Summary
Note: Please be aware that the PDF price includes a Enterprise-Wide Electronic License and one print copy.
While scientists may exhibit uniform product and technology preferences, how they prefer to find out about these offerings varies according to market segment, age, years of research experience, job position and gender. Our latest report, Marketing to Life Scientists: Navigating Channels Through Segmentation, is the seventh in a series that provides suppliers with an in-depth examination of the opinions and preferences of life science customers. For the first time, it utilizes the results of a CHAID analysis (Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detector), which is an established statistical technique for market segmentation analyses. CHAID allows suppliers to identify the key drivers or influences in identifiable markets. These significant drivers can be any combination of survey variables: demographic, behavioral or attitudinal. The results of these analyses will help enable suppliers to determine which communications channels appeal to which niche markets.
By taking segmentation to the next level, niches more narrowly define a customer group's wants and needs and can be thought of as "subsegments." While often much smaller in size than more traditional segments (e.g., academia vs. industry), even small niches can become more profitable as the efficiency of marketing to them increases. Companies routinely search for opportunities that are created by customers with unmet needs: not all potential customers are alike; they may have different needs or wish to have their needs met in different ways. In spite of the many possible distinctions between individual customers, there often are subgroups of individuals who share similarities and who are therefore more likely to respond favorably to the same marketing mix, e.g., promotions, communications, advertising and other marketing mix variables. A different marketing mix can target each subsegment because they are constructed to minimize variations between respondents within each segment and maximize differences between segments.
Suppliers interested in targeting their message to the right segments and niche markets in the life sciences will most benefit from this report. Towards this goal, the following marketing communication channels were evaluated for their effectiveness using this multi-level segmentation:
- Printed catalogs
- Vendor Web sites and direct email
- Direct mail
- Sales representatives
- Print advertising
- Scientific meetings and exhibit halls
This report also highlights the significant differences between the results of the Marketing to Life Scientists: A Psychographics Analysis (2004) and this year's assessment of how life scientists perceive and react to the promotional techniques most commonly used by suppliers.
Respondents were also surveyed regarding the following marketing benchmarks in the life science industry:
- Who are considered the most effective life science marketing communicators, and which life science supplier is considered the "best-in-class" in each major promotional channel?
- Where do life science customers turn to find information on companies and products?
- How do life science customers prefer to receive information in order to make a purchasing decision?
Segmentation can play an important role in developing marketing communications campaigns because it is often more efficient to address the needs of smaller groups of customers, particularly if they have many characteristics in common, e.g., years of experience, age, gender, etc. This is especially true in the life sciences where a great many suppliers offer only a limited product line and practice niche marketing. For these companies, segmentation enables them to maximize the impact of their promotional budget by targeting less contested customers or by promoting a mature product to new buyers. For all suppliers-regardless of their size-segmentation helps them to avoid sending ineffectual or irrelevant messages to customers.
|
Content
- Section 1. Analysis and Interpretation of Survey Results
- Overview:
- 1-1 Customizing a Marketing Segmentation Strategy
- 1-2 Increasing the Efficiency of Niche Marketing
- 1-3 Measuring the Effectiveness of Key Marketing Channels
- Marketing Channels:
- 1-5 Vendor Web Sites and Online Registration
- 1-7 Vendor Emails
- 1-11 Printed Catalogs
- 1-15 Scientific Meetings and Exhibit Halls
- 1-19 Print Advertising
- 1-23 Sales Reps
- 1-27 Direct Mail
- Segment Spotlight:
- 1-29 Bridging the Gender Divide
- 1-31 Connecting with Pharmaceutical and Biotech Scientists
- Conclusion:
- 1-33 Integrating Marketing Communications: Looking Toward the Future
- Section 2. Study Methodology and Demographics
- 2-1 Methodology
- 2-4 Definition of Terms
- 2-6 Demographics
- 2-8 Questionnaire
- Section 3. Presentation of Survey Data
- Learning About New Products and Services
- 3-1 Most common ways to learn about vendors and their products and services
- 3-2 Most influential factors in deciding to purchase a new product or service
- 3-3 Importance of obtaining information in the native language
- Printed Catalogs
- 3-5 Most likely action on receiving an unsolicited catalog
- 3-7 Importance of specific features in a print catalog
- 3-9 Importance of receiving a print catalog if the information is available on the Web
