A question with not so precise answer. This was the topic at the last Next Medical Festival, at a recent Oxford-style debate, a familiar question took center stage: Who should own customer insights—medical affairs or commercial teams?
While the discussion began as a clear-cut battle between two functions, it quickly evolved into something far more nuanced.
This panel was moderated by Georgie Tilley, while the panelists were Joan van der Horn and Yacin Marzouki.
The reality is this: insights don’t live in silos—and neither should the teams that use them.
Customer insights sit at the intersection of science, strategy, and execution. They are not just data points or observations; they are interpretations that guide decisions. And that distinction matters.
Medical affairs teams argue that insights—particularly scientific and clinical ones—require rigorous validation. Their training allows them to critically assess information, reduce bias, and ensure compliance with strict regulatory frameworks.
From this perspective, insights are not promotional tools but scientific assets that must be handled with care.
Commercial teams, however, bring a different lens. They challenge a key assumption: is information truly an insight if it doesn’t lead to action? Data alone has little value unless it is translated into decisions that impact strategy, market positioning, or patient outcomes.
Understanding the difference between data and actionable insights in healthcare is critical for effective commercial vs medical strategy.
A recurring theme in the debate was the difference between raw information and actionable insight.
Medical teams often gather deep, qualitative data—through conversations with key opinion leaders, advisory boards, and scientific exchange. This information is rich, credible, and essential.
But Commercial teams push further: insight only exists when information is interpreted in context and turned into action. Without that step, even the most valuable data risks becoming static reports that sit unused.
This distinction reflects a broader challenge in organizations: moving from collection to application.
Both sides acknowledged risks in owning insights.
Commercial teams may unintentionally filter insights to support pre-existing strategies. For example, if a brand aims to position itself as first-line therapy, there is a tendency to prioritize data that reinforces that goal—even when evidence suggests otherwise.
Medical teams, on the other hand, may fall into a passive role. Insights are collected and validated, but not always used to influence strategic decisions. In some organizations, medical input is reduced to a few slides in a broader commercial plan.
The result? Insights are either selectively used or underutilized—neither of which drives meaningful impact.
At its core, the debate is not just about insights—it’s about ownership and influence.
Ownership often implies control: who collects the data, who validates it, and who decides how it is used. But this mindset can create silos, reinforcing the divide between functions rather than solving the problem.
A more effective approach shifts the focus from ownership to accountability.
This reframing moves the conversation away from control and toward collaboration.
One of the biggest gaps identified in the discussion is the lack of integration.
Medical insights often come from first-party, field-based interactions. Commercial insights frequently rely on third-party data, market research, and analytics. Rarely are these sources combined effectively.
Without integration, organizations miss the full picture:
Only by connecting these perspectives can companies develop strategies that are both scientifically sound and practically relevant.
Another critical issue is how insights are used.
Too often, insights are delivered as reports—static, descriptive, and disconnected from decision-making. Metrics like open rates, attendance scores, or brand awareness are presented without clear direction.
To be valuable, insights must answer one question: What should we do next?
This requires:
Without these steps, insights remain theoretical rather than transformational.
With the rise of AI in Pharma, the way organizations collect and process information is rapidly evolving. AI can aggregate data, identify patterns, and accelerate analysis.
But it doesn’t solve the core challenge.
Human expertise is still required to:
In other words, AI enhances insights—but it doesn’t replace the need for collaboration between functions.
Despite being framed as a debate, the conclusion was clear: the most effective approach to customer insights is fully cross-functional.
Medical affairs and commercial teams bring complementary strengths:
Separately, they create partial views. Together, they create actionable intelligence.
The future of customer insights is not about choosing sides. It’s about building systems, processes, and cultures where insights are:
Because in the end, insights don’t create value—what you do with them does.
Customer insights in pharma are interpreted data points that guide decisions across medical and commercial teams.
Customer insights should be cross-functional, with medical validating scientific data and commercial applying it to strategy.
Data becomes actionable insight when it is interpreted, contextualized, and used to drive real-world decisions.
Medical affairs validates and interprets scientific information, while commercial teams translate insights into strategy and execution.
By combining medical and commercial insights, organizations in the pharma industry in Europe can create actionable, collaborative strategies.
