Illustrative case study · Healthcare & Life Sciences

Labs shrug off price rises, and leave after a missed date.

Core facility directors and lab heads decide where sequencing work goes. A sequencing services provider planned to cut its list prices to win that work from the two largest vendors, but first wanted to know what makes a lab move its work. The study interviewed 180 of these leaders and returned the report in 14 days.

Illustrative scenario

Samplen = 180

Illustrative report

Sequencing Services Vendor Choice

Would a lower price pull labs from the vendors they use today, or does something else keep their work where it is?

Study architecture

Map the funnelAwareness, consideration, trial and preference for Vendors A to D

Find the triggersWhat makes a lab move its main sequencing work

Price the switchA price ladder on the cut it would take to switch

Scope

Price is the loudest complaint about a sequencing vendor. The study tested it against service to find which one moves the work.

Sample

180

Core facility directors and lab heads who choose an outside sequencing vendor.

Research by

Study typeBrand funnel

ScenarioIllustrative

Sequencing vendor choice · Executive reportExecutive summary

Executive summary

Labs stay through a price rise, and a missed delivery date moves them

A missed delivery date moves a lab’s sequencing work more often than a price rise. It is the most common reason to switch among 180 core facility and lab leaders, and four labs in ten had one in the past year. Those labs would move for a median 8% cut, against 24% for the rest. Vendor C is widely known, and few labs make it their main vendor.

63%n = 180

would move after a missed delivery date

42%n = 180

had a missed date in the past year

8%n = 76

median cut that would move a lab after a missed date

9%n = 180

use Vendor C as their main vendor

Figures rounded. Base n = 180 core facility and lab leaders unless stated.

Top lines

1Labs know Vendor C, and few make it their main vendorBrand funnel for Vendors A to D03

2A missed delivery date moves work more often than a price riseSwitching triggers04

3Four labs in ten had a missed date in the past yearMissed dates and what they held up05

4After a missed date, an 8% cut would win the labPrice ladder by segment06

5Sample, screener and quality controlWho we interviewed and how07

AAppendixQuestion flow and data tables09

Sample

180 core facility and lab leaders

Segments

100 academic, 80 industry

Method

AI-moderated interviews with a brand funnel

Vendors

Four named, A to D

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

180

Core facility and lab leaders who choose a sequencing vendor.

Audiences

100 academic and 80 industry lab leaders.

Method

Price ladder

A Vendor A to D funnel, then the cut that would move work, in 2% steps.

The brief

Client

A sequencing services provider

Decision

Whether to cut list prices to win share

Stage

Commercial plan, before a price change

How we ran it

Approach

AI-moderated interviews with a four-vendor funnel and a price ladder

Measured

Funnel stages, switching triggers, the price cut needed to switch

Sample

Academic core facilities and industry labs that outsource sequencing

Headline figures

Share9%

of labs use Vendor C as their main sequencing vendor, behind Vendors A and B

Triggers63%

would move their work after a missed delivery date; 21% after a price rise

Price to switch8%

median cut that would move a lab whose vendor missed a date, against 24% for the rest

The question

Will a lower price pull labs from their vendor?

Vendor C, a mid-sized sequencing services provider, saw its share stall behind two larger vendors and drafted a cut to its list prices. The commercial team needed evidence from the leaders who choose where sequencing work goes, academic and industry, before it gave up margin.

Which sequencing vendors do labs know, consider and choose?

What makes a lab move its work to another vendor?

What price cut would it take to win a lab’s main work?

What we did

How the study ran, start to finish.

1Kickoff
A drafted price cut, tested first.
Will a lower price pull labs from the two biggest vendors, or does something else keep them there? The kickoff turned it into three questions: which vendors labs choose, what makes a lab move its work, and what price cut would win it.
2Design
A four-vendor funnel, two lab types.
The screener took leaders who choose their lab’s sequencing vendor and sent work out last year: 100 academic, 80 industry. The researcher built a funnel from awareness to preference for Vendors A to D, a price ladder for switching and a question on missed dates.
3Fielding
180 lab buyers, in their own words.
Interviews ran by voice or text, quant and qual in one conversation, for a median 28 minutes; switchers retold the order that made them leave. The researcher read all 201 and removed 21, mostly in-house-only labs and staff who never pick the vendor, leaving 180.
4Analysis
Missed dates make labs cheap to win.
The researcher lined up the price ladder against missed delivery dates in the past year. Labs whose vendor had missed one, 42% of the sample, would switch for a median 8% cut; the rest held out for 24%.
5Readout
After a missed date, 8% wins the lab.
Sharing the 31-page report live, the researcher took the commercial team through funnels and price ladders by segment, with the full data file. Vendor C shelved its list-price cut for a turnaround guarantee and 8% off a first order after a missed date.

What we found

Four findings from the report.

