Pillar 1 with the scientific collaboration narrative of Pillar 2 for a more complete story arc.
Stakeholder Alignment: Customize message emphasis based on audience segment:
- Academics: Emphasize societal outcomes and resilience.
- Regulators: Focus on collaboration mechanisms and IP impact on access.
- NGOs: Reframe commercial IP language with public-good framing.
Proof Points: Anchor claims with concrete impact examples (e.g., client’s COVID-19 vaccine development, Africa health equity programs).
Geo-Differentiation: Belgian respondents responded more favorably to global collaboration themes, while U.S. audiences showed stronger alignment with domestic policy solutions and access equity.

Impact:

Narrative Validation: Both message platforms met key thresholds for clarity, credibility, and policy relevance.
Pathway to Advocacy Activation: Segmentation insights will help client prioritize audience-aligned storytelling in advocacy, public affairs, and thought leadership.
Platform Optimization: Open-ended data revealed specific language refinements to improve resonance across both markets.