Illustrative case study · Healthcare & Life Sciences

In pharma, flat budgets still shrink the supplier list.

Biotech customers were trimming orders while pharma accounts ran supplier reviews. A lab-supply company setting next year’s sales plan needed to know where lab budgets would soften and which customers would cut suppliers. We interviewed 300 lab operations managers, and the report was ready in 14 days.

Illustrative scenario

Samplen = 300

Illustrative report

Biopharma Lab Operations Spending Pulse

Where will lab budgets soften next year, and which customers are about to cut suppliers?

Study architecture

Band the budgetsNext year’s budget change: cut, flat or growth

Mark the suppliersEvery current supplier marked keep, trim or drop

Track the spendConsumables, instruments and service contracts for next year

Scope

A flat budget can still mean fewer suppliers when a consolidation program sets the list.

Sample

300

Lab operations managers who approve supply orders at biotech companies and large pharma.

Research by

Study typeBudget outlook

ScenarioIllustrative

Lab spending pulse · Executive reportExecutive summary

Executive summary

Pharma is consolidating suppliers on flat budgets, and consumables hold everywhere

The 300 lab operations managers at biotech companies and large pharma placed next year’s budget in a pressure band and marked every supplier keep, trim or drop. More than a third expect cuts, mostly in biotech. Consumables hold in every band while instruments wait. Supplier cuts follow company type: 54% of flat-budget pharma managers plan a drop, against 19% of biotech managers facing cuts.

37%n = 300

expect a budget cut next year

78%n = 300

hold or grow consumables spend

54%n = 108

of flat-budget pharma plan a supplier drop

58%n = 117

would keep a supplier that takes on more lines

Figures rounded. Base n = 300 lab operations managers unless stated.

Top lines

1More than a third expect budget cuts, most of them in biotechBudget pressure bands03

2Flat-budget pharma plans more supplier drops than biotech facing cutsSupplier keep, trim or drop04

3Taking on more product lines would keep a supplierWhat would keep a supplier05

4Consumables hold in every band, and instrument purchases waitCategory spending plans06

5Sample, screener and quality controlWho we interviewed and how07

AAppendixQuestion flow and data tables09

Sample

300 lab operations managers

Segments

150 biotech, 150 large pharma

Method

Budget bands and a supplier sort

Horizon

The next budget year

Illustrative report. The company, scenario, and all figures are fictional.

Illustrative report02

Illustrative reportExecutive summary

Illustrative example. The company, scenario, and all figures are fictional. They show UserCue’s method and deliverable format. They do not come from any client study.

The engagement

Delivered in

days, with the report, the data file and a live readout.

Interviews

300

Lab operations managers who approve supply orders.

Audiences

150 at biotech companies and 150 at large pharma.

Method

Forecast

Next year’s budget band and every current supplier marked keep, trim or drop.

The brief

Client

A lab-supply company

Decision

Where to focus next year’s sales and stock as lab budgets shift

Stage

Market pulse, ahead of annual planning

How we ran it

Approach

AI-moderated interviews with budget bands and a supplier sort

Measured

Budget direction, supplier cuts, category spending plans

Sample

Lab operations managers at biotech companies and large pharma

Headline figures

Budgets37%

of lab operations managers expect next year’s budget to fall by more than 5%

Supplier cuts54%

of flat-budget pharma managers plan to drop a supplier, against 19% of biotech managers facing cuts

Consumables78%

expect consumables spend to hold or grow next year, including 71% of those facing cuts

The question

Where will lab budgets soften, and who is about to cut suppliers?

The supplier saw mixed signals: biotech customers trimming orders and pharma accounts running supplier reviews. Before setting next year’s sales plan, it went to the managers who approve lab supply orders, at biotech companies and at large pharma.

Which way are lab budgets moving over the next year?

Which suppliers and categories get cut first?

What will managers still buy, and where does spending hold?

What we did

How the study ran, start to finish.

