By Rob Wright
We at Life Science Leader magazine are continually trying to provide our readers with the editorial they care about. You may be thinking, “That is what they all say.” Maybe that is true. However, this past November and December, we conducted a survey of our readers in an effort to meet the above objective. When you speak, we really do listen!
I am pleased to share some of the results that we have thus far. I say thus far, because the survey is ongoing. If you didn’t yet respond, check your email and search for the subject titled “Last Chance To Win — 2011 Burrill & Company Annual Report.” With your feedback, we can continue to make Life Science Leader the industry’s essential business source.
Here is something you may find interesting. Ninety-two percent of respondents feel that the magazine is achieving a good balance between broad versus niche editorial coverage. One respondent commented, “Good balance across biomedical, but could benefit from additions such as diagnostics, ag-biotech, and industrial biotech.” Obviously, we appreciate the feedback and will look into these other areas. Another interesting statistic was that nearly 80% of respondents feel we are achieving the right balance between business and technical-related editorial. Though one reader thinks we can do more on the business side, “Please put more emphasis on the business content — I have plenty of technical resources already.” Message received. In response, we decided to put together a monthly column on leadership development, always a hot topic in business.
One of Life Science Leader’s goals is to reach pharmaceutical and biopharma executives with more best-business-practice type of editorial (as compared to technical articles) with content ranging from early stages of product development through commercialization. That is why I wanted to share another respondent’s input stating we should do more on sales and marketing. Sorry to disappoint, but that’s probably not a suggestion we are going to implement at this time. Postcommercialization editorial is not the focus of this magazine, though I certainly realize the importance of sales in the overall process.
The last comment I would like to share is not being done to be self-indulgent, but to make a point. “I like the publication and prefer direct articles from the staff and peer/industry that have been vetted by the staff.” In the early stages of developing Life Science Leader, research clearly showed that readers from the market we desired (and continue to serve) preferred articles that are not vendor-driven infomercials. That is one reason why we have taken the initiative to put together an editorial advisory board. With their input, we will continue to strive to provide editorial that is valuable and actionable to you, our readers.