- 3-10 Vendor with the most useful print catalog
- Vendor Web Sites
- 3-11 Location of computer used most often in the lab
- 3-12 Average hours per week spent visiting vendor Web sites
- 3-13 Usefulness of specific features of vendor Web sites
- 3-15 Type of email address used when signing up for information at a vendor Web site
- 3-16 Types of personal information often inaccurately reported when signing up for information on a vendor Web site
- 3-17 Reasons of most interest when receiving an email from a vendor
- 3-18 Types of vendors from whom respondents are likely to open unsolicited email
- 3-19 Vendor with the most useful Web site
- Direct Mail-Print
- 3-21 Average number of direct mail pieces received per week
- 3-22 Percent of direct mail opened
- 3-23 Influential factors in deciding to open and read unsolicited mail
- 3-24 Preferred course of action when more information is needed
- 3-25 Importance of printed technical newsletters when the information is available on the vendor's Web site
- Sales Representatives
- 3-27 Activities that contribute to the effectiveness of sales reps
- 3-29 Reasons of most interest when receiving an unsolicited phone call from a sales rep
- 3-30 Number of vendor on-site "mini-shows" attended in the last 12 months
- 3-31 Usefulness of the information provided at the on-site "mini-shows"
- 3-32 Vendor with the best-trained, most effective sales reps
- Print Advertising
- 3-33 Most valuable professional journals or publications
- 3-34 Factors that most often draw attention to a print ad
- 3-35 Frequency of requesting more information from a vendor immediately after seeing a print ad
- 3-36 Most likely reaction to an interesting print ad
- 3-37 Vendor with the best print ads
- Scientific Meetings and Exhibit Halls
- 3-39 Number of major scientific meetings respondents plan to attend in 2006
- 3-40 Percent of time at a scientific meeting spent visiting exhibitor booths
- 3-41 Factor that is most likely to cause a visit to a vendor's booth
- 3-42 Preferred scientific meeting
- 3-43 "Coolest" vendor booth
- Relative Effectiveness
- 3-45 Preferred method of learning about new products
- Demographics
- Section 4. Appendices
- 4-1 Insights and Perspectives
- 4-69 Cross-Tabulations of Survey Data
- 4-97 CHAID Results
- 4-99 Reclassification of Verbatim Responses
- 4-103 Other Recent Publications
- 4-105 About BioInformatics
- 4-107 Our Valued Clients
- Methodology
- Over 2,000 life scientists completed a 49-question survey conducted by BioInformatics, LLC (Arlington, Virginia, USA) between November 15 and 23, 2005.
- The electronic questionnaire was fielded to registered members of The Science Advisory Board. BioInformatics sponsors The Science Advisory Board, an online community of more than 27,000 scientists, physicians and healthcare professionals from around the world. The Science Advisory Board is divided into two panels (Research and Clinical) and "convenes" regularly via the World Wide Web (www.scienceboard.net) to voice their opinions on a wide variety of issues relating to biomedical research and clinical technologies. These experts-representing all aspects of the life sciences and medicine-have agreed to make themselves available to participate in our online research activities. The Science Advisory Board members who participated in this study were drawn from the Board's Research Panel.
- The online questionnaire consisted of 38 closed or partially close-ended questions and 11 open-ended questions designed to encourage participation and to meet objectives of the study.
- Objectives
- This report is designed to give suppliers a better understanding of the marketing channel preferences of their current and prospective customer bases through effective segmentation of these populations:
- How do life scientists typically learn about new products and services?
- Which life science supplier is considered the "best-in-class" in each major promotional channel?
- Where do customers turn to find information on companies and products?
- How do life science customers prefer to receive information in order to make a purchase decision?
- What patterns, trends and discrepancies emerge in how life scientists perceive and react to promotional techniques most commonly used by suppliers?
- Demographics
- Market Segment
- Respondents=2,099
- Academic - 1155 - 55%
- Hospital or University Medical Center - 349 - 17%
- Pharmaceutical/Biotechnology - 334 - 16%
- Government - 244 - 12%
- Private Research - 8 - <1%
- Healthcare Network/Facility - 4 - <1%
- Contract Research - 2 - <1%
- Medical Device/Diagnostics - 2 - <1%
- Group/Private Practice - 1 - <1%
- Job Position
- Respondents=2,098
- Principal Investigator - 550 - 26%
- Staff Scientist - 337 - 16%
- Professor/Teacher - 329 - 16%
- Post Doctoral Fellow - 323 - 15%
- Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator - 199 - 9%
- Graduate Student/Research Assistant - 163 - 8%
- Laboratory Technician - 82 - 4%
- Physician - 34 - 2%
- Department Head - 33 - 2%
- Administrator - 12 - 1%
- Quality Assurance/Quality Control - 10 - <1%
- Other - 9 - 1%
- Production/Manufacturing - 6 - <1%
- Pharmacist - 3 - <1%
- IS Manager/Specialist - 2 - <1%
- Medical Technologist - 2 - <1%
- Nurse/Nurse Practitioner - 2 - <1%
- Purchasing Agent/Buyer - 1 - <1%
- Bioengineer - 1 - <1%
- Geographic Region
- Respondents=2,099
- North America - 2099 - 100%
|