Trust goes up, not down
At the pharma where we replaced the existing setup, costs fell by roughly three quarters and the answers got better, because reconciliation on every feed meant the numbers held when someone challenged them.
for Pharma
In market
You have a product in market paying the bills and another one coming. The job is to free cash for the launch without touching the brand, the field, or the pipeline. The plumbing under the product that is already selling is where that money is, and it is usually the largest line nobody has looked at.
We take over an existing commercial data operation and run it for about a quarter of what it costs today.
Trying this does not spend your powder
Out of scope
This is not a commercial budget exercise. Everything that protects revenue or the pipeline stays exactly where it is.
The arithmetic
Note which line does not move. The syndicated data contracts are the biggest number and the one everybody assumes is the target. They are not. The cost is in what it takes to run the data, not in buying it.
| Line | What you pay for today | After |
|---|---|---|
| People | A bench of commercial data engineers, or an offshore pod, or both, plus whatever internal IT time gets charged against the brand. | One to three of our engineers. The structural change is that automation carries the load a headcount count used to. |
| Consulting retainer | A multi-year analytics agreement billing analyst hours at around $300, which never transfers anything back to you. | Gone. A flat monthly rate set at scoping, with the platform in your repository from the first sprint. |
| Software | Per-seat data quality and observability licences layered on top of the warehouse you already pay for. | Apache 2.0 underneath, running in your cloud. No per-seat licence and nothing that expires when we leave. |
| Syndicated data | IQVIA, Symphony, specialty pharmacy, claims. The largest line, and the one everybody assumes is the target. | Unchanged. We work with the feeds you already buy. This is not a data-contract renegotiation. |
| Analyst time | Thirty to fifty percent of your analyst bench doing data janitorial work at a fully loaded analyst rate. | That time comes back to analysis. It is the saving that never shows up as a line item and costs the most. |
Documented
$1M → $300K
One pharma's annual data cost after we replaced what they had.
Same people, same questions, and more trust in the numbers, because reconciliation ran on every feed instead of on the ones somebody remembered to guard. That matters more here than on a launch: the in-market product is paying for the pipeline, so its numbers are the last thing that can get shakier.
The objection
The product in market is funding everything, including the launch you are saving for. If cutting its data cost made its numbers shakier, the trade would not be worth making. It does the opposite, and that is the whole reason this works.
At the pharma where we replaced the existing setup, costs fell by roughly three quarters and the answers got better, because reconciliation on every feed meant the numbers held when someone challenged them.
It is paying for everything, including the pipeline. Seven of our engineers supported $10 billion in US sales across Revlimid, Otezla, and Immunology, with 10 to 12 analysts covering hundreds of datasets and no missed SLAs.
Only 18 percent of engineering time at Celgene went to data loading. The rest went to new analyst work, which is what a bench of loaders never gets to.
How a takeover runs
No cutover date. We take feeds over one at a time with tests on them first, so there is never a single day when everything has to work.
Assess
We measure what you are running now: which feeds arrive, what they cost, what tests exist, and which reports the field actually depends on. You get a coverage number and a finding list you did not have before, whether or not you go further.
A defensible picture of the current operation.
Take over
We inherit the platform feed by feed, tests first, so coverage exists before anything changes underneath it. Your incumbent can keep running while we do it. Nothing gets switched off on a date somebody picked in a plan.
Tested coverage on the feeds that matter, with no cutover event.
Run leaner
One to three engineers operate what a bench plus a retainer used to. The load is carried by generated tests, observability that triages its own failures, and a FITT architecture that does not need a person awake at 2am to survive a late vendor file.
A lower structural run-rate, not a one-time cost exercise.
Ready
The platform now running your in-market product is the one your next launch plugs into. The feeds are already tested, the dimensions already modelled, the team already knows your data. Launch prep stops being a second capital project.
You do not pay twice.
Your existing setup
Does it last
A consultancy runs a cost-reduction project and leaves, and the run-rate drifts back within a year.
We change the structure instead: generated tests rather than a hand-written suite that decays, learned volume bounds rather than thresholds someone comments out, and a two-stage architecture with nothing in the middle to maintain.
Nobody has to police the saving for it to persist.
The part nobody budgets for
Most companies fund the in-market data operation and then fund a second capital project to build a launch platform beside it. The platform running your marketed product is the one the next launch plugs into: feeds already tested, dimensions already modelled, a team that already knows your data. Launch prep stops being a separate line.
Questions
Thirty minutes. Bring the current run-rate, the feeds, and who is running them today. We will tell you what we think it could cost instead, and if we are not the right answer we will say so and recommend who is.
Trust · Speed · Value · Yours