As the typical client–agency relationship has completely evolved in recent years, we are keen to understand what makes a great client–agency relationship in today’s environment. And how might this change going forward?
Ten years ago, the typical client–agency relationship in pharma looked very different—and in many ways, far simpler. Many pharmaceutical companies operated under the agency-of-record (AOR) model. A relatively small group of trusted agencies handled most of the communications work. These weren’t just vendors delivering outputs; they were embedded partners who understood the brand, the therapy area, the internal politics and the long-term strategy. The relationship was built over time. Agencies knew whom to call, how decisions were made, and where the real strategic debates were happening.
In return, clients expected agencies to do more than produce campaigns. They expected thinking. Challenge. Partnership.
Agencies were often in the room when strategy was being shaped, not just when it was time to execute it. They worked closely with both marketing and medical teams, and because relationships were relatively stable, they could invest and build deep knowledge of brands, their scientific data and evidence, and the competitive environment, as well as develop enduring and insightful HCP relationships.
It wasn’t perfect, of course. But broadly speaking, the relationship was collaborative and long-term. Procurement existed, but it wasn’t necessarily the primary architect of agency partnerships. The emphasis was more on building trusted relationships that could deliver over the brand’s life cycle.
That was the “old normal”.
Then five years ago, the world changed—fast.
COVID didn’t just disrupt healthcare systems; it forced pharmaceutical companies to rethink how they develop, commercialise and communicate about medicines. Almost overnight, traditional engagement models broke down. Field forces couldn’t meet healthcare professionals. Conferences disappeared. Established channels of communication stalled.
The response? A massive acceleration toward digital engagement.
Organisations that had been cautiously experimenting with virtual meetings, digital content and omnichannel engagement suddenly had no choice but to embrace them at speed and scale. Teams learned—quickly—how to work differently, collaborate remotely and operate in a much more fluid environment.
And once that door was opened, it didn’t close again.
At the same time, financial pressure on the industry has intensified. Pricing pressures, rising R&D costs, governmental agreements and tariffs and increasingly competitive markets have sharpened the focus on efficiency. Pharmaceutical companies are under constant pressure to do more with less—and that pressure inevitably shapes how they work with their agencies.
One clear result has been the growing emphasis on local market implementation of global programmes. Instead of multiple markets developing their own campaigns independently, organisations increasingly prioritise global strategies designed to be deployed across regions. The logic is clear: streamline investment, ensure consistency and maximise efficiency.
But efficiency comes with trade-offs.
Global programmes often entail more centralised decision-making and tighter budget control. Procurement teams have become significantly more influential in shaping agency relationships, introducing formalised review processes, rate benchmarking, supplier consolidation exercises, and preferred supplier lists.
None of this is inherently problematic. Procurement plays a critical role in ensuring financial discipline and transparency. But it does raise an uncomfortable question: can a system primarily designed to optimise cost and supplier efficiency also sustain the kind of deep strategic partnerships many organisations say they still want from their agencies? When relationships are increasingly defined through rate cards, the space for long-term strategic collaboration can become harder to maintain.
At the same time, regulatory and compliance pressures have continued to grow. The pharmaceutical communications environment is already one of the most tightly regulated in any industry, and rightly so. However, scrutiny has only intensified. Every piece of communication must navigate complex approval pathways, and agencies must constantly balance creativity with compliance.
Layer onto this the increasing perception that some services—particularly production and execution—are becoming commoditised. When outputs are highly specified and tightly controlled, differentiation can be harder to demonstrate. The risk is that agencies are seen less as strategic partners and more as interchangeable suppliers.
And now, of course, there’s the next wave of disruption: artificial intelligence.
Like every other industry, pharma is currently trying to figure out what AI actually means in practice. The potential applications are vast—content creation, data analysis, insight generation, and workflow automation. But the rules are still being written. Clients and agencies alike are experimenting, cautiously in some cases, enthusiastically in others, all with compliance regulations in mind.
What’s clear is that AI will almost certainly reshape how communications are created and delivered. But what will it mean for the client-agency relationship? Will it strengthen partnerships, or further commoditise certain aspects of agency work?
Another important tension that agencies must navigate lies within client organisations themselves, where priorities and considerations often not only don’t align but are also at odds. Marketing teams are under pressure to deliver brand growth, differentiation and measurable engagement. Medical teams must prioritise scientific credibility, educational value and strict compliance with regulatory frameworks. As noted above, procurement teams are responsible for ensuring financial discipline, transparency, and efficiency across supplier relationships.
