Personalising portals: exploring new models of HCP digital engagement

Across our work with clients, we consistently see the same core challenges emerge. Here are five tensions that most often hold back HCP portal performance.

1. Internal priorities vs user needs
   
   There’s often a disconnect between what internal teams want to communicate and what HCPs actually need. Brand narratives aim to persuade and differentiate. But HCPs visit portals for something more practical: clear, actionable information that helps them in daily practice. When storytelling outweighs service, the result is a disconnect.
   
2. Essential content vs true utility
   
   Most portals offer the same core content: safety data, prescribing information, and patient resources. These are essential, but not distinctive. What is often missing is true utility — tools, case studies, or content that solves real-world problems for users. Without that, portals struggle to stand out or earn return visits.
   
3. Global vs local
   
   Portals are often built as global platforms to ensure consistency and efficiency. But HCP needs vary widely between markets — from regulation to language to clinical context. Local teams are expected to adapt, yet often lack the tools or support to do it well. The result is either generic content or fragmented localisation.
   
4. Usability vs compliance
   
   Compliance is essential — but when it dominates the design process, usability suffers. Navigation, access, and content layout are often shaped by internal risk controls rather than user logic. The result: clunky experiences, gated content, and uneven journeys. At scale, the friction compounds.
   
5. Data collection vs user trust
   
   Personalisation relies on user data. But asking HCPs to register, select preferences, or share behaviours introduces friction. Without a clear value exchange, trust can erode. If the benefits aren’t obvious and immediate, many users simply opt out.

These tensions aren’t just design flaws — they reflect structural realities. Brand, commercial, global, and market teams bring different goals, and portals often become a compromise between them.

A new model is starting to emerge — one that flips the traditional structure. Instead of leading with a brand or therapy area, the experience begins with the user identifying who they are.

An HCP selects their role, speciality, or interests. Based on that input, the portal surfaces relevant content — from educational resources to patient tools, video snippets to webinar invitations — structured around their needs, not the internal hierarchy.

This approach promises a more focused, relevant experience from the outset — and one that can evolve over time. But while the benefits are clear in theory, the complexity behind the scenes is significant: from data infrastructure and platform design to content governance and compliance alignment.

To explore how this emerging model stacks up against current practice, we’ve compared the two side by side — referring to the traditional approach as brand-centric, and the user-led alternative as persona-centric.

These two models represent opposite ends of a continuum. In reality, most organisations will fall somewhere in between — but comparing the two extremes helps to explore the full range of strategic options.

The brand-centric model puts individual product brands at the centre, giving teams the freedom and agility to curate their own brand experiences. But the result is often fragmented, with little consistency across brands or markets.

The persona-centric model unifies the experience around the user, structured within a single global platform with its own overarching brand. This approach has the potential to create more coherent journeys, but it depends heavily on strong brand architecture and central governance to avoid confusion or dilution.

Let’s consider some of the differences between these models in terms of implementation:

Brand focus

• Brand-centric model: Focuses on individual product brands, giving teams greater freedom to build distinct brand experiences, especially around launches.
• Persona-centric model: Centres the experience on the parent brand, creating a unified platform. However, customers may relate more naturally to individual product names or generic terms rather than the overarching corporate brand.

User experience

• Brand-centric portals often follow familiar patterns, but tend to feel generic or promotional.
• Persona-centric portals offer more relevant experiences — but they ask more of the user, and require real value in return to justify the exchange.

Omnichannel integration

• Brand-centric models are easier to align with campaign activity and omnichannel pathways, as users are connected to a single brand or product journey.
• Persona-centric models require deeper integration across email, field reps, and third-party platforms. They also need more robust infrastructure to deliver relevant content consistently across channels.

Search performance

• Brand-centric portals typically perform well in SEM (Search Engine Marketing) and AEO (Answer Engine Optimisation) for product-specific terms.
• Persona-centric platforms need a broader content and SEO strategy — backed by strong taxonomy and user understanding.

Feasibility

• Brand-centric models are easier to launch quickly and work well in siloed organisations, particularly those looking to invest in launch brands.
• Persona-centric requires alignment across brands, markets, and functions — but is more scalable long term.

On paper, the persona-centric model feels like the logical next step: it is more aligned to user needs and consistent with what we know about effective digital products, where offering a higher volume of relevant content leads to stronger engagement and a more valuable experience.

In practice, though, it is a significant undertaking. It requires shifts in priorities, operating models, content workflows, and regulatory processes. It also demands coordination across brands and functions, in organisations that are not currently structured to work in this way.

Meanwhile, the brand-centric model remains more feasible to implement today. It fits existing structures and enables speed and autonomy, especially around launches. However, it carries the risk of long-term fragmentation and lower levels of engagement.

The right solution for most organisations is likely to sit somewhere between the two: combining the flexibility of brand-led execution with more user-driven design, shared frameworks, and clearer pathways to personalisation over time.

Where the balance falls will vary by organisation, shaped by how strongly they prioritise user-centred design versus the influence of internal brand, commercial, and sales teams.

Ultimately, the route chosen reflects not just a digital strategy, but an organisational mindset — and a strategic intent to create more meaningful value in customer relationships.