1Kickoff
The sales plan waits on lab budgets.
Where will lab budgets soften next year, and which customers are about to cut us from their supplier list? The kickoff turned it into three questions: which way budgets are moving, which suppliers and categories go first, and what managers will still buy.
2Design
Biotech, pharma, three bands.
The screener let in lab operations managers who approve supply orders: 150 at biotech companies and 150 at large pharma. Expected budget change set three pressure bands, and each manager marked their own suppliers keep, trim or drop for the coming year.
3Fielding
300 managers, every drop followed up.
Managers spoke or typed, quant and qual in one conversation over a 19-minute median; every supplier marked drop drew a question on what would save it. The researcher read all 339 and removed 39 for rushed responses, clashing budget figures or non-lab roles, leaving 300.
4Analysis
Flat budgets, fewer suppliers.
The researcher ran category plans and supplier marks against pressure band: consumables held in every band, and supplier cuts tracked company type. Flat-budget pharma plans supplier drops at nearly three times the rate of biotech facing cuts, 54% to 19%.
5Readout
In pharma, more lines would keep a supplier.
The researcher led the commercial team through the 30-page report, the pressure-band model and the keep and drop tables at a live readout. Account teams now reach flat-budget pharma sites first, offering to take over lines from suppliers marked drop.

What we found

Four findings from the report.

Summary

More than a third of lab operations managers expect budget cuts next year, most of them in biotech. Consumables hold in every pressure band while instrument purchases wait. Supplier cuts follow company type: flat-budget pharma managers plan drops at nearly three times the rate of biotech managers facing cuts, 54% to 19%, and 58% of those planning a drop would keep a supplier that takes on more lines.

Lab spending pulse · Executive reportTop line 1

Top line 1 of 4

More than a third expect budget cuts, most of them in biotech

¹ How do you expect your lab’s operating budget to change next year? Single select, n = 300.

² Coded from open responses; see the appendix tables.

Managers placed next year’s lab budget in one of three pressure bands. 37% expect a cut of more than 5%, 54% expect a flat budget and 9% expect growth¹. Cuts concentrate in biotech, where 59% expect one, against 14% in large pharma; large pharma budgets mostly stay flat, at 72%.

37%n = 300

expect a budget cut

54%n = 300

expect a flat budget

59%n = 150

of biotech managers expect a cut

72%n = 150

of large pharma managers expect a flat budget

Next year’s lab budget, by pressure band

Expected budget change next year (n = 300 unless stated)

Biotech (n = 150)

CutFlatGrowth

Large pharma (n = 150)

CutFlatGrowth

Pressure bands from each manager’s expected change in their lab’s operating budget for next year: a cut of more than 5%, flat within 5%, or growth of more than 5%. Single select; shares are rounded.

Supporting evidence

Biotech managers who expect cuts most often tie them to the timing of their next funding round. § 3.2
Large pharma managers describe budgets set centrally and held flat for the year. § 3.3²

Illustrative report03

Lab spending pulse · Executive reportTop line 2

Top line 2 of 4

Flat-budget pharma plans more supplier drops than biotech facing cuts

¹ For each supplier you use today, will you keep, trim or drop them next year? n = 300.

² Trim and drop plans by band; see the appendix tables.

Each manager marked their own suppliers keep, trim or drop. Among large pharma managers with flat budgets, 54% plan to drop at least one supplier, nearly three times the 19% of biotech managers facing cuts¹. Across all managers, 39% plan a drop: 59% in large pharma and 19% in biotech. Pharma managers describe consolidation programs that run whatever the budget does.

54%n = 108

of flat-budget pharma managers plan a drop

19%n = 89

of biotech managers facing cuts plan a drop

39%n = 300

plan to drop at least one supplier

59%n = 150

of large pharma managers plan a drop

Plan to drop at least one supplier next year

Plan to drop at least one supplier

Every supplier named, by mark

KeepTrimDrop

Run a supplier consolidation program

Each manager listed their current lab suppliers and marked each keep, trim or drop for next year. The gap between flat-budget pharma and biotech facing cuts is statistically significant.

