Pharma loves success stories. They fill conferences, case studies, and LinkedIn posts. Yet the most useful lessons often come from the launches that quietly underperformed — the ones no one wants to talk about.
Having seen more than a few, I’ve noticed recurring themes that rarely make the official write-up.
The first is the arrogance of inevitability. Teams convince themselves the product is so good that adoption is guaranteed. It never is. Even the most innovative therapy needs persuasion, preparation, and persistence.
The second is the gap between approval and adoption. Teams assume that a regulatory green light equals clinical uptake. In reality, payers still need convincing, guidelines must be updated, and clinicians need support. Without a plan for that transition, launches stall.
The third is misalignment. Different functions — medical, regulatory, commercial, and access — often work in silos, each convinced their perspective is the most important. By the time they realise how out of sync they are, confusion has already reached the market.
Finally, there’s the issue of ignored warnings. In almost every failed launch, someone raised a red flag that was dismissed as negativity. Optimism can be useful, but when it drowns out dissent, it becomes costly.
The fix is humility. Pressure-test assumptions. Encourage dissenting voices. Align across functions early. Treat approval as the start of adoption, not the finish line.
The British saying “keep calm and carry on” is fine for a rainy commute but disastrous in a launch. The companies that succeed listen hardest when it’s uncomfortable and adapt fastest when they’re wrong.
Try This
Before your next launch meeting, assign someone the role of “chief contrarian”. Their job is to challenge assumptions politely but persistently. If they can’t find at least three weak points in your plan, you’re probably not looking hard enough.
