The Content Strategy Gap, Part 2: Are All Personas Treated Equally?

Larry Hines

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.


A digital globe made of floating photo and video thumbnails on a black background.
By Larry Hines June 2, 2026
Explore a sophisticated persona-based content strategy for life sciences B2B. Improve your approach with buyer intelligence insights.
By Larry Hines May 13, 2026
Part 1 of a three-part series on building a content strategy that actually works in life sciences B2B. 
Scientific rendering of molecular structure.
By Larry Hines April 21, 2026
From Fragmented to Unified: Building an Omnichannel Strategy for Complex B2B Buying Committees There's a conversation that happens in a lot of life sciences marketing teams, usually triggered by a lost deal or a pipeline review that doesn't add up. Someone asks: "How did they find us?" And the answer is almost always more complicated than anyone expected. They read a blog post six months ago. They saw you at a conference. Someone on their team got an email. Their scientist looked you up after a webinar. Their procurement lead ran a Google search. Nobody talked to sales until month four. This is the reality of modern B2B buying in life sciences — and it's the reason omnichannel strategy matters as much as it does. The challenge in 2026 isn't deciding where to show up. It's making every touchpoint feel like part of the same coherent conversation, whether a buyer encountered you on LinkedIn last Tuesday or at a tradeshow six months ago. The Buying Committee Problem Before getting into tactics, it helps to name the specific challenge that makes omnichannel strategy genuinely hard in life sciences. You're rarely selling to one person. Capital equipment purchases might involve a principal investigator or lab director who evaluates technical and clinical fit, a procurement team focused on price and vendor compliance, an IT or informatics stakeholder who cares about integration and data security, and a C-suite or finance lead who signs off on budget. Each of these people has different questions, different information sources, and different definitions of a good vendor. Generally, they don't coordinate their research with each other. They're consuming content independently, at different points in the buying cycle, through different channels. And they're forming opinions about your company long before anyone on your team knows they exist. An omnichannel strategy for this environment isn't about broadcasting the same message everywhere. It's about understanding who is likely to show up on which channel, what they need to see when they get there, and how to make those separate encounters feel like a continuous, coherent brand experience. What "Omnichannel" Actually Means (And What It Doesn't) The word gets misused enough that it's worth being direct about the distinction. Multichannel marketing means being present on multiple channels. You have a website, a LinkedIn page, an email program, and you exhibit at conferences. Each channel operates independently. The email team (I’m using “team” loosely; often this is one person) doesn't know what happened at the tradeshow. The website doesn't reflect what sales is saying in conversations. The LinkedIn content has nothing to do with the nurture sequence someone is getting in their inbox. Omnichannel marketing means those channels are coordinated. The story a buyer hears on LinkedIn connects to the content they find on your website, which connects to the follow-up they receive after downloading a white paper, which connects to the conversation a sales rep has with them three months later. Every touchpoint knows, in some sense, what the others have been saying. The gap between these two states is where most life sciences companies currently live. They're multichannel by presence and siloed by execution. Fixing that gap is the actual work of your omnichannel strategy. The Channels That Matter Most in Life Sciences B2B Not every channel deserves equal investment, and life sciences buying behavior is specific enough to make some clear prioritization possible. LinkedIn is the primary digital channel for professional discovery and brand building in this space. Decision-makers, scientists, and procurement leads all have a LinkedIn presence, and it's where thought leadership content gets the most traction. For companies targeting a defined set of accounts, LinkedIn's targeting capabilities — by job title, company, industry, seniority — are genuinely valuable, and they're not dependent on third-party cookies. Organic content from company leadership builds familiarity over time; paid campaigns can accelerate awareness with specific personas at specific accounts. Side note: LinkedIn is primarily a brand-building channel in this context, not a lead generation engine — the platform's value lies in creating familiarity and credibility with the right audiences over time, not in driving direct conversions from a single post or campaign. Email remains one of the highest-ROI channels in B2B when it's done well. This means segmented, relevant, and paced for a long buying cycle. A scientist interested in mass spectrometry, and a procurement lead evaluating vendor compliance should not be receiving the same email sequence nor messaging. The ability to tailor content to the role and buying stage is what separates email programs that generate pipeline from email programs that generate unsubscribes. Content, SEO, and AEO function as the always-on layer of your omnichannel strategy. When a buyer is in independent research mode (which, in life sciences, is most of the time), they're searching for answers through both traditional search engines and increasingly through AI-powered answer engines like ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Claude. Being present at those moments — whether as a ranked result in Google or as a cited source in an AI-generated answer — requires genuinely useful, technically credible content that is structured for both human readers and AI retrieval. Blog posts, white papers, application notes, and FAQs all serve this function, and when built with both SEO and AEO in mind, they extend your brand's reach across every channel where independent buyer research is happening. Tradeshows and events remain disproportionately important in life sciences