As we approach 2026, life science commercial teams face a fascinating paradox: scientists are preparing to spend more, yet only 64% of executives feel confident they'll meet their revenue targets. This disconnect reveals both a challenge and an opportunity for our community.
Last week, I had the privilege of moderating a SAMPS webinar exploring the latest research from LINUS and SelectScience on the state of the marketing and commercial landscape. Joining me were Hamid Ghanadan (CEO, LINUS), Kerry Parker (CEO, SelectScience), Kristine Friscino (VP of Marketing, Nuclera), and Zoe Nilsson (Associate Director of Marketing, bit.bio). What emerged from our discussion wasn't just data – it was a roadmap for how commercial teams can work smarter in an increasingly complex environment.
Why 2025 Felt Hard (And What We'reLearning From It)
The report's finding that 2025 "felt hard" certainly resonated with our panellists. Kristine from Nuclera described navigating significant headwinds: funding shifts, layoffs, and recession concerns required substantial resilience from her team. The response? Sharper messaging and stricter prioritisation – doing fewer things, but doing them better.
This discipline is paying dividends. Rather than spreading resources across every conference and webinar opportunity, Nuclera now focuses on intentional participation with clear goals and comprehensive pre- and post-event strategies. Zoe from bit.bio echoed this approach, highlighting how their first user group meeting – the Human Cell Forum – created invaluable community connections and credibility through peer-to-peer engagement.
What's striking is that both organisations are thriving not despite these constraints, but partly because of them. The pressure has forced a return to fundamentals: understanding exactly who you're trying to reach, what they need, and how to deliver genuine value.
The Trust Gap: Where Scientists and Suppliers Diverge
Perhaps the most sobering finding from the research is the massive trust gap between how suppliers believe they build credibility and how scientists actually seek it. The numbers tell a stark story: 42% of scientists trust peer reviews and independent sources above all else, yet only 10% of executives prioritise this channel.
Kerry Parker captured the scale of this misalignment perfectly: three out of four most trusted channels are based on peer-to-peer content, yet supplier investment doesn't reflect this reality. As Hamid Ghanadan noted, scientists are making buying decisions halfway through their journey before they even speak to you. They're self-educating, asking AI for recommendations, and arriving at conferences with specific questions already prepared.
This shift has profound implications for budget allocation. The report reveals that companies are investing heavily in tactics that simply don't map to buyer trust or behaviour. Trade shows, for instance, consume significant budgets despite reaching only 30% of the potential scientific audience. Meanwhile, peer-reviewed content, independent validation, and thought leadership – the channels scientists actually trust – remain chronically underinvested.
The Mid-Funnel Problem: Where Revenue Goes to Die
One of the most actionable insights from the research centres on funnel effectiveness. Hamid shared a striking observation: the commercial funnel resembles something "about to have a heart attack." Companies generate names at the top, but then hit an anaemic choke point in the middle – with MQL and SQL conversion rates languishing at 2% and 7% respectively.
His conservative estimate? Our industry wastes $171 million annually due to this mid-funnel stagnation.
The root cause isn't just poor lead nurturing (though the research shows this is seen as the least effective stage by suppliers). It's a fundamental mismatch between the traditional traffic-based funnel approach and how scientists actually make decisions. As Kerry pointed out, if your strategy is based on name gathering rather than understanding intention and barriers to purchase, downstream tactics will inevitably falter.
Kristine and Zoe both emphasised that their organisations measure everything – but critically, they recognise that multiple touchpoints work together to nurture prospects toward conversion. The research suggests it takes between seven and nine meaningful interactions before a sales response in complex categories like mass spectrometry. Yet most sales teams give up after three attempts.
Content-First: The Strategy That Actually Works
A consistent theme throughout our discussion was the primacy of content over tactics. Kerry made this point emphatically: "This is not about tactics. This is not about saying my plan is three emails, a webinar, and whatever. This is about content."
The distinction matters. A tactical approach focuses on channels and frequency; a content-first approach starts with understanding what barriers stand in your audience's way and what genuinely helps them succeed. Zoe described bit.bio's commitment to creating educational resources that support researchers whether they buy or not: "We want you to be successful" isn't just a tagline – it's a bottom line that builds long-term trust.
Both Kristine and Zoe highlighted the power of authentic, evidence-based content. Scientists want to see that products do what they claim, backed by data and validated by peers. Application notes, customer case studies, collaborative research, technical webinars – these aren't nice-to-haves; they're the foundation of credibility in our space.
The report reinforces this: supplier websites, peer-reviewed journals, and platforms like SelectScience rank among the most trusted sources, precisely because they provide substantive, technically accurate information. Social media and print magazines, by contrast, barely register in scientists' decision-making processes.
