Pharma Brand Website and Online Campaigns > CONTINUED
C) Answers for: ”Which content and tactics are & are not effective?”
Our client used web analytics to see which content was viewed, but it couldn’t tell them whether than content actually worked to persuade its viewers to take action. 
We isolated the impact of each page and tactic to see what does and doesn’t work and obtained many actionable findings, as follows:
- Product information isn’t working. While product information was the most viewed content, it actually convinced some visitors NOT to talk to their doctor. This actually didn’t come as a huge surprise to the team, but it did provide the evidence needed to fix it.
- Risk information worked even better than expected.
- Content about “What to Expect When Using” had a very high impact on its viewers. Since only a small minority could find it, it needed to be made much more prominent.
Actions & Results
- Directly informed content expansion and navigation. These insights provided clear direction on how the site, its design, and its content needed to be improved and are guiding the redesign and enhancement.
- Informed messaging and tactics. They also helped the team to better understand how their different messaging impacts their target in a “live” environment.
D) Answers for: “Who is really visiting? Why? What do they need?”
It doesn’t get more fundamental than knowing your audience. Yes, while our client had extensive research on their overall target and could track every visitor’s activity at the website, they knew little about who was visiting the site, why, and whether the site met visitors’ needs. 
- Over 70% of visitors weren’t in their target audience. These visitors already had a prescription. This represents over 400,000 visitors a year who weren’t being impacted by their visit to the site and weren’t finding what they needed.
- The non-user target was far more knowledgable about the product and the condition that the client’s typical target. These people needed and expected more in-depth information, rather than the basics. Few could find it.
- Those visits to the healthcare profession (HCP) section of the site really were mostly HCPs. A surprisingly low portion (only 4%) of consumers visited the HCP section of the website. The client had assumed that most visitors at the HCP section were consumers. In reality, they were mostly HCPs (not only doctors, but also many pharmacists, nurses, and more). And, many of the HCP visitors to the consumer site never went to the HCP site.
Actions & Results
- These insights drove website redesign and content for in-offce and direct marketing campaigns. These insights also directly drove many of the designs for the redesign and enhancement of content.
- The HCP site received more attention and budget. Especially since many high value HCPs really were coming to the site for information.
Summary: The “demystification” of the impact of the brand’s website
Our initiative changed the way the brand team viewed the website and the online campaigns. The online marketer had clear proof that it really did impact the target audience, even more so than she and her agency thought. They also had a much better understanding of their audience and how to drive even more to take action. Additionally:
- The team and the agency began a site redesign, using the knowledge and insights provided to guide decisions. Not only will this help their business, but it will be especially helpful to provide much more compelling information to those already on product.
- The budget for online increased by 40%.
- The impact of online marketing was “demystified” and the online brand manager got much more support and respect.
<< Back to the first page of this case study