Supporting evidence

Pharma drop plans cluster where a consolidation program already runs. § 4.2
Biotech managers facing cuts trim spend with each supplier before they drop one. § 4.3²

Illustrative report04

Lab spending pulse · Executive reportTop line 3

Top line 3 of 4

Taking on more product lines would keep a supplier

¹ What, if anything, would keep this supplier? Multi-select, asked of the 117 who marked a drop.

² Coded from open responses; see the appendix tables.

Every supplier marked drop drew a follow-up on what would keep it. Of the 117 managers planning a drop, 58% say taking on more product lines would keep a supplier, rising to 66% of the 88 in large pharma¹. Matching a rival’s price comes second at 39%. Pharma managers describe consolidation as fewer suppliers with broader catalogs.

58%n = 117

say more product lines would keep a supplier

66%n = 88

of pharma managers planning a drop say so

39%n = 117

name matching a rival’s price

117of 300

managers plan to drop a supplier

What would keep a supplier marked drop

What would keep a supplier, multi-select (n = 117)

Taking on more lines would keep a supplier

Top three, large pharma (n = 88)

1Taking on more product lines
2One invoice across sites
3Matching a rival’s price

Asked of the 117 managers who marked at least one supplier drop, multi-select; shares do not sum to 100.

Supporting evidence

Pharma managers rank one invoice across sites above a matched price. § 5.2
Faster delivery matters most to sites that have run short of stock between orders. § 5.3²

Illustrative report05

Lab spending pulse · Executive reportTop line 4

Top line 4 of 4

Consumables hold in every band, and instrument purchases wait

¹ How will your spending on each category change next year? n = 300.

Managers protect what keeps the lab running. 78% expect consumables spend to hold or grow, including 71% of the managers facing cuts¹. Instruments take the hit: 39% plan to defer at least one purchase, rising to 72% in the cut band. Service contracts mostly stay: 63% keep them as they are and 30% plan cuts. Growth is modest, with 19% planning to spend more on consumables.

78%n = 300

expect consumables spend to hold or grow

71%n = 110

of managers facing cuts hold consumables

39%n = 300

plan to defer an instrument purchase

72%n = 110

of managers facing cuts defer one

Spending plans for next year, by category

Plans for next year (n = 300)

Consumables hold or grow, by band

Defer an instrument purchase, by band

Category plans for next year; each category asked separately, so shares do not sum to 100. Bands as on top line 1; the growth band is too small to show alone.

Supporting evidence

Managers call consumables the last line they would cut: running out stops the experiments. § 6.2
Deferred instruments move into the following budget year more often than they are canceled. § 6.3

Illustrative report06

Top line 1 of 4 · page 03Illustrative report · top line 1 of 4 · swipeIllustrative report

Question 1 · Budgets

More than a third expect budget cuts, most of them in biotech.

37% of managers expect next year’s lab budget to fall by more than 5%, 54% expect it to stay flat and the rest expect growth. Cuts concentrate in biotech, where 59% expect one; 72% of large pharma budgets stay flat.

Biotech, expect a cut59%

All managers, expect a cut37%

Large pharma, expect a cut14%

Expect a budget cut of more than 5% next year · n = 300; by company type, n = 150 each

Question 2 · Supplier cuts

Flat-budget pharma plans more supplier drops than biotech facing cuts.

39% of managers plan to drop at least one supplier next year. Among the 108 large pharma managers with flat budgets, 54% plan a drop, nearly three times the 19% of the 89 biotech managers facing cuts.

54%flat-budget pharma

19%biotech facing cuts

Plan to drop at least one supplier · n = 108 vs n = 89

Question 2 · Who stays

Taking on more product lines would keep a supplier.