relative to other industries. The concentration of relevant buyers at events like the American Academy of Clinical Research (AACR), Society of Toxicology (SoT), or the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) creates relationship-building opportunities that digital channels can't fully replicate. But events work best as part of an omnichannel sequence, not as standalone tactics. More on this in a future post specifically on tradeshow strategy. Direct outreach and sales engagement is the channel where the buying committee question becomes most acute. Sales reps need to know what each contact has engaged with, what channel they came from, and where they are in their evaluation. Without that context, outreach feels generic and the relationship starts from zero even when the prospect has already consumed significant content. Building Coordination Across Channels The tactical question is how to actually connect these channels so they function as a system rather than a collection of independent programs. Start with your CRM and marketing automation platform as the connective tissue. Every meaningful digital interaction — content downloads, email opens and clicks, webinar registrations, website page visits, form fills — should be captured in a system that gives both marketing and sales visibility into what a contact or account has engaged with. HubSpot, Marketo, and Salesforce Marketing Cloud are the most common platforms in this space. If your CRM and marketing automation aren't talking to each other, channel coordination is almost impossible to achieve. Build content for the full buying committee, not just one persona. Map your content assets to the specific questions each stakeholder is asking at each stage of the buying process. Technical application notes and scientific webinars for the research and evaluation stakeholders. ROI frameworks, vendor evaluation guides, and compliance documentation for procurement and finance. Executive-level thought leadership for C-suite contacts. When a buying committee member arrives at your website or LinkedIn page, they should quickly find content that speaks to their specific context. Use account-level engagement as your coordination signal. In a buying committee sale, individual lead scores can be misleading. What matters is whether the account as a whole is showing increased engagement across multiple contacts and channels. This is the logic behind account-based marketing: rather than tracking individual leads in isolation, you track account-level activity and use that signal to coordinate timing and messaging across channels. When multiple stakeholders at the same account are engaging simultaneously, that's a signal worth acting on. Make your brand voice consistent across every channel. This sounds obvious and is surprisingly hard to execute. The tone and perspective in your LinkedIn posts should match the voice in your email nurture sequences, which should match what a sales rep says in an introductory call. When these feel misaligned, buyers notice, and it creates a subtle but real trust erosion. Messaging architecture (which we'll cover in a dedicated post on positioning) provides the foundation for this consistency. The Measurement Challenge Omnichannel strategy introduces a measurement complexity that simpler, single-channel programs don't face: when a deal closes after a buyer has touched six different channels over eight months, which channel gets credit? The honest answer is that no attribution model handles this perfectly. Last-click attribution, which is still the default in many organizations, dramatically overstates the role of the final touchpoint and undercounts everything that built awareness and consideration earlier in the cycle. Realistically, there’s no one marketing tactic or channel that is going to convert a complex life science sale on its own. It’s always the sales representative and science/technical support that are 100% responsible for making these complex sales. Marketing is a critical lever to build brand awareness and equity; soften the market so it’s prepared to hear how the product or service will solve their problems; and deliver market and customer insights that fuel the next innovation. At the same time, we must be able to evaluate our multi-channel campaigns and understand whether we are reaching the appropriate target audience with the correct messaging and influencing the final decision. Multi-touch attribution is better in theory but requires clean data across all channels and a level of technical integration that some marketing teams haven't achieved. The practical approach is to use attribution models directionally rather than definitively, supplement them with direct conversation (asking buyers in sales calls and onboarding surveys how they found you and what influenced their decision), and focus reporting on pipeline contribution and revenue influence rather than trying to achieve perfect attribution precision. What you're ultimately trying to measure is whether the coordinated system is working: are target accounts progressing through the buying cycle? Are multiple stakeholders within key accounts engaging? Is the handoff from marketing to sales happening with enough context to make sales conversations more productive? The Real Goal Omnichannel strategy is sometimes presented as a technology problem, a question of which platforms to integrate and which tools to deploy. Technology enables it, but the underlying goal is simpler and more human than any platform. The goal is to make every buyer feel like your company already understands them when they finally raise their hand. That the sales rep who calls knows what they've read. That the proposal reflects the specific concerns they've expressed. That the brand they've been encountering across channels for the past several months feels like a coherent, credible, trustworthy partner for a high-stakes decision. In life sciences, where the buying cycle is long, the buying committee is complex, and trust is the deciding factor in most competitive situations, that feeling of coherence is worth more than any individual channel can deliver on its own. That's what an omnichannel strategy actually build s. I work with life sciences companies on digital marketing strategy, from SEO 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.