A structured decision framework for healthcare media programs. Four pillars that must be resolved in sequence before investment is deployed with confidence — each one accelerated by the planning engine. Most programs that underperform have a gap in at least one.
Each layer depends on the integrity of the one before it — audience before channel, channel before spend, spend before measurement.
Who are the priority HCPs, how are they defined, and what data identifies and reaches them with precision?
What is the role of each channel, how do they sequence, and what does the full architecture look like across paid, owned and field touchpoints?
How is investment allocated across channels and vendors, what is the rationale, and how does it connect to commercial objectives?
What are the KPIs, how is attribution structured, and what governance ensures performance data drives actual decisions?
Strategy before scale. Clarity before spend. The most expensive mistakes happen when spend precedes strategy — so the decisions are sequenced deliberately.
A structured review of the current state — strategy documents, vendor contracts, measurement setup, commercial objectives — establishing the baseline and which pillars are resolved.
Across the four pillars, Cadence identifies structural weaknesses — not just execution gaps. Audience logic on the wrong data; channel architecture driven by vendor relationships; attribution that cannot support optimization.
A documented, commercially defensible recommendation — scored in the planning engine, sequenced by priority, and built to be reviewed with agency partners, brand leadership and commercial stakeholders.
The accountability structure that keeps strategy operative after the engagement — vendor reporting requirements, optimization decision rules, escalation paths and review cadences.
For embedded engagements, ongoing review of how the strategy performs against its documented rationale — so the program gets smarter over time rather than drifting back toward vendor convenience.
The NPI list came from the vendor. The audience was defined by what was available, not what the commercial strategy requires — and never independently reviewed.
Two vendors, two models, two stories about what is working. Leadership cannot make a confident reallocation decision without an agreed source of truth.
Several partners with overlapping capabilities, unclear accountability, and no one who can produce a unified performance picture.
Launch is months out, the agency is asking for the brief, and there is no documented strategy leadership can review and approve.
An incumbent relationship under review. The team needs an independent view of what the strategy should require — not a pitch evaluation.
Performance suggests the mix is off, but there is no documented rationale for how the current allocation was decided.
A brief conversation is enough to identify which pillar is the highest-value entry point for your current situation.