Summary

Vendor C is known but rarely chosen: 78% of labs know it and 9% use it as their main vendor. Missed delivery dates move work far more often than price rises do. And a lab whose vendor missed a date in the past year is cheap to win: a median 8% cut would move it, against 24% for labs whose vendor kept its dates.

Sequencing vendor choice · Executive reportTop line 1

Top line 1 of 4

Labs know Vendor C, and few make it their main vendor

¹ Q4 to Q7. Funnel questions for Vendors A to D: aware, would consider, have tried, main vendor. n = 180.

² Reasons for leaving after a first order are directional; see the appendix tables.

Vendor C is known across the market and loses labs after the first order. 78% of labs know Vendor C and 28% have tried it, yet 9% use it as their main vendor¹. It keeps 31% of the labs that try it, against 67% for Vendor A and 47% for Vendor B. Academic and industry labs follow the same pattern.

78%n = 180

know Vendor C

9%n = 180

use Vendor C as their main vendor

31%keep rate

of labs that tried Vendor C made it their main vendor

67%keep rate

for Vendor A, the market leader

Main sequencing vendor, and Vendor C’s funnel

Main sequencing vendor, share of labs (n = 180)

Vendor C funnel (n = 180)

Keep rate: tried, then made it their main vendor

Main vendor: the vendor that receives the largest share of a lab’s outsourced sequencing spend. Keep rate: labs using a vendor as their main vendor divided by labs that have tried it.

Supporting evidence

Vendor D keeps more than half the labs that try it, but only 14% have tried it. § 3.2
Labs that left Vendor C after a first order most often cite a late result, the trigger in top line 2. § 3.3²

Illustrative report03

Sequencing vendor choice · Executive reportTop line 2

Top line 2 of 4

A missed delivery date moves work more often than a price rise

¹ Q14. Which of these would make you move your main sequencing work to another vendor? Multi-select, n = 180.

² Q21. Why did you move your main sequencing work? Single select, asked of the 64 labs that switched.

Leaders named what would make them move their main sequencing work. 63% would move after a missed delivery date and 42% after a data quality problem, against 21% after a price rise¹. Labs that switched in the past two years confirm it: 58% of the 64 switchers left after a late order. Industry labs react most, at 66%.

63%n = 180

would move after a missed delivery date

21%n = 180

would move after a price rise

58%n = 64

of recent switchers left after a late order

66%n = 80

of industry labs would move after a missed date

What would make a lab move its main sequencing work

What would make a lab move its main work, multi-select (n = 180)

Would move after a missed date, by segment

Main reason the 64 switchers left their last vendor

Late orderData qualityPriceOther

Multi-select; shares do not sum to 100. Switchers are labs that moved their main sequencing work to another vendor in the past two years (n = 64).

Supporting evidence

A price rise ranks fourth of the five triggers in both segments, behind support. § 4.2
Industry leaders say their delivery dates are tied to project milestones, so a late order costs them more. § 4.3²

Illustrative report04

Sequencing vendor choice · Executive reportTop line 3

Top line 3 of 4

Four labs in ten had a missed date in the past year

¹ Q24. In the past year, has your main vendor missed a promised delivery date? n = 180.

² Q27. After a missed date, what would you want from a vendor? Ranked, asked of the 76 labs with a missed date.

42% of labs say their main vendor missed a promised delivery date in the past year¹, 56% of industry labs and 31% of academic ones. A late result most often held up a grant or project milestone (61%) or a downstream experiment (47%). These 76 labs are the group the price ladder in top line 4 sets apart.

42%n = 180

had a missed delivery date in the past year

56%n = 80

of industry labs had a missed date

31%n = 100

of academic labs had a missed date

61%n = 76

say the late result held up a milestone

Missed delivery dates in the past year, by segment

Main vendor missed a promised delivery date in the past year

What the late result held up, multi-select (n = 76)

What labs want after a missed date

1A guaranteed delivery date
2Live order tracking
3A credit on the late order

Self-reported, past twelve months. A missed date means results delivered after the date the vendor promised at order; held up means a dependent task, deadline or report had to move.

Supporting evidence

Missed dates are spread across the customers of all four vendors. § 5.2
A guaranteed date ranks first, ahead of any discount. § 5.3²

Illustrative report05

Sequencing vendor choice · Executive reportTop line 4

Top line 4 of 4

After a missed date, an 8% cut would win the lab

¹ Q28. At what price cut would you move your main sequencing work to another vendor? Ladder in 2% steps, n = 180.

² Switchers against non-switchers is directional; switchers n = 64.

A price ladder in 2% steps asked what cut would move each lab’s main work. Labs whose vendor missed a date, 42% of the sample, would switch for a median 8% cut, against 24% for the rest¹. At an 8% cut, 58% of labs with a missed date would move, against 27% of the others; across all labs, 40% would move.

