Interview with Dr. Helen Marsh, CFO at MedTrials Pharma Australia
How do executive finance teams in pharmaceuticals approach brand equity measurement post-acquisition?
Dr. Marsh: After an acquisition, brand equity measurement is often underestimated or narrowly focused on immediate financial metrics. That’s a common brand equity measurement mistake in clinical-research. Most teams zero in on sales figures or market share without integrating the deeper, long-term value drivers like brand trust among clinicians, site investigators, and regulatory stakeholders.
In pharma clinical research, brand equity is more than revenue—it's about reputation in scientific communities, perceived trial quality, and even the synergy of combined corporate cultures. For example, after MedTrials acquired a regional CRO last year, we realized that integrating brand perception data through regular clinician surveys, including digital feedback tools like Zigpoll, was essential to understanding how the acquisition affected reputation across trial sites in Australia and New Zealand.
What are the biggest challenges in consolidating brand measurement after a merger or acquisition?
Dr. Marsh: Consolidation brings tech stack alignment headaches. The acquired company's brand tracking might rely on legacy systems or ad-hoc surveys, while the parent uses more sophisticated analytics platforms. Aligning these is critical but often overlooked. Without a harmonized system that feeds into finance dashboards, it’s impossible to track ROI on brand initiatives accurately.
Cultural alignment is another challenge. Clinical research relies heavily on trust and ethical reputation. If the acquired entity has a different corporate culture—say, less stringent on compliance—it can erode brand equity quickly. Brand surveys and sentiment analysis pre- and post-acquisition can reveal early warning signs.
How do finance executives integrate brand equity metrics with board-level performance indicators?
Dr. Marsh: Finance executives need brand equity metrics that correlate directly with financial outcomes—patient recruitment rates, trial completion timelines, and regulatory approval success. At MedTrials, we measure Net Promoter Scores (NPS) from principal investigators and site coordinators, then link those scores to recruitment efficiency and retention rates. This connects brand perception to financial KPIs the board cares about.
We also keep tabs on Share of Voice (SOV) in clinical trial publications and presentations, which can influence market access and drug approval timelines, impacting revenue projections. These metrics get quarterly updates for the board, supported by real-time pulse surveys via platforms like Zigpoll and traditional market research.
What are the critical mistakes finance teams make in brand equity measurement specific to clinical research?
Dr. Marsh: One big mistake is treating brand equity as a marketing-only metric. Finance often views it as "soft data" and delays investment in proper measurement tools. Another is ignoring post-acquisition cultural fit—if the combined entity's brand doesn’t resonate internally with employees and externally with trial sites, you risk declining trial success rates.
Also, many overlook the lag effect. Brand equity changes don’t produce immediate financial results. Rushing to link brand equity to short-term revenue can mislead decision-making. Instead, measure intermediate outcomes like clinician trust and trial site satisfaction first.
How can automation and technology improve brand equity measurement post-acquisition?
Dr. Marsh: Automation is transformative. Automation enables continuous, scalable feedback collection across multiple clinical sites and stakeholders, reducing reliance on manual, episodic surveys. AI-driven analytics can quickly highlight shifts in sentiment or brand perception before they impact trial recruitment or regulatory relationships.
For example, integrating Zigpoll’s automation for real-time feedback during trial phases lets us react swiftly to problems. If a site reports poor communication or delays, it’s flagged immediately, allowing remediation that protects brand equity and keeps trials on track.
brand equity measurement team structure in clinical-research companies?
Dr. Marsh: Effective brand measurement requires a cross-functional team. Finance, marketing, clinical operations, and regulatory affairs need representation. In post-M&A settings, add change management professionals to address culture and communication integration.
MedTrials has a core brand equity task force led by finance but heavily supported by clinical liaisons who provide ground-level insights. They coordinate with data scientists who manage automated survey tools like Zigpoll, supplementing traditional market research firms. This blend ensures the measurement is both scientifically credible and financially relevant.
brand equity measurement metrics that matter for pharmaceuticals?
Dr. Marsh: Key metrics include:
- Net Promoter Score (NPS) among investigators and study coordinators
- Brand Awareness and Perceived Quality in clinical trial circles
- Share of Voice (SOV) in scientific publications and conferences
- Patient Recruitment Efficiency and Retention Rates
- Compliance and Ethical Reputation Index (via internal audits and external feedback)
We track these quarterly and benchmark against competitors operating in Australia and New Zealand.
brand equity measurement automation for clinical-research?
Dr. Marsh: Automation tools enable real-time, continuous data collection across multiple geographies and stakeholder groups, which is critical for clinical research with its complex, multi-site trials. Platforms like Zigpoll, SurveyMonkey, and specialized pharma market research tools automate NPS and sentiment analysis, embed feedback loops into clinical operations, and flag brand risks quickly.
A 2024 Forrester report highlights that companies using feedback automation improve stakeholder satisfaction by 23% within a year. However, automation requires investment and integration into legacy systems, so it’s not a plug-and-play fix.
Can you give an example where measuring brand equity post-acquisition led to tangible business outcomes?
Dr. Marsh: After acquiring a mid-size CRO in New Zealand, we deployed a quarterly brand perception survey targeting site staff and investigators using Zigpoll. Baseline NPS was -5, indicating dissatisfaction. After targeted culture and communication initiatives based on survey insights, NPS rose to +15 within 9 months. This correlated with a 12% increase in patient recruitment rates and a 7% reduction in trial delays—direct financial improvements that justified the acquisition cost.
What advice would you give finance leaders embarking on brand equity measurement post-acquisition?
Dr. Marsh: Start by identifying the critical brand touchpoints unique to clinical research: investigators, site coordinators, regulators, and patients. Use quantitative and qualitative data from real-time tools like Zigpoll alongside traditional research to capture the full picture.
Build a cross-functional team that includes finance, clinical ops, and marketing. Be patient. Brand equity improvements take time but yield compound ROI through better trial outcomes and faster market access.
Finally, align measurement with strategic priorities—whether that’s cultural integration, technology consolidation, or accelerating trial timelines. Brand equity isn’t an abstract concept but a measurable asset that affects your bottom line directly.
For deeper insights on pharma brand equity strategies, see this strategic approach to brand equity measurement for pharmaceuticals. Also, comparisons to other sectors can provide fresh perspectives, such as 7 proven ways to measure brand equity measurement.
This conversation reveals that measuring brand equity post-acquisition in pharmaceuticals demands attention to culture, technology integration, and clinically relevant metrics—essential elements often missed by finance teams focused solely on traditional financial KPIs. Smart measurement, supported by automation and a cross-functional approach, drives real competitive advantage in the Australian and New Zealand clinical research markets.