Practical Steps Forward: What Our Community Can Do Now
So what should life science commercial teams actually do differently in 2026? Our panellists offered several concrete recommendations:
Conduct a sales optimisation assessment
According to Hamid, this represents "the biggest opportunity for fastest improvement." Before investing more in top-of-funnel activities, understand why your mid-funnel is stagnating. Are your lead qualification criteria too loose? Are you failing to identify and address genuine barriers to purchase?
Rebalance spend to match customer behaviour
The report provides clear guidance here. If scientists trust peer-to-peer content and independent sources, allocate budget accordingly. Consider how much you're spending on channels where less than 40% of scientists say they're "not applicable" to their buying journey – YouTube, social media, print magazines – and whether that investment might be better deployed elsewhere.
Develop thought leadership that creates ideological alignment
Hamid introduced a compelling framework: thought leadership isn't just sharing opinions; it's establishing your perspective on how particular aspects of science should be done for specific outcomes. This naturally segments your audience into three groups: those who agree (your primary target), those who don't care (your conversion opportunity), and those who oppose (waste no effort here). This filtering function makes everything downstream more efficient.
Leverage peer-to-peer social proof systematically
Both Zoe and Kristine emphasised the value of featuring customers and key opinion leaders in your content. User group meetings, customer testimonials, collaborative webinars, peer-reviewed publications – these formats build credibility in ways that brand-controlled content simply cannot match.
Structure web content for AI discoverability and human experience
As AI becomes scientists' "best friend" for product research (as Zoe noted), optimising your content for both AI platforms and human readers becomes critical. This means clear, structured, evidence-based content that can be easily parsed and recommended.
Invest in video and authentic formats
Both organisations are pushing heavily into video content in 2026. Why? It's harder for AI to replicate, it's inherently more human, and in an era of digital proliferation, authentic formats cut through the noise.
The Budget Paradox: Optimism Amid Uncertainty
Here's the encouraging news: despite current challenges, budgets for 2026 are holding steady, and scientists across academia and pharma report optimism about increased spending power. Hamid shared insights from a recent industry forecast predicting significant growth in our sector, with companies already seeing 3-5% year-over-year gains even in this challenging economy.
The implication? Demand exists. Sales are there to be converted. The question is whether commercial teams are positioned to capture this opportunity by aligning their strategies with how scientists actually make decisions.
Embracing the Human-AI Advantage
Our discussion inevitably touched on artificial intelligence, given its rapid adoption across commercial teams. The research shows 47% of executives are already using AI, primarily for content generation and lead scoring. However, both panellists and industry research agree: AI excels at personalisation and efficiency, but it cannot replace the authenticity, scientific credibility, and human connection that scientists value.
Kristine and Zoe were clear that while AI helps with formatting, proofreading, and ideation, their core content stems from original ideas, genuine hypotheses, and data-backed evidence. Scientists can spot AI-generated fluff, and it erodes the very trust we're working to build.
The smarter approach? Use AI to scale what already works – personalised outreach, automated workflows, content optimisation – while doubling down on the irreplaceable value of human expertise, peer validation, and genuine scientific insight.
Looking Ahead: The SAMPS Community's Role
As a volunteer-run organisation dedicated to sales and marketing professionals in life sciences, SAMPS exists to facilitate exactly these kinds of conversations. The insights shared during this webinar – and the relationships built through our community – represent our core value proposition: connecting practitioners facing similar challenges, sharing what works, and helping each other navigate this rapidly evolving landscape.
The themes discussed align perfectly with what SAMPS has championed for years: understanding your scientific audience deeply, leading with valuable content, building genuine relationships, and measuring what matters.
Final Thoughts: Quality Over Quantity, Always
If there's one overarching message from the research and our discussion, it's this: the era of traffic-based, name-gathering, spray-and-pray marketing is ending. Scientists are too sophisticated, budgets are too tight, and the competition is too fierce for inefficiency.
Success in 2026 will belong to organisations that genuinely understand their audiences, create content that delivers real value, align budgets with proven channels, and build trust through peer validation and scientific credibility. It's not about working harder; it's about working smarter by letting scientists' actual behaviour guide strategy.
The good news? The roadmap is clear, the opportunity is real, and our community is here to support you through the journey. Whether you're wrestling with mid-funnel stagnation, questioning your channel mix, or simply wondering how to do more with less, remember: you're not alone. That's exactly what SAMPS is here for.
To access the full report from LINUS and SelectScience, or to watch the complete webinar discussion, visit the SAMPS website. And if you're not yet part of our community, I encourage you to join us – because navigating these challenges is always easier when you're learning alongside peers who understand exactly what you're facing.
Annabel Sedgwick is a SAMPS Board Member and Managing Director of kdm communications, a specialist life sciences marketing agency.
