Medcomm, ad/promo, non-regulated content reviews–the right tool handles it all

In order to get your lifesaving innovations into the hands of consumers, your life sciences company needs to be ready to shift gears quickly in terms of content. Each stage in the commercialization process calls for a different type of thoughtfully crafted, audience appropriate content. 

One day you might be trying to get the promising results of your clinical trials out to healthcare providers to explain how your product will improve patient outcomes. Soon after, you’ll need to generate press releases and slide decks to attract and inform potential clients. Then, once business is booming, you’re tasked with crafting a marketing campaign featuring ads, commercials, websites, and one-pagers to catch your key audience’s attention.

There is a temptation to think that pharmaceutical, biotechnology, medical device, and diagnostic companies need multiple solutions to handle multiple content needs; medcomm software for healthcare provider communication, MLR solutions for ad/promo review, and generic workflow tools for non-regulated content. That’s not quite true.

Here are some reasons why implementing a single life sciences-focused solution, built to facilitate all of your content workflow needs, is what you need.

Reason 1: It keeps your team happy

Using different solutions for different content workflows can stress out your team.

It starts right with the onboarding. Separate training for multiple solutions means your team spends more time watching presentations and less time getting down to business. 

Then comes the complexity of working with multiple cloud-based tools. Content creators and project managers working on multiple projects will have multiple logins to remember, multiple URLs to visit, and multiple interfaces to use. They might spend their day jumping between windows, trying not to get timed out of one solution while working in another. And if they have questions or bug reports, they will have different customer support contacts or support ticket portals to deal with. 

The end result is frustrated staff wrestling with multiple solutions that are theoretically there to make things run more smoothly.

Using just one, universal content tool eliminates such concerns. A staff working on one intuitive system that lets them get the job done is a happy, effective, efficient staff. 

Reason 2: One tech partner is better than many

Establishing two or three separate relationships with different vendors for workflow optimization tools creates complexity at the business level, too.

First, multiple solutions means dealing with multiple teams for implementation, consultation, and troubleshooting. Assessing the complex characteristics of your workflows to streamline them is a big project no matter what; doing it multiple times with different partners for different workflows can get messy. 

Having many tech partners also means having multiple conversations with reps from different vendors when you need to build out new features in each solution to meet emerging needs. 

And vendors, of course, experience turnover. If your point person at each of three vendors leaves within a year, you have to spend time rebuilding relationships between your team and three different companies, just to adequately support your internal processes. More business relationships long-term can also mean murkiness over contracts, shared responsibilities, and expectations as each partner evolves and changes. 

Alternatively, with a single tech partner implementing and supporting a single product, it’s much easier for everyone to stay on the same page, now and in the long run. One tech partner will also be able to understand your company goals holistically and make process recommendations to meet your short- and long-term goals. 

Reason 3: You can’t beat the cost savings

Using a single solution means your company is only paying for one implementation, not two or three, and only one subscription fee post-implementation. 

Further down the road you’ll find other savings. If you expand your marketing team and need more seats for your subscription, you’re only facing one price increase instead of three separate ones for a medcomm tool, MLR tool, and an unregulated content review tool. 

Simply put: more partners means more costs. 

Reason 4: It establishes a culture of compliance

While an MLR-specific solution can set you up for a worry-free FDA audit, there is no reason all your content shouldn’t be held to an audit-level standard of transparency. 

Using one solution with audit features that can be applied to both regulated and non-regulated content lets you treat all your content as part of one ecosystem. This enables your team to continually improve all its content processes, FDA audited or otherwise. 

Reason 5: It prepares you for growth

When your content strategy is focused solely on getting word out to providers, a standalone medcomm solution might look like the right choice. Inevitably, though, you will need more. If you partnered with a medcomm vendor, you will quickly find yourself needing to find additional providers to partner with as your content needs expand.

But if your workflow optimization vendor has the capabilities to enable MLR review and other forms of content routing, you can leverage those other features when you need them. Your team will already know the platform. There will be no new business deals, contracts, or training on brand new systems. 

Reason 6: It provides support for all content formats

In today’s digital world, creating a wide portfolio of digital content–like websites and videos–is key to reaching your target audiences. 

Video content requires the same level of review as all other marketing materials. A single tool capable of optimizing and auditing all your workflows – regulated and non-regulated, print and video – lets you seamlessly perfect your content no matter the media type. 

As you consider one system for all of your content reviews and approvals, remember: setting up clear roles, responsibilities, and expectations is key. Document how workflows differ by content type, clarify which teams should be involved in each type of review, and communicate all of the above in a publicly available document such as an SOP.