Biotech
The growth agency for biotech: meetings that hold up in MLR review.
Isovertic is the growth agency for healthcare, pharma, biotech, medical devices, and life sciences. This page is about biotech: therapeutics companies pre-clinical through commercial, research services, translational programs, and platform companies with a scientific buyer. Many biotech operators also have a device arm, a diagnostics pipeline, or a hospital-facing service line. If that is you, our [medical devices page](/industries/medical-devices), [life sciences tools and diagnostics page](/industries/life-sciences-tools-and-diagnostics), and [healthcare page](/industries/healthcare) show what changes when the buyer is a lab director, a director of clinical affairs, or a practice administrator.
Founders, chief executive officers, chief scientific officers, VP of research, VP of regulatory, VP of communications, VP of commercial, medical and legal and regulatory reviewers, principal investigators running startups, and directors of translational research are not allergic to marketing. You are allergic to someone sanding off the scientific conditions until a result means something it did not mean. Fair.
The honest big thing is that a biotech page can be technically literate and still be commercially unsafe. A claim has an audience, a qualification, a source, and sometimes a regulatory boundary. FDA's guidance on [communications about unapproved uses of approved or cleared medical products](https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/communications-firms-health-care-providers-regarding-scientific-information-unapproved-uses) is not a suggestion to let promotional work wander into medical affairs.
We help your team publish work that a researcher can read without wincing and a reviewer can trace without detective work. You get a production process that respects translational research, commercial deadlines, and the person who has to approve the final asset.
We have worked with several independent marketers and digital marketing firms over the years, with mixed results. Working with George Stoff and the Isovertic team was a meaningful change. They were responsive, easy to work with, and substantially improved our online visibility and the volume of qualified inbound leads.
Their work contributed to approximately a 300% increase in qualified inbound inquiries, leading us to implement an automated response workflow to manage the increased volume. We have been very pleased with the results and would highly recommend George and the Isovertic team.
Start with Ground State at $3,000 per month and add the MLR review gate. If you already have a clear offer, an approved intake path, and $1,000 to $5,000 a month available for Google Ads, Excitation is the next sensible choice. Pricing is published.
What you'll take away
- How to keep a scientific claim connected to the study, label, or approved source behind it.
- What an MLR review gate changes for a founder, chief scientific officer, VP of research, and VP of commercial.
- How to distinguish commercial communication from scientific exchange around unapproved uses.
- What the Ingenious Targeting Laboratory results mean, and what they do not prove.
- Which package makes sense before a biotech team adds more channels or agencies.
What actually breaks in biotech marketing
The claim that outruns the evidence
A study in a selected model, cell line, or small clinical cohort can support a narrow statement. It does not automatically support efficacy in a broader patient population or superiority against a competitor. The draft gets faster when every claim starts with its evidence. It gets slower when the citation appears only after someone asks for it.
Medical, legal, and regulatory review becomes a parking lot
Review is not the enemy. An unclear owner, a missing reference set, and version confusion are the enemy. A VP of communications should not be mediating whether a paragraph is approved because nobody can find the current source.
Commercial and scientific work blur together
A principal investigator may want to discuss a compelling translational hypothesis while the VP of commercial needs a clear request for a meeting. Both can be legitimate. They are not interchangeable, especially around an IND, an ANDA, an investigational use, or an unapproved use.
The site sounds fluent but not native
Scientists notice imprecise model names, vague endpoints, and a methods section that has been written like a brochure. They notice quickly. One suspicious paragraph can make the rest of the page work much harder than it should.
What we do differently for biotech
An MLR review gate with a named owner
For biotech, the usual add-on is the MLR review gate, $500 to $1,200 per month plus setup. We maintain a sign-off log, route each asset to the medical, legal, and regulatory reviewer you name, and keep an approved claim library your team can reuse. The goal is not to bypass review. It is to make the review record usable. A VP of regulatory should be able to see the source, the reviewer, the version, and the release date without opening five folders.
Evidence discipline for scientific claims
We attach a source to the claim before the copy moves forward. That source might be a peer-reviewed paper, protocol, prescribing information, investigator brochure, validation dataset, or an internally approved summary. We record the population, model, endpoint, limitation, and intended audience. A founder or chief scientific officer can still speak plainly. Plain language does not require pretending that a mouse model is a patient.
Clear boundaries for scientific information
FDA's guidance addresses firms communicating scientific information on unapproved uses of approved or cleared products. The current FDA guidance is the place to start with your regulatory lead. We work from the approved boundary, then label and route material so commercial requests do not become informal medical claims.
Pages that respect the researcher's question
We write for a scientist trying to decide whether your platform, assay, therapeutic hypothesis, or contract research organization can answer a real experimental question. The page needs the right biological context, model limitations, readout, and next step. We have a method for deciding what to publish. We do not publish that method. Your audience sees a useful explanation and a clear route to the scientist or commercial person who can answer the next question.
