Extending an Established Oncology Brand into New Treatment Settings

The Challenge

In a later-line setting, an established oncology brand had become the category leader. Now it was moving into earlier lines of treatment, where the clinical context and competitive psychology were fundamentally different.

In its established setting, the brand had been the disruptor. In earlier settings, physicians were not managing a therapeutic void. The brand team needed to know whether the existing positioning would travel or whether a new platform was required to carry the brand credibly across multiple treatment settings and convert moderate and low users into broader adopters.

Context

Brand had established standard-of-care status in a later-line setting with a strong identity as a disruptive, innovation-forward therapy
Expansion into earlier treatment settings — neoadjuvant, post-neoadjuvant, and first-line — where competitive and clinical dynamics differed meaningfully
Physicians in earlier settings were not managing a therapeutic void; the existing narrative was built for a different clinical context
Moderate and low prescribers represented the primary growth opportunity. Any winning platform would need to move this segment, not just reinforce committed users
Brand team needed to determine whether the established positioning would hold across new indications or whether a new narrative was required

Our Approach

Shapiro+Raj executed a two-phase program moving from qualitative exploration to quantitative validation, with a structured working session between phases to refine territories before the head-to-head test.

Research Objectives

01
Assess whether the brand’s established positioning could travel credibly into earlier treatment settings or would require a new platform.
02
Identify which territory resonated most strongly across all settings and prescriber types — particularly moderate and low users.
03
Quantify prescribe intent impact by treatment setting, providing statistically grounded evidence for final platform selection.

Phase 1 deployed 21 in-depth, 60-minute interviews with oncologists across high, moderate, and low user groups, testing four distinct positioning territories. Correspondence mapping established the competitive perceptual landscape before testing — a data-driven visualization of which decision drivers each brand owned and where genuine whitespace existed.

Phase 2 deployed a 30-minute online survey with 100 oncologists weighted toward moderate and low users, testing the two finalists head-to-head across all treatment settings with prescribe intent as the primary KPI.

Insights Delivered

Key Findings

Perceptual mapping confirmed the brand entered early settings as a recognized force — carrying both established equity and the expectation of continued innovation. This framed the entire territory evaluation.
One territory held across all treatment settings without indication-specific adjustment. The competing finalist was emotionally compelling in specific contexts but structurally time-bound.
The winning territory moved moderate and low users most — the segment that would determine launch success — with its greatest advantage concentrated in the commercially critical settings.
The working session between phases refined territories before quantitative testing, compressing time to decision and eliminating the need for a third research phase.

Strategic Impact

The two-phase design delivered a recommendation grounded in both qualitative depth and quantitative confidence with setting-level and user-type data giving the brand team a precise picture of where and for whom the winning platform worked best.

Key Deliverables

Competitive perceptual map — data-driven visualization of brand equity and whitespace by physician decision driver
Positioning territory evaluation — qualitative performance analysis across four territories by setting and user type
Quantitative head-to-head results — prescribe intent data by treatment setting and prescriber segment for two finalist territories
User-type performance analysis — moderate and low user response isolated, with targeting implications
Winning positioning platform recommendation with cross-setting strategic rationale

The winning territory held across all treatment settings without indication-specific adaptation. The working session between phases compressed the timeline from insight to decision, ensuring that concepts entering quantitative testing were already refined and eliminating the need for a third research phase.

The correspondence map was the first time the team had seen, in data, exactly what mental territory we already owned and where the real opportunity to differentiate lived. Everything that followed — the territory choice, the language, the cross-setting strategy — flowed from that clarity.

Positioning research for an indication expansion requires understanding not just which territory wins — but whether it can hold across every setting the brand needs to play in. Talk to us about building platforms that travel.