How to Virtually Launch a Biopharmaceutical During Covid-19
.avif)
Based on unmet need and inbound physician inquiries, your team has decided to launch a new biopharmaceutical right now - during a pandemic. With a different molecule or indication, you may have made a different decision. But given your current circumstances, you have decided to move forward with launch.
So, what’s next? How do you do it? What is different from a typical launch provided the current environment and projections over the next three to twelve months?
To be successful, you’ll need to create a flexible launch plan that is adaptable to changing market scenarios. As part of the plan, you’ll need to redefine your customer segmentation, which includes public health and economic factors; create new marketing resources that reflect an entirely virtual customer and patient journey; rapidly upskill your field team on virtual engagement skills; and run virtual launch meetings that effectively drive outcomes despite constraints.
A Launch Plan that Adjusts to Market and Public Health Triggers
While you’ve decided to move ahead with the launch, your execution plan should anticipate new developments in the healthcare ecosystem and remain agile to respond to those scenarios. First, you’ll need to identify these scenarios and the appropriate responses. To do this, war game various economic and public health conditions with your cross-functional team to determine how to move forward within different possible operating environments.
Data from past launches will likely hold little insight into your upcoming launch, and there will be a paucity of reliable data for some time. As a result, your war gaming models will likely need to rely on “what-if” analyses grounded in the shared expertise of your team. General economic forecasts and the epidemiological model of your choice can provide a firm starting place but should include outlier scenarios to provoke your launch team’s best thinking.
Based on this scenario planning, you can then identify alternative launch plans that can be implemented based on external triggers. This gives your team the flexibility to operate under ongoing uncertainty and alignment on what to do in each scenario.
Reprioritize Regions, Accounts and Customers Based on Economic and Public Health Factors
Given your launch plan, your sales team will need to re-segment their customer base to include factors beyond the appropriate patient population, coverage and prescriber affinity. New factors to include will be Covid-19 cases within a territory, cases within an account, the effect of the pandemic on physician load (depending on specialty they may be experiencing a surge or lack of patients), unemployment claims within territory (coverage changes will reduce new patient starts and adherence), and virtual access to prescribers.
This reprioritization could lead to a wholly different initial focus for your field organization, potentially away from academic institutions and toward community-based clinics. Physicians and patients alike may be quickly moving to lower-risk treatment locations.
Redesign Marketing for Entirely Virtual Customer and Patient Journeys
The status quo approach to designing physical core sales aids and leave behinds needs to be completely replaced by digital assets and messaging. The first step is rapidly translating existing assets to virtual and gaining approval for electronic dissemination. However, your marketers will also need to rethink their approach and create “digital first” assets to support your field team.
On the consumer and patient side, they will have limited access to their clinicians and thus will turn to online resources and education more than ever before. Your patient-facing teams will need to meet that upswell of demand with new and engaging resources that move them along their patient journey.
KOL and Speaker Bureau engagement will also need to become digital, providing opportunities to engage during live sessions, connect with peers, and share insights firsthand—potentially allowing for real world data capture.
Rapidly Build Your Field Team Members’ Virtual Engagement Capability
Field team members, from salespeople to account management, medical affairs, patient advocacy, and field reimbursement, are highly skilled in face to face interactions. Given the nature of their roles, their technical proficiency often lags behind that of home office employees. They will need to be rapidly upskilled on first the basics of using virtual communications platforms like Zoom, Veeva Engage, and Google Meet, as well as the key differences between physical and virtual interactions.
Next, they will need to begin building the capabilities to change provider behavior using communication platforms and the new interactive tools being created by marketing. Optimal use of these tools will allow for the capture of real time data, providing insights to help marketing be more agile.
This upskilling can happen mostly asynchronously, through peer collaboration and with coaching from your existing field training team. Successful field adoption will be a factor of execution tools that are easy to digest, readily on-demand, and emphasize practice and outcomes.
Virtual Launch Meetings that Drive Impact
The best face to face launch meetings convey best practices and ideas to the field team, allow for opportunities for deep practice, and create a sense of purpose and teamwork on behalf of patients. The best virtual launch meetings can do this too—but with new constraints and opportunities. With much of your field team responsible for caregiving demands at home, there is no need for launch meetings to be six hours a day for four days in a row. In fact, for many people, that is impossible while children are out of school.
With diminishing returns and screen fatigue, it’s important to experiment with the structure, duration, and modality of these virtual gatherings. Maintain enthusiasm throughout the meeting by keeping days shorter. Prioritize personal application time and small work groups.
Beyond the agenda, new virtual platforms allow for peer best practice sharing, foster interaction through polling and live Q&A, and replicate the practice sessions that keep the commercial team engaged and energized.
Create a wraparound experience by sending branded swag ahead of time and providing meal delivery during the event. Set aside time for carefully designed virtual networking to encourage new connections and organic relationship building. Done well, virtual launch meetings can educate, upskill and motivate your team in different but equally effective way as the face to face meetings of the past.
