How Clinical Stage Companies Can Maximize their Congress Investment
This article was originally published by Access TCA, as an installment of their Advocacy Through Access series, which explored engagement in an ever-changing events industry.
For clinical-stage companies working to get their products over the finish line, national congresses can be a goldmine of opportunity for clinical-stage companies working to get their products over the finish line, national congresses can be a goldmine of opportunities: credibility, visibility, access to key opinion leaders and other hard-to-reach clinicians, engagement with patient advocacy groups, opportunities to recruit, and deep insight into the competition.
At the same time, planning congresses can be a white-knuckle experience, even for the veteran marketing or medical lead. Aligning a sound strategy, calculating and justifying the spending, navigating the operational minefield of show rules and internal obstacles, and avoiding innumerable opportunities for failure and cost overruns aren’t easy—even for companies with deep resources. Planning congresses for clinical-stage startups with smaller budgets and often skeptical leadership can test the mettle of even the most seasoned professional.
Competing with larger, more established exhibitors for share of voice on a modest budget requires persistence, focus, and a bit of counterintuitive thinking. A few suggestions from the perspective of a supplier with 30 years of experience supporting small companies as they ramp up toward commercialization:
Don’t put your agency in charge.
Planning a congress is time-consuming, and while it may be tempting to delegate everything to the minds behind your corporate or disease state campaign, having your agency manage your exhibit company won’t save time and only discourages them from proactively bringing new ideas to the table.
In the early stages of convention planning, agencies shape the initial strategy, defining the audience, the messages, and the desired outcome. Even early in the process, a good exhibit partner becomes a yin to the agency’s yang, working through the lens of show rules and the realities of what can be produced or sourced and at what cost. Exhibit companies think more in the long term, knowing that the execution of future meetings will fall on them in different footprints and with different show rules.
Moving into production and execution, the agency provides a valuable second set of eyes, ensuring the brand is expressed optimally.
Don’t start with the exhibit design.
While they may add to the overall curb appeal, exhibits don’t create engagement or educate physicians. Year after year, research confirms your messaging and the performance of those delivering the messages are the two most important factors in the exhibit’s drawing power, memorability, and likelihood to influence physician behavior.
The exhibit is not insignificant, but it should not drive the strategy. Instead, it should serve the needs of the exhibit staff and, if possible, be developed after the strategy and staffing plans are in place.
The exhibit’s design and footprint are also critical to the other side of the value equation: the short- and long-term cost of executing similar programs over multiple meetings.
When it’s time to design, go wide, not tall.
Speaking of footprint, booth space is one of your largest costs, and the size of your exhibit affects just about every other line item in your budget. In my opinion, many clinical-stage companies overspend, choosing small island exhibits based on the promise of increased visibility and meeting space. For most companies working toward commercialization, a 10×30 or a 10x40 is a better option.
The visibility argument doesn’t hold water. On small show floors, if your science is interesting and your messaging is compelling, you won’t need a hanging sign to be found. And on large show floors, unless your sign is jaw-droppingly elaborate (and expensive), it will get lost in the ocean of other blue and white signs.
Thanks to the onerous set-back and see-through rules most US-based show managers [unfortunately] impose on island exhibits, the average inline offers as many, if not more, continuous eye-level graphic surfaces—space for the big, seamless, provocative billboard graphics that attract visitors.
Linear exhibits also require less exhibit staff. With traffic coming from one side of the booth and without disruptive walls in the middle of the exhibit, it’s easier to manage crowds and hand off visitors.
The icing on the cake? Buying less space has a dramatic ripple effect on the other big-ticket costs: drayage, labor, and transportation. Service costs for a 10X30 inline could easily be 50% lower than for a 20×20 of similar design.
Reduce costs by simplifying, instead of constantly negotiating or cutting corners.
Drayage, labor, and transportation are the biggest three “non-performing” costs, significant investments that have little or no impact on the educational value of the exhibit. These services account for 70% or more of the average exhibitor’s spend, and rates are driven by a cartel of labor unions, general contractors, facilities, and their exclusive providers – and are largely non-negotiable. Like a $25 bowl of room service soup, to the uninitiated, the rates can be eye-popping, and exhibitors understandably take little consolation that everyone else is overpaying for the same mediocre soup.
None of this sits well with the maverick entrepreneurs at the helm of these clinical-stage companies, and often, they resolve to build their own exhibits, print their own graphics, or buy their own AV equipment. All of this may save a few dollars but won’t move the needle much, and the results can be substandard and impossible to correct in the short time before the show opens. Pursuing this path can also erode valuable relationships, as the supplier/partners who can create the most value don’t want to work with clients who are singularly focused on cost-cutting vs. value creation.
In Conclusion
Irrespective of all the time and effort required to get to show opening, congresses can be a valuable and energizing experience for companies on the cusp of commercialization. By working both sides of the value equation – more impact at less cost – clinical-stage companies can create buzz, engage with hundreds of otherwise hard-to-reach clinicians, build the clinical advocacy necessary to get their breakthrough therapeutics over the finish line, and realize the real value of convention marketing.es: credibility, visibility, access to key opinion leaders and other hard-to-reach clinicians, engagement with patient advocacy groups, opportunities to recruit, and deep insight into the competition.
