The Content Strategy Gap, Part 2: Are All Personas Treated Equally?
This is Part 2 of a three-part series on building a content strategy that actually works in life sciences B2B. Part 1 examined why persona-based strategies fail before they start. Part 3 will show what a fully realized content strategy looks like in practice.
The Persona Coverage Problem
If you audit the content library of most life sciences companies against their stated personas, a pattern emerges almost every time. The technical persona (the scientist, the researcher, the lab director) is well served. There are blog posts, application notes, webinars, and white papers written squarely for that audience. Most other cohorts are an afterthought.
Procurement gets a compliance checklist, if they're lucky. Finance gets a datasheet that was written for the technical evaluator and doesn't speak to their concerns at all. The C-suite gets a one-pager that nobody reads. The IT stakeholder gets nothing, until they raise an integration concern late in the deal and suddenly everyone is scrambling to put something together. This isn't random. It's the predictable result of a marketing team creating content for the audience they're most comfortable writing for, not necessarily the audience most influential in getting a deal closed.
Mapping the Life Sciences Buying Committee
Before examining why content coverage becomes lopsided, it helps to be explicit about who is typically involved in a complex life sciences purchase and what each stakeholder actually needs. The technical evaluator (scientist, researcher, lab director, application specialist) is the most visible stakeholder early in the buying process. They drive the initial evaluation, define the technical requirements, and typically champion a preferred solution internally. Their content needs are well understood: depth, specificity, scientific credibility, and technical proof points.
The economic buyer (CFO, VP of Operations, or whoever controls the budget) enters the conversation later but carries significant decision authority. Their questions are different: what is the total cost of ownership, what is the expected return on this investment, how does this compare to the alternatives, and what happens if this doesn't deliver. They are rarely served by the application notes and scientific webinars that dominate most life sciences content libraries.
The procurement stakeholder cares about vendor compliance, contract terms, approved vendor lists, and risk. They're not evaluating your science — they're evaluating your company as a vendor. Do you meet their supplier requirements? What does your warranty and service model look like? How have other organizations similar to theirs managed the procurement process for this type of purchase? This content almost never exists in any meaningful form.
The IT or informatics stakeholder is concerned with integration, data security, system compatibility, and implementation requirements. In an era when lab automation and informatics platforms are increasingly interconnected, and when AI-powered tools are being embedded into laboratory workflows, this stakeholder is becoming more influential in purchase decisions and more likely to be an unexpected source of deal friction when their concerns aren't proactively addressed.
The executive sponsor or champion is typically a C-suite or senior leadership contact who needs to approve the investment and, in some cases, advocate for it internally. They need a compelling strategic narrative: how does this purchase connect to the organization's priorities, what is the organizational risk of doing nothing, and why is now the right time. A twelve-page white paper is not the right way to reach this stakeholder.
Why the Technical Persona Dominates Content Investment
The concentration of content investment around the technical evaluator isn't irrational — it reflects several real dynamics that are worth understanding before trying to correct them. Marketing teams in life sciences are often folks' who have scientific backgrounds or strong science-adjacent expertise. They write well for technical audiences because they understand those audiences deeply. Writing for a CFO or a procurement manager requires a different set of knowledge and a different vocabulary, and it's harder for a team whose expertise is in the science.
The technical persona is also the most visible early in the buying process. They're the ones downloading white papers, attending webinars, and engaging with content in ways that show up in marketing analytics. The economic buyer, the procurement stakeholder, and the executive sponsor are largely invisible until they enter the conversation through sales, which means marketing rarely gives or gets direct feedback about what content those personas actually need.
Established content formats in life sciences — application notes, scientific posters, technical webinars, peer-reviewed publications — are built for scientific audiences. They're the formats the industry recognizes as credible, and they're the formats marketing teams are most practiced at producing. Creating an ROI calculator for a CFO or a vendor risk assessment guide for a procurement team requires building new content capabilities, not just applying existing ones to a new topic.
Finally, there's a widespread assumption, often unstated and rarely examined, that winning the scientist is sufficient to close the deal. If the scientist champions your solution strongly enough, the thinking goes, the economic buyer and procurement team will fall in line. This assumption is wrong often enough to matter, and when it's wrong, the consequences are significant. Early in my career, I would work tirelessly with Product Marketing and Application Scientists spending 80-90% of my time developing messaging and content for the primary influencers (the lab director and research scientists), but a disproportionately small amount of time on key decision makers: procurement, C-suite, VP of Clinical Development, and others. Results were less than stellar and the sales organization quickly made it clear that they needed more support toward the end of the buying journey when key decision makers were brought into the evaluation.