Launch and Learn Fast
Thousands of people’s efforts and expertise go into launching a pharmaceutical product, and it’s hard to get it right during the best of times. During the Covid-19 era, you’ll be prepared to succeed by creating a flexible launch plan that shifts based on market and public health conditions; reprioritizes regions, accounts and customers based on new economic and pandemic related factors; encourages your marketing team to innovate on their digital approach; gets the field ready to engage virtually; and drives results through a wholly new approach to virtual launch meetings.
These are some things you can plan and predict. Once you begin to engage customers, your initial meetings will be fact finding missions that should inform your approach as fast as possible. Expect to be wrong about the future fairly often. It’s always an honor to serve patients, and during this ongoing public health crisis, this is truer than ever, and the stakes are even higher. Stay humble, be prepared to be wrong, and get ready to learn fast.
Related content
Related content
Candidates now arrive at interviews pre-coached by AI, with their resumes optimized to pass every checkpoint. Polish has stopped being a signal. The traditional hiring process was built to read exactly the cues that AI is now best at producing, and the signals hiring managers once relied on have weakened as a result. And for roles where the wrong hire carries real business consequences, losing the ability to tell who will actually perform is not a minor inconvenience. It is a material risk, and it exposes the business to unnecessary turnover, reduced performance, and heavier investment for talent growth and development.
So how do you observe the behaviors that matter most, before someone is in the role?
Not by asking better questions, but rather by putting candidates in situations designed to elicit that behavior.
The limits of predicting from paper
Credentials tell you what someone has done. Structured interviews tell you what someone says they would do. Neither lets you observe what they actually do in the moments that count.
This distinction matters most in client-facing, relationship-driven roles, where the performance gap between a strong hire and a weak one plays out in real business outcomes (revenue, retention, client growth). Organizations that hire at scale in these roles carry that gap across hundreds of decisions at a time.
The better approach is to watch candidates do the work before you hire them. Put them in simulated, role-relevant scenarios, and pair the simulation with a second, different kind of measure so no single method carries the whole decision. That combination is what lets you evaluate real performance before anyone is in the role. Organization-specific simulations provide a clear read on who is ready and capable of performing on day one. In a world of AI-supported candidate signals, the use of simulations makes the process harder to prep for. It is harder to fake. And, when designed well, it is substantially more predictive than other hiring methods.
What counts as evidence
Claims about predictive power are easy to make. Evidence for them is rarer than you would expect.
A predictive validity study, the kind that links pre-hire assessment scores to how someone actually performs once hired, is some of the hardest evidence to produce and the rarest to see. Many assessments are validated against proxies: another test, or a theoretical model of the role, rather than real results on the job. Connecting scores to concrete business outcomes and doing the statistical work to show the link holds, takes years of shared data and a level of commitment from both the assessment provider and the client that most partnerships never reach. That is precisely why it is worth asking for. A provider who can show how assessment scores track to training completion, retention, and first-year output is offering something categorically different from one who can only show a correlation with another test.
Why simulation holds up where other methods do not
When a candidate sits across from a trained assessor (someone playing the client or prospect on the other side of the conversation) and has to work through a real situation, they cannot rely on a rehearsed answer. The scenario is specific. The stakes feel real. What you see is close to what you would get on the job.
That is the value of simulation-based assessment: it does not test what candidates know about the role.
It shows how they use what they know when a real person is on the other side of the conversation, before the stakes are real.
For roles that carry significant business responsibility, this distinction is the whole game. The cost of the wrong hire in a high-stakes client-facing role is not just a missed quota for a quarter - It plays out in relationships that do not develop, clients who leave, and productivity losses that compound over time. Getting those hiring decisions right, at scale, with consistency, requires methods that are built for predictive accuracy, not just candidate experience or hiring speed.
What this means for how organizations think about hiring
Most organizations are still optimizing the wrong things in their hiring process. They invest heavily in employer branding, application flow, and interview structure, all of which matter, but less in the core question: does our hiring process actually predict who will succeed in this role?
AI has sharpened the stakes here. If every candidate can present as polished and prepared, screening based on presentation becomes less useful. What holds up is direct observation of the behaviors that the job requires.
A few principles worth building from:
- Measure what the job requires, not what is easy to measure. Cognitive tests and personality questionnaires have their place, but they do not look much like the job. The closer the assessment is to the actual work, the better it predicts performance in it.
- Ask what your assessment predicts. Training completion? Retention? First-year output? Most organizations cannot answer that question today, largely because providers have rarely been asked to prove it. It is a fair thing to ask for.
- Take the human element seriously. In a simulation, a candidate is having a real conversation, responding in real time, navigating a situation that requires judgment. Even with the help of AI, that is hard to game. And it remains one of the strongest predictors of on-the-job performance available.
The data exists to make hiring decisions more accurate, fairer, and more directly tied to business outcomes. For organizations operating in high-stakes roles at scale, there is too much on the line to rely on methods that cannot hold up to that standard.
You may be interested in BTS’ thought leadership in the five talent shifts AI is forcing now.