Measurement tied to the sales conversation
A VP of commercial needs to know whether an inquiry became a qualified discussion, material transfer conversation, study request, partnership conversation, or dead end. We connect the published work and paid activity to that record, then review the result with the people who can interpret it. A document download by itself is not a commercial result. It may be the beginning of one.
What actually shows up each month
Every package includes named deliverables, not strategy. On Ground State at $3,000 per month, each month you get one article published on your site, one newsletter sent to your list, eight social posts, one short monthly report, and the website rebuild and hosting spread across the year. On Excitation at $5,000 per month plus advertising spend, you also get one managed Google Ads campaign, one campaign landing page refreshed as needed, 16 social posts, an automated inbound response within 30 seconds, and a monthly strategy call with the account lead. The full list of add-ons, including the MLR review gate, lives on the pricing page.
Proof, before the pitch
Ingenious Targeting Laboratory, a mouse model company selling to research scientists and principal investigators, moved from 13 monthly form submissions to about 64 in its first eight months with Isovertic. Its organic search traffic rose 3.7 times in that period. Internal, September 2026. Those are internal operating results for one account, not a controlled study, and they should be read as one account's operating record.
The useful lesson is not that every biotech company will reproduce those numbers. Ingenious Targeting Laboratory had a specific scientific audience, a technical offer, and a team able to respond to inquiries. The work gave researchers clear routes into the relevant model and service information, while the commercial team had a usable record of what prospects asked for. That is the standard we care about: evidence a chief scientific officer trusts and conversations a VP of commercial can act on.
For a company developing a therapeutic, the same operating shape changes with the evidence and regulatory stage. For a research-services company, it changes with the assay, cell line, animal model, gene knockout, or humanized mouse in question. The production process stays disciplined. The approved substance does the changing.
The package you'd probably start on
Start with Ground State at $3,000 per month and add the MLR review gate. Ground State includes a website rebuild across the year, one published article each month, one newsletter, eight social posts, hosting, and a short monthly report. It is a 12-month engagement. It gives a chief scientific officer, a VP of regulatory, and the reviewer enough room to establish the claim library and approval rhythm before paid work adds another moving part.
If you already have a clear offer, an approved intake path, and $1,000 to $5,000 a month available for Google Ads, Excitation at $5,000 per month plus advertising spend is the next sensible choice. It adds one managed campaign, a landing page, an automated inbound response within 30 seconds, and a monthly strategy call. We will not advise paid work before the evidence and review path can support it.
The honest limits
We cannot manufacture clinical data, accelerate an FDA decision, or make an early research signal into proof of patient benefit. We cannot make an investigator answer inquiries faster. And we cannot replace your medical, legal, regulatory, or scientific judgment. We can give those people a process that is easier to inspect and run.
Disclaimer
This piece is a marketing operating framework, not legal advice. Promotional review for biotech depends on your regulatory status, product stage, and applicable FDA guidance. The controlling sources include the FDA guidance on communications from firms about unapproved uses and your company's approved labeling. Consult qualified regulatory counsel before implementing any of the above.
Scientific content is written to terminology controls a molecular biologist on staff set, before it ships to a client's MLR reviewer. That review catches the small terminology mistakes that would waste a reviewer's cycle and delay a launch by a week.
What founders ask first
Content is produced inside a documented technical system with a claim library, terminology controls, and review gates built for life science accuracy. The claim library and terminology controls were set by a molecular biologist on staff.
Yes, with separate sequences and offers per segment.
Revenue is reviewed against the real sales cycle at month six and month twelve, while the early scorecard reports pages live, impressions, relevant traffic, inquiries, and meetings.
That is our deepest pattern.
Yes. We complete your security questionnaire, hand your auditor our subprocessor list and a map of where your data sits for a SOC 2 review, and sign a business associate agreement wherever protected health information is in scope. Quoted per request.
Send us your best-converting landing page, or your current MLR-reviewed pillar page.
If you would rather talk it through, book a pipeline call and send us your best-converting landing page, or your current MLR-reviewed pillar page. In about ten minutes we will tell you what is unclear, whether the fix is an MLR review gate or a smaller correction, and what a rebuild would cost, or whether you need one at all. Sometimes the honest answer is you are already fine, and we are happy to say so and hand you back your afternoon.
George Stoff, Founder and Lead Engineer
Full-stack engineer with more than 30 years building the systems companies sell through. He built the method Isovertic runs on and stays on every account as the standards owner and the escalation path. When search algorithms shift or a compliance question comes up, you get his engineering judgment. Day-to-day execution runs on the team he trained.
LinkedInKristen Coughlin, Chief Operating Officer
Trained molecular biologist. Ten years selling translational research products, then institutional operations at the Yale School of Medicine. She documented George's method, trained the team on it, and built the operation so the same system runs the same way on every account.
LinkedIn