The Real Cost of Lopsided Content Coverage
When the buying committee doesn't have content that addresses their specific concerns, the gap gets filled, but rarely in ways that help the deal.
When deals stall at procurement, it's often because nobody has proactively addressed vendor compliance requirements. The procurement team raises questions that sales isn't prepared to answer in writing, a back-and-forth begins that can take weeks, and in the meantime competitive alternatives that look more procurement-ready gain ground.
Economic buyers enter late in the cycle with no content foundation and ask fundamental questions. What's the ROI? What's the total cost of ownership? How does this compare to the build-versus-buy alternative? Questions that should have been answered in content months earlier, were addressed ad hoc in sales conversations, with less consistency and less credibility than a well-constructed written asset would provide.
IT stakeholders raise integration concerns that nobody anticipated addressing in the content strategy. These concerns are legitimate and often deal-critical, but because no content exists to address them proactively, they become obstacles rather than solved problems. Executive sponsors have no compelling narrative to take to their board or leadership team. The technical champion is enthusiastic, but the person who needs to approve the budget can't articulate the strategic case for the investment because nobody gave them the language to do it. Internally, the deal loses momentum.
Sales is left to create ad hoc materials for every underserved persona: custom one-pagers, modified presentations, email responses that piece together answers from whatever existing content they can find. These materials are inconsistent, off-brand, and time-consuming to produce. They also represent a significant opportunity cost: the time sales spends creating content as opposed to selling.
What Equal (and Strategic) Persona Coverage Actually Looks Like
The goal isn't to produce the same volume of content for every persona. It's to ensure that every member of the buying committee has what they need to advance their evaluation and make a confident decision. That means mapping content explicitly to each buying committee member at each stage of the journey. The technical evaluator might need ten pieces of content across the buying cycle. The economic buyer might need three. But those three pieces need to be as carefully researched, as specifically targeted, and as well-executed as the ten.
Format is as important as topic. A C-suite executive brief should be two pages, written in business language, focused on strategic outcomes and organizational risk. A procurement vendor assessment guide should anticipate the specific questions a procurement team will ask and answer them in a format that travels easily through an internal review process. An IT integration overview should speak the language of systems architecture, not scientific workflows. Producing the right content for the wrong format, or the right format for the wrong content, still fails the persona.
The ROI and business case content that economic buyers need is often the hardest to produce because it requires close collaboration between marketing and finance (and sometimes the customer themselves, e.g. case studies and testimonials), and because it demands an accounting of value that not all organizations are comfortable putting in writing. It's also frequently the most influential content in a buying cycle. A well-constructed ROI framework that a technical champion can hand to a CFO is often the difference between a deal that closes and one that stalls indefinitely.
A Diagnostic Exercise
Before building new content, it's worth understanding specifically where your current coverage breaks down. Conduct a post-mortem with your content team (including Product Marketing, Sales, Scientists) and evaluate where content was critical in facilitating - or hindering - the sale. Determine what needs to improve, what's still missing, and what was particularly effective. Pull your last five lost deals and map where buying committee engagement broke down. Was it a procurement hold? An economic buyer who couldn't make the business case internally? An IT concern that surfaced too late? The pattern across those five deals will tell you more about your content gaps than any internal audit.
Audit your existing content library against each persona and each buying stage. Create a simple grid — personas on one axis, buying stages on the other — and place each significant content asset in the appropriate cell. The empty cells are your content strategy. Ask sales directly: which stakeholder conversations are hardest to support with existing content? Which questions do they consistently have to answer from scratch because nothing in the content library addresses them? Sales will tell you immediately, and the answers are usually specific enough to generate content briefs fairly quickly.
The Underlying Point
A content strategy that serves the technical evaluator well but leaves the economic buyer, procurement stakeholder, IT contact, and executive sponsor without adequate support isn't a full content strategy. It's a scientific communication program with a strategy label on it. Winning consistently in life sciences B2B requires content that moves every member of the buying committee forward, at every stage of their evaluation, in the format they'll actually use. That's a higher bar than most organizations are currently meeting, and it's exactly the bar that separates the companies with predictable pipeline from the ones wondering why good technical evaluations keep stalling before they close.
Part 3 of this series shows what it looks like when the full content strategy is built deliberately: the messaging matrix, the omnichannel orchestration, the organizational requirements, and where to start when you can't build everything at once.
I work with life sciences companies on digital marketing strategy, from SEO/AEO and content to demand generation, positioning and messaging, omnichannel campaigns, product launches, voice of customer, and more. If this resonated, or if you have a different perspective, I'd genuinely like to hear from you.



