Brief · Use case · Brand & Marketing
Brand Positioning Decision.
LiveDecision MemoDecide which positioning a brand should lead with at launch, scored on differentiation, label fit, prescriber and patient resonance, and cost to execute, with claims flagged for review.
Brand Positioning Decision is a ready-made use case for Brand & Marketing. It ships under the Decision Memo template.
For brand and marketing leads who must commit a launch position before creative is made. You get the decision stated as a question, three positions scored side by side, a recommendation, and the evidence that would reverse it. Claims that would need medical, legal and regulatory review are flagged, and every figure is cited or marked as a gap.
Add it to your library to reuse from New → From template. Edit the saved copy in your library on the service form.
The decision
Which positioning should a pharmaceutical brand lead with at launch in one European market: an efficacy-led position, a patient-experience-led position, or keeping the current class-level position?
The three positions on the table
The memo scores each position on the same five criteria and names the claim each one would put in front of prescribers, so the choice is made before creative is.
| Route | What it asks of you | It fits when | What medical, legal and regulatory review will check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Efficacy-led | Lead with the clinical results. Every efficacy claim has to be consistent with the approved summary of product characteristics and rest on an up-to-date evaluation of all the relevant evidence.1,2 | The label supports the claim as worded and the evidence stands on its own, without selecting the favorable studies. | Claim wording, any comparator, any superlative |
| Patient-experience-led | Lead with what treatment is like for the patient. The claim still has to be consistent with the label and capable of substantiation, whatever data it draws on.1,2,4 | Patient-reported outcome or preference data exist, and the label and the evidence carry the message. | Where the patient data come from, and whether the label carries them |
| Keep the class-level position | Keep promoting the accepted benefits of the class and add only what the label already carries. | Differentiation is weak, the evidence is thin, or there is not enough time for review before creative work starts. | Lowest review risk; the cost is differentiation |
What the memo does with them
Every claim traced to the label. The memo lists the claims each position would make and checks each against the approved summary of product characteristics, because EU law requires every part of advertising to be consistent with it and to present the product objectively, without overstating its properties.1
The review test, applied before creative is made. Industry codes ask that promotion be accurate, balanced, fair, objective and complete enough for a prescriber to form their own view, and that it can be substantiated on request. The memo flags the claims most likely to fail that test, including comparisons and superlatives, which one national code allows only for a clear, demonstrable fact.2,3
Five criteria, scored the same way for all three. Differentiation, fit with the approved label, resonance with prescribers and patients, cost and time to execute, and the risk that a claim fails review. The memo does not invent market research: where no prescriber or patient evidence is cited, resonance is marked as a gap and the score as analyst judgment.
A position, not a slogan. Positioning is the work of occupying a clear place in the mind of a defined audience against the alternatives already there. The memo names the audience and the competing positions before it scores your options.5
How it could fail. The pre-mortem probes the failures this decision invites: a lead claim rejected after creative is made, a message that prescribers or patients do not value, a competitor who takes the position first, or production costs that outrun the plan. Each gets an early warning and an owner.
Recommended length
Standard
Claims can still change before print, so this is a reversible decision. Standard gives the options, the reasons and the review risks in about 1,700 words.
You can pick another length on the form. The other two stay available.
Assumptions the memo tests
A Comprehensive memo lists the assumptions that carry the answer, each with a test and a date. A Standard memo carries the main ones in its section on what would change the answer. Examples for this decision:
- The approved label supports the lead claim as worded.
- The evidence behind the claim is current and complete, not a selection of the favorable studies.
- Prescribers and patients value the lead message, tested with a small number of interviews before creative is approved.
- Review finishes before creative production starts on 15 March 2027.
Standards, guidance and sources
EU law and industry codes
- Directive 2001/83/EC, Article 87: advertising must be consistent with the summary of product characteristics, must encourage rational use and must not mislead.1
- EFPIA Code of Practice, Article 3: promotion must be accurate, balanced, fair, objective and sufficiently complete, based on an up-to-date evaluation of all relevant evidence, and capable of substantiation.2
- A national code applies on top of the EFPIA Code in each market. The ABPI Code in the United Kingdom is one example: its Clause 14 limits comparisons, exaggerated claims and superlatives.3
Patient data and positioning
- EMA draft reflection paper on patient experience data, September 2025, which describes how patient-reported outcomes and preference data can be generated and used in development and regulatory decisions. It is a draft and it does not govern promotion.4
- Positioning as a discipline: the position is chosen against the alternatives in the audience’s mind, not in isolation.5
The decision practice behind the memo itself is on the template page.
What gets flagged
Each claim that would need medical, legal and regulatory review, the claim most likely to fail it, any resonance score with no evidence behind it, and any comparison or superlative that is not a clear, demonstrable fact.
What arrives
- Decision requested
- Recommendation
- Context and framing
- Options considered
- Why this option wins
- What must be true
- What would change the answer
- Risks and the pre-mortem
- Path and what we do not know
What it will not do
It is not a promotional review. The final material still goes through your medical, legal and regulatory approvers, and the code of your market applies.
It does not run prescriber or patient research. It tells you which evidence is missing and what a small test would need to show.
It does not make the decision. The named decider does.
Scores and weights are analyst judgment from an AI specialist, not measurements. They show how the options compare on the criteria you chose; change the weights and the ranking can change.
It is one specialist’s answer. When you need several specialists to disagree in the open, run a Panel.
Facts the specialist could not source appear as gaps. Regulatory fees, review goals, reference prices and probabilities are cited to their sources or left open. Check any figure you will act on against its primary source.
References
- [1] European Parliament and Council. Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use. Consolidated version of 1 January 2022, Title VIII (advertising), Article 87. Check the current consolidated version before relying on the wording.
- [2] EFPIA. EFPIA Code of Practice, 2026 edition, Article 3 (promotion and its substantiation).
- [3] Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority. ABPI Code of Practice 2024, Clause 14 (information, claims and comparisons). A United Kingdom example. Check which national code applies in your market.
- [4] European Medicines Agency. Reflection paper on patient experience data. Draft published 29 September 2025; consultation closed 31 January 2026. Draft. Check whether a final version has been published.
- [5] Ries, A. and Trout, J. Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind. McGraw-Hill, 1981; 20th anniversary edition, 2001. Catalog record. The book itself was not read for this page.
Links checked 9 October 2026
These are the sources the template drew on. None of their authors or issuers has reviewed it.
About the Brief service
A Brief is a written answer from one specialist, at the depth you asked for. It arrives with its sources, and it closes by saying plainly what would change the conclusion. Nothing is hidden behind a summary, and anything the expert could not source is marked as a gap rather than filled in.
To edit a saved template, open New → Brief → From template, or the library rail on the service form.