Of the 117 managers planning a drop, 58% say taking on more product lines would keep a supplier, rising to 66% of the 88 in large pharma. Matching a rival’s price comes second at 39%.

Taking on more product lines58%

Matching a rival’s price39%

Faster delivery30%

One invoice across sites19%

What would keep a supplier · multi-select · n = 117

Question 3 · What holds

Consumables hold in every band, and instrument purchases wait.

78% expect consumables spend to hold or grow, including 71% of the 110 managers facing cuts. Instruments take the hit: 39% plan to defer at least one purchase, rising to 72% in the cut band.

Consumables hold or grow78%

Hold or grow, facing cuts71%

Defer an instrument purchase39%

Cut service contracts30%

Spending plans for next year · n = 300 unless stated

“Our budget stayed flat. The supplier list still has to shrink, and whoever covers the most of it gets to stay.”

Pharma lab operations lead · Illustrative quote

Illustrative quotes

Three themes behind the numbers.

Consolidation

“Procurement wants fewer vendors on the list. If one supplier can take over three lines, the other two are gone at the next review.”

Lab operations director

Consumables

“I can push an instrument back a year. If we run out of plates and reagents, the experiments stop that day.”

Lab operations manager

Biotech cuts

“We trim every order before we drop anyone. Switching suppliers costs us time we cannot spare this year.”

Biotech lab manager

What the supplier did

Three moves made with the report.

1Account focus · from finding 2

Put flat-budget pharma sites first.

Every account plan now starts with flat-budget pharma sites; before each site’s supplier review, the team offers to take over the lines of the suppliers it plans to drop.

2The offer · from finding 3

Bundled more lines on one invoice.

Account teams now offer extra product lines under one contract and one invoice across sites: more lines would keep a supplier for 66% of pharma managers planning a drop, and one invoice ranks second.

3Stock · from finding 4

Kept consumables, cut instrument forecasts.

Consumables forecasts stay level for every customer type, while instrument forecasts drop for the biotech accounts expecting cuts.

Illustrative example. The company, scenario, and all figures are fictional. They show UserCue’s method and deliverable format. They do not come from any client study.

Bring us your next market question.

A senior researcher designs and presents every study.

Talk to our team

More healthcare & life sciences studies

Market entry

In pharma, flat budgets still shrink the supplier list.

How the study ran, start to finish.

1Kickoff

The sales plan waits on lab budgets.

Where will lab budgets soften next year, and which customers are about to cut us from their supplier list? The kickoff turned it into three questions: which way budgets are moving, which suppliers and categories go first, and what managers will still buy.

2Design

Biotech, pharma, three bands.

The screener let in lab operations managers who approve supply orders: 150 at biotech companies and 150 at large pharma. Expected budget change set three pressure bands, and each manager marked their own suppliers keep, trim or drop for the coming year.

3Fielding

300 managers, every drop followed up.

Managers spoke or typed, quant and qual in one conversation over a 19-minute median; every supplier marked drop drew a question on what would save it. The researcher read all 339 and removed 39 for rushed responses, clashing budget figures or non-lab roles, leaving 300.

4Analysis

Flat budgets, fewer suppliers.

The researcher ran category plans and supplier marks against pressure band: consumables held in every band, and supplier cuts tracked company type. Flat-budget pharma plans supplier drops at nearly three times the rate of biotech facing cuts, 54% to 19%.

5Readout

In pharma, more lines would keep a supplier.

The researcher led the commercial team through the 30-page report, the pressure-band model and the keep and drop tables at a live readout. Account teams now reach flat-budget pharma sites first, offering to take over lines from suppliers marked drop.

Four findings from the report.

Summary

Lab spending pulse · Executive reportTop line 1

Top line 1 of 4

More than a third expect budget cuts, most of them in biotech

¹ How do you expect your lab’s operating budget to change next year? Single select, n = 300.

² Coded from open responses; see the appendix tables.