La IA ya forma parte del día a día de las ventas. Hoy cualquier asesor puede llegar a una reunión con datos, tendencias e insights generados en segundos. Sin embargo, disponer de más información no garantiza conversaciones de mayor valor.
A través de una experiencia real con un consultor comercial, este artículo explica por qué la inteligencia artificial funciona como un GPS: ayuda a interpretar el entorno, pero no conduce la conversación ni entiende las prioridades del cliente.
En este artículo descubrirás:
- Por qué el acceso a la información ya no supone una ventaja competitiva.
- La importancia del business acumen para interpretar los datos con criterio.
- Cómo hablar el lenguaje del cliente genera credibilidad y diferenciación.
- Por qué las relaciones B2B evolucionan hacia relaciones P2P basadas en la confianza.
- Qué capacidades consultivas seguirán siendo exclusivamente humanas incluso en la era de la IA.
La tecnología seguirá evolucionando, pero la ventaja competitiva estará en quienes sean capaces de combinar inteligencia artificial con conversaciones centradas en el cliente, pensamiento estratégico y relaciones de largo plazo.
Leadership is the work of creating shared understanding, and language is the primary tool for doing it. Yet we spend remarkably little time examining our words. Every decision, expectation, priority, and piece of feedback reaches another person through words. If those words aren't doing the job, neither is the leadership.
The lighthouse
Some years ago, a large company hired a strategy consulting firm to rethink its leadership model. The firm came back with a beautifully produced framework built around a central metaphor: the lighthouse.
Leaders, the model declared, should be lighthouses.
The metaphor quickly found its way into playbooks, performance reviews, onboarding decks, and town halls. People repeated it with the confidence of those who had paid a lot of money for it.
There was just one problem: nobody could agree on what a lighthouse was supposed to do.
Was it warning people away from danger? Guiding them toward a destination? Standing firm while everything else changed?
Eventually, the company hired another team to translate the metaphor into specific, observable leadership behaviors.
It was an expensive way to discover that a word everyone confidently repeated wasn't creating nearly as much shared understanding asthey thought.
Why jargon prevails
- Parking lot that
- Double-click
- Close the loop
Business jargon survives because it’s largely designed to manage social risk. Using it signals, I know how this world works. It demonstrates membership, competence, and credibility.
Business is messy, and leaders don't always have complete information. Abstract language lets us project confidence while preserving flexibility.
Altitude without traction
Specific language creates accountability. The more specific you are, the easier it is for people to disagree, question your thinking, orhold you accountable. That's part of the appeal of jargon. It creates distance between the speaker and the detail. The more abstract and elevated your language, the more strategic you sound.
A 2020 study by Harvard Business School professors Laura Huang and Andy Wu, published in the Academy ofManagement Journal, analyzed over 1,000 early-stage startup pitches and found that founders who spoke in abstract, visionary terms were significantly more likely to advance in the funding process.
A separate study, published in Applied Cognitive Psychology in 2025, found the other side: jargon raises how credible a speaker appears and lowers how much the audience retains.
The very language that helps people see you as a leader can make you less effective once you're leading.
The most trusted leaders tend to be the ones who resist impressive-sounding language and say the plainest version of what they mean.
In fact, four words probably do more for a leader's standing than any carefully crafted message: I made a mistake. Not "we encountered some headwinds," not "there were learnings from this experience," but the plain version.
The cost of comfort
When a conversation gets uncomfortable at work, it almost always feels easier to soften your message than to say exactly what you mean. You hedge, add qualifiers, cushion the point with extra reassurance, or leave the hardest part unsaid. Most of the time, you mean well. You don't want to discourage someone, damage the relationship, or create unnecessary conflict. The conversation becomes less uncomfortable for a moment, but the work often becomes harder afterward.
Amy Edmondson, Novartis Professor of Leadership and Management at Harvard Business School and author of The Fearless Organization, found that the fear of making a negative impression pushes people to stay silent exactly when clarity is most needed. According to her research, silence is one of the most consistent predictors of teams that miss problems early and never learn from them. The friction avoided in the meeting resurfaces later, at greater cost.
KimScott, former executive at Google and Apple and author of Radical Candor, calls this ruinous empathy: softening your message to protect someone's short-term feelings comes at the cost of the clarity they need. Her argument is simple and uncomfortable: clear, direct communication, even when it is hard, is an act of care.
The quiet power of saying what you mean
None of this is an argument for bland, colorless language.Vivid, precise writing does the opposite of jargon: it sharpens meaning instead of hiding it. Before reaching for a word, pause on two questions:
- What do I mean by it?
- What will my audience hear?
A surprising amount of corporate language wouldn't survive those two questions.
Leaders have more influence over language than they often realize. Whatever tone, vocabulary, and level of directness they model becomes the standard everyone else copies. Word choice is one of the quietest ways leaders shape culture.
This matters even more as we hand our language to AI. These tools can already learn to write in our voice. The question now is whether we've been deliberate enough about that voice in the first place to like what we see.