Agencies, meanwhile, face their own commercial realities. They must invest in talent, technology and specialist expertise while navigating fee pressures, competitive pitches and fluctuating workloads. Agencies are expected to deliver both strategic insight and flawless execution—often under increasingly tight timelines and budgets.
Then there is perhaps the biggest structural change of all: fragmentation.
The communications ecosystem in pharma has exploded in complexity over the last few years. Where once a handful of agencies might have covered most needs, today’s environment includes specialists in digital engagement, medical education, patient advocacy, behavioural science, data analytics, omnichannel strategy and AI-enabled services.
The result? Most pharmaceutical companies now work with far more agencies than they did a decade ago.
For clients, this creates access to deep expertise and cutting-edge capabilities. But it also creates coordination challenges. Managing multiple agencies across global programmes requires significant internal orchestration.
And for agencies, it changes the nature of the relationship.
When a client works with ten agencies instead of three, the likelihood of a deep, long-term strategic partnership inevitably shrinks. Relationships become narrower in scope and more focused on specific deliverables. In other words, more transactional.
This shift is reinforced by the growing emphasis on implementing global campaigns rather than developing locally driven strategies. Local agencies may now spend more time adapting and executing global assets than shaping upstream strategy.
Meanwhile, many pharmaceutical companies are simultaneously building more capabilities in-house. Content production, data analytics, digital operations and even elements of strategy are increasingly internalised.
So, the landscape today is undeniably more complex than it was ten years ago:
More stakeholders. More agencies. More specialisation. More pressure on budgets. More technological transformation.
And yet, despite all this change, one surprisingly basic question remains largely unanswered: ‘What makes a great client–agency relationship in today’s environment? And how might this change going forward?’
Is the traditional long-term partnership still the gold standard—or is it simply unrealistic in a world of fragmented expertise and globally-led programmes? Do clients genuinely want strategic agency partners, or are they increasingly prioritising flexible specialist suppliers? Are agencies adapting fast enough to the changing expectations of marketing, medical and procurement teams?
Perhaps most importantly, are the current models working for either side? And is the tension many people experience in today’s client–agency relationships not a consequence of declining collaboration or goodwill, but rather something more fundamental; that these partnership approaches or models were designed for a very different era and are not fit for purpose in 2026?
Despite the central role that agencies play in supporting pharmaceutical communications, there is remarkably little evidence exploring how these relationships are functioning today—or how they might evolve in the future.
Where are relationships now compared with the “old normal”? What models do stakeholders actually prefer? What are the benefits and frustrations on both sides?
And beyond structures and contracts, are there fundamental behaviours that underpin successful collaboration regardless of the agency shape, size, speciality or model? Trust, transparency, shared goals, clear communication—do these still matter as much as ever, even in a more transactional ecosystem?
These questions sit at the heart of the discussion we need to have and are going to have at The Pharmony Summit meeting on the 9th June this year.
Because the reality is that the client–agency relationship isn’t disappearing—it’s evolving. The challenge now is to understand how to make it work better in a world that is more fragmented, more pressured and more technologically disrupted than ever before.
At the Pharmony Summit Meeting, we’ll be revealing findings from the first market research designed to explore how pharma clients and agencies really view their relationships today — the different models they operate within, the pressures they’re navigating, and what actually makes those partnerships work.
We’ll also be looking ahead: how these relationships are evolving, and what the “new normal” for client–agency collaboration in pharma might look like.
And we want to hear from you.
Whether you’ll be at the meeting or not (and we very much hope you will be!), please share your perspective on what matters most in today’s — and tomorrow’s — client–agency relationships by completing the short survey here.
There are limited spaces, so register your interest early by emailing Ermelinde.
Everyone who takes part will receive a detailed summary of the findings once they’ve been unveiled at the meeting.
Help us re-evaluate the pharma-agency relationship of the future.
***********
Article developed by the Agency Model Workstream: Amanda Smith, Versantra; Angie Wiles, The Difference; Roderick Ball (Individual Perspective); Mark Silcock, AbbVie; Dave Ford, LVC
Pharmony is a PM Society initiative focused on strengthening collaboration between pharmaceutical companies and agencies amid significant change.