37%n = 300

expect a budget cut

54%n = 300

expect a flat budget

59%n = 150

of biotech managers expect a cut

72%n = 150

of large pharma managers expect a flat budget

Next year’s lab budget, by pressure band

Expected budget change next year (n = 300 unless stated)

Biotech (n = 150)

CutFlatGrowth

Large pharma (n = 150)

CutFlatGrowth

Supporting evidence

Biotech managers who expect cuts most often tie them to the timing of their next funding round. § 3.2
Large pharma managers describe budgets set centrally and held flat for the year. § 3.3²

Illustrative report03

Lab spending pulse · Executive reportTop line 2

Top line 2 of 4

Flat-budget pharma plans more supplier drops than biotech facing cuts

¹ For each supplier you use today, will you keep, trim or drop them next year? n = 300.

² Trim and drop plans by band; see the appendix tables.

54%n = 108

of flat-budget pharma managers plan a drop

19%n = 89

of biotech managers facing cuts plan a drop

39%n = 300

plan to drop at least one supplier

59%n = 150

of large pharma managers plan a drop

Plan to drop at least one supplier next year

Plan to drop at least one supplier

Every supplier named, by mark

KeepTrimDrop

Run a supplier consolidation program

Each manager listed their current lab suppliers and marked each keep, trim or drop for next year. The gap between flat-budget pharma and biotech facing cuts is statistically significant.

Supporting evidence

Pharma drop plans cluster where a consolidation program already runs. § 4.2
Biotech managers facing cuts trim spend with each supplier before they drop one. § 4.3²

Illustrative report04

Lab spending pulse · Executive reportTop line 3

Top line 3 of 4

Taking on more product lines would keep a supplier

¹ What, if anything, would keep this supplier? Multi-select, asked of the 117 who marked a drop.

² Coded from open responses; see the appendix tables.

58%n = 117

say more product lines would keep a supplier

66%n = 88

of pharma managers planning a drop say so

39%n = 117

name matching a rival’s price

117of 300

managers plan to drop a supplier

What would keep a supplier marked drop

What would keep a supplier, multi-select (n = 117)

Taking on more lines would keep a supplier

Top three, large pharma (n = 88)

1Taking on more product lines
2One invoice across sites
3Matching a rival’s price

Asked of the 117 managers who marked at least one supplier drop, multi-select; shares do not sum to 100.

Supporting evidence

Pharma managers rank one invoice across sites above a matched price. § 5.2
Faster delivery matters most to sites that have run short of stock between orders. § 5.3²

Illustrative report05

Lab spending pulse · Executive reportTop line 4

Top line 4 of 4

Consumables hold in every band, and instrument purchases wait

¹ How will your spending on each category change next year? n = 300.

78%n = 300

expect consumables spend to hold or grow

71%n = 110

of managers facing cuts hold consumables

39%n = 300

plan to defer an instrument purchase

72%n = 110

of managers facing cuts defer one

Spending plans for next year, by category

Plans for next year (n = 300)

Consumables hold or grow, by band

Defer an instrument purchase, by band

Category plans for next year; each category asked separately, so shares do not sum to 100. Bands as on top line 1; the growth band is too small to show alone.

Supporting evidence

Managers call consumables the last line they would cut: running out stops the experiments. § 6.2
Deferred instruments move into the following budget year more often than they are canceled. § 6.3

Illustrative report06

Top line 1 of 4 · page 03Illustrative report · top line 1 of 4 · swipeIllustrative report

Question 1 · Budgets

More than a third expect budget cuts, most of them in biotech.

Biotech, expect a cut59%

All managers, expect a cut37%

Large pharma, expect a cut14%

Expect a budget cut of more than 5% next year · n = 300; by company type, n = 150 each

Question 2 · Supplier cuts

Flat-budget pharma plans more supplier drops than biotech facing cuts.

54%flat-budget pharma

19%biotech facing cuts

Plan to drop at least one supplier · n = 108 vs n = 89

Question 2 · Who stays

Taking on more product lines would keep a supplier.

