Pharma's shift to a new customer engagement model: what's working, what isn't, and what to fix first

For years, the constraint in pharma digital engagement was execution. Building content at scale was slow. Personalisation was technically out of reach. Connecting experiences across channels required significant infrastructure investment.

But that constraint has largely gone. AI and automation mean content, journeys and interactions can all be scaled faster than ever before.

But scale amplifies whatever sits beneath it. And if the foundations aren't right, scaling faster just means delivering the wrong things to more people, more efficiently.

The question has shifted from what can we build, to what should we build. That's a harder question to answer than it sounds, and most organisations aren't yet set up to answer it well.

The data that framed our conversation makes for uncomfortable reading: 

• 65% of HCPs have reduced or stopped engaging with pharma digital content
• 59% want more control over what they receive
• 49% say they're too busy to engage

(Source: The Value Gap, Graphite Digital, 2026) 

At the same time, digital activity is increasing. Investment is increasing. More content is being produced, more channels are being activated, more automation is being deployed. 

The industry is scaling. It's just not clear it's scaling the right things.

The new engagement model — moving from brand and campaign messaging to orchestrated, value-led experiences — is broadly understood. The problem, as our recent roundtable participants were candid about, is that very few organisations feel they are actually delivering it yet. 

As one pharma exec we recently spoke with put it: "We took yesterday's operating model and put it on today's technology."

Investment in AI is significant and accelerating, but expectations of efficiency gains are moving faster than reality can support. Many organisations are compounding the pressure by reducing team sizes at the same time — asking people to do more, with less, in a landscape changing faster than most can keep up with.

Digital leaders are feeling this acutely. Many are now expected to function as AI experts and internal educators on top of their existing remit. The implication isn't that AI investment is wrong. It's that focus, realistic expectations and patience are essential. Identifying the right use cases for CX and engagement, rather than chasing efficiency gains across the board, is where the value actually is.

Hosted by Graphite's CEO, Rob Verheul, and Director of Client Partnerships, Simon Young, our recent roundtable identified five foundational areas that determine whether the shift to a new engagement model actually succeeds. Get these wrong, and no amount of AI orchestration will close the gap between what pharma produces and what HCPs value.

1. Insight and data 

Good decisions require good insight, and right now most organisations don't have it. The data captured to inform engagement decisions measures activity rather than value, and rarely reflects whether what's being delivered is useful to HCPs. Meanwhile, commissioning meaningful primary research is becoming harder, meaning key decisions are being made without the grounding they need.

• Is our data telling us about genuine HCP value, or just engagement activity?
• Are we investing sufficiently in user research to understand what HCPs actually need?
• Do we have the right value measures in place, or are we optimising for the wrong things?

2. People and capabilities

AI investment is accelerating, but expectations of efficiency gains are moving faster than reality can support. Many organisations are reducing team sizes at the same time, asking people to do more with less in a landscape that is changing faster than most can keep up with. Digital leads are now expected to function as AI experts and internal educators on top of their existing remit. The stress this is creating is real.

• Do our people have the skills and confidence to work effectively in an AI-enabled environment?
• Are we being realistic about what our teams can absorb alongside existing responsibilities?
• Are we identifying the right AI use cases for CX and engagement, rather than chasing efficiency gains across the board?

3. Journeys and content

Most journeys are still planned around brand and product cycles, not real HCP decision moments. Content being migrated into new platforms is often campaign-specific and single-use, built for brand objectives rather than customer needs. Automation is being applied to journeys that were never well-defined in the first place.

• Are our journeys defined around real customer decision moments, or our internal planning cycles?
• Is our content built to be modular, reusable and assembled dynamically?
• How much of what we're scaling was built for brand campaigns rather than genuine customer value?

4. Systems

Fragmented legacy infrastructure constrains local delivery, while global platform decisions are being made faster than local teams can adapt. The tension between centralised consistency and local flexibility remains largely unresolved.

• Do our platforms enable connected experiences, or do they reinforce siloes?
• Is the pace of global platform adoption realistic given local capability?
• Are design systems enabling consistency without blocking local teams?

5. Governance

Who actually decides which journeys matter? Who determines what should scale and what should stop? In most organisations, that layer of experience judgement has no clear owner, and KPIs continue to reward reach and volume over genuine HCP value.

• Who has the mandate to decide what customer experiences should exist across the enterprise?
• Are our incentive structures driving the right behaviours?
• Where does decision-making break down between enterprise, portfolio, market and brand?

The group's collective view: without getting these foundations right, the industry risks widening the value gap rather than closing it.

HCPs are increasingly sourcing information from LLMs rather than pharma-owned channels. Pharma content makes up a tiny fraction of what these models serve, and organisations have no control over what is surfaced or how it's framed. 

Very few organisations have a coherent response to this yet, but waiting for consensus isn't an option.

Based on what came out of the roundtable, these are the most common indicators that the foundations aren't in place:

This was one of the more honest conversations we've had about where the industry genuinely is, versus where it says it is. The participants brought a level of candour that meant for an honest and productive discussion.

We're continuing this conversation next month with a virtual roundtable exploring the same themes, and giving more leaders the opportunity to share what they're seeing from their own organisations. 

If you'd like to join us, get in touch with the team to register your interest.

And if you'd like to stay informed about upcoming events, research and thinking from Graphite, you can subscribe to our email updates here.