Of the 117 managers planning a drop, 58% say taking on more product lines would keep a supplier, rising to 66% of the 88 in large pharma. Matching a rival’s price comes second at 39%.

Taking on more product lines58%

Matching a rival’s price39%

Faster delivery30%

One invoice across sites19%

What would keep a supplier · multi-select · n = 117

Question 3 · What holds

Consumables hold in every band, and instrument purchases wait.

78% expect consumables spend to hold or grow, including 71% of the 110 managers facing cuts. Instruments take the hit: 39% plan to defer at least one purchase, rising to 72% in the cut band.

Consumables hold or grow78%

Hold or grow, facing cuts71%

Defer an instrument purchase39%

Cut service contracts30%

Spending plans for next year · n = 300 unless stated

Three themes behind the numbers.

Consolidation

“Procurement wants fewer vendors on the list. If one supplier can take over three lines, the other two are gone at the next review.”

Lab operations director

Consumables

“I can push an instrument back a year. If we run out of plates and reagents, the experiments stop that day.”

Lab operations manager

Biotech cuts

“We trim every order before we drop anyone. Switching suppliers costs us time we cannot spare this year.”

Biotech lab manager

Three moves made with the report.

1Account focus · from finding 2

Put flat-budget pharma sites first.

Every account plan now starts with flat-budget pharma sites; before each site’s supplier review, the team offers to take over the lines of the suppliers it plans to drop.

2The offer · from finding 3

Bundled more lines on one invoice.

Account teams now offer extra product lines under one contract and one invoice across sites: more lines would keep a supplier for 66% of pharma managers planning a drop, and one invoice ranks second.

3Stock · from finding 4

Kept consumables, cut instrument forecasts.

Consumables forecasts stay level for every customer type, while instrument forecasts drop for the biotech accounts expecting cuts.

Illustrative example. The company, scenario, and all figures are fictional. They show UserCue’s method and deliverable format. They do not come from any client study.

Where will lab budgets soften, and who is about to cut suppliers?

Which way are lab budgets moving over the next year?

Which suppliers and categories get cut first?

What will managers still buy, and where does spending hold?

How the study ran, start to finish.

The sales plan waits on lab budgets.

Biotech, pharma, three bands.

300 managers, every drop followed up.

Flat budgets, fewer suppliers.

In pharma, more lines would keep a supplier.

Four findings from the report.

More than a third expect budget cuts, most of them in biotech.

Flat-budget pharma plans more supplier drops than biotech facing cuts.

Taking on more product lines would keep a supplier.

Consumables hold in every band, and instrument purchases wait.

Three themes behind the numbers.

Three moves made with the report.

Put flat-budget pharma sites first.

Bundled more lines on one invoice.

Kept consumables, cut instrument forecasts.

Bring us your next market question.

Plant Science Reagent Supplier Selection

Lab Capital Instrument Buyer Journey

Sequencing Services Vendor Choice

Where will lab budgets soften, and who is about to cut suppliers?

Which way are lab budgets moving over the next year?

Which suppliers and categories get cut first?

What will managers still buy, and where does spending hold?

How the study ran, start to finish.

The sales plan waits on lab budgets.

Biotech, pharma, three bands.

300 managers, every drop followed up.

Flat budgets, fewer suppliers.

In pharma, more lines would keep a supplier.

Four findings from the report.

More than a third expect budget cuts, most of them in biotech.

Flat-budget pharma plans more supplier drops than biotech facing cuts.

Taking on more product lines would keep a supplier.

Consumables hold in every band, and instrument purchases wait.

Three themes behind the numbers.

Three moves made with the report.

Put flat-budget pharma sites first.

Bundled more lines on one invoice.

Kept consumables, cut instrument forecasts.

Bring us your next market question.

Plant Science Reagent Supplier Selection

Lab Capital Instrument Buyer Journey

Sequencing Services Vendor Choice