8%n = 76

median cut that would move a lab after a missed date

24%n = 104

median cut for labs whose vendor kept its dates

58%n = 76

of labs after a missed date would move at an 8% cut

40%n = 180

of all labs would move at an 8% cut

Share that would move their main work, by price cut

Would move main work at each cut, labs after a missed date (n = 76)

Labs whose vendor kept its dates (n = 104)

Would move at an 8% cut, by segment

Cumulative share that would move most of their sequencing work to a vendor offering each cut, other terms equal; selected steps shown. The median is the first step at which half would move.

Supporting evidence

At every step of the ladder, a larger share of industry labs would move than of academic labs. § 6.2
Labs that have switched before would move for a smaller cut than labs that never have. § 6.3²

Illustrative report06

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

Question 1 · The funnel

Labs know Vendor C, and few make it their main vendor.

78% of labs know Vendor C and 47% would consider it, yet 9% use it as their main vendor. Vendor C keeps 31% of the labs that try it; Vendor A keeps 67%.

Aware of Vendor C78%

Would consider it47%

Have tried it28%

Use it as their main vendor9%

Vendor C funnel · n = 180

Question 2 · The triggers

A missed date moves work more often than a price rise.

63% would move their main work after a missed delivery date and 42% after a data quality problem. A price rise would move 21%. Of the 64 labs that switched in the past two years, 58% left after a late order.

A missed delivery date63%

A data quality problem42%

Slow or unclear support31%

A price rise21%

What would make a lab move its main work · multi-select · n = 180

Question 2 · The missed date

42% had a missed date, industry labs most.

42% of labs say their main vendor missed a promised delivery date in the past year: 56% of industry labs and 31% of academic ones. For 61% of them, the late result held up a grant or project milestone.

All labs42%

Industry labs56%

Academic labs31%

Vendor missed a promised date in the past year · n = 180

Question 3 · The price

After a missed date, labs move for an 8% cut.

Labs whose vendor missed a date in the past year, 42% of the sample, would move their main work for a median 8% price cut. The rest held out for a median 24%.

8%median cut, vendor missed a date

24%median cut, vendor kept its dates

Median price cut needed to switch · n = 76 vs n = 104

“I will take a sales call about a lower price. A late run in the middle of a grant deadline is what gets a vendor replaced.”

Core facility director · Illustrative quote

Illustrative quotes

Three themes behind the numbers.

Missed dates

“We moved our whole program after two late runs in one quarter. Nobody called to warn us, and that was the part I could not forgive.”

Industry lab head

Price

“Every vendor discounts at renewal. A few points off does not justify retraining my staff on a new submission portal.”

Core facility manager

Trying a vendor

“We send a pilot batch to a new vendor every year. Whether they get the main work depends on that batch showing up when they said it would.”

Genomics lab director

What the sequencing provider did

Three moves made with the report.

1The offer · from finding 4

Guaranteed its dates and kept its prices.

Vendor C kept its prices and launched a guaranteed delivery date, with 8% off a first order for labs whose vendor had missed one.

2The target · from finding 3

Aimed outreach at labs after a missed date.

Sales now tracks which labs report a late run, starting with industry labs, where 56% had a missed date in the past year.

3The first order · from finding 1

Rebuilt the first order around the trial batch.

Trial batches now get live order tracking and a call before any delay, to lift the 31% of trying labs that make Vendor C their main vendor.

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 pricing question.

A senior researcher designs and presents every study.

Talk to our team

More healthcare & life sciences studies

Decision timing study

Labs shrug off price rises, and leave after a missed date.

How the study ran, start to finish.

1Kickoff

A drafted price cut, tested first.

Will a lower price pull labs from the two biggest vendors, or does something else keep them there? The kickoff turned it into three questions: which vendors labs choose, what makes a lab move its work, and what price cut would win it.

2Design

A four-vendor funnel, two lab types.

The screener took leaders who choose their lab’s sequencing vendor and sent work out last year: 100 academic, 80 industry. The researcher built a funnel from awareness to preference for Vendors A to D, a price ladder for switching and a question on missed dates.

3Fielding

180 lab buyers, in their own words.

Interviews ran by voice or text, quant and qual in one conversation, for a median 28 minutes; switchers retold the order that made them leave. The researcher read all 201 and removed 21, mostly in-house-only labs and staff who never pick the vendor, leaving 180.

4Analysis

Missed dates make labs cheap to win.

The researcher lined up the price ladder against missed delivery dates in the past year. Labs whose vendor had missed one, 42% of the sample, would switch for a median 8% cut; the rest held out for 24%.

5Readout

After a missed date, 8% wins the lab.

Sharing the 31-page report live, the researcher took the commercial team through funnels and price ladders by segment, with the full data file. Vendor C shelved its list-price cut for a turnaround guarantee and 8% off a first order after a missed date.

Four findings from the report.

Summary

Sequencing vendor choice · Executive reportTop line 1

Top line 1 of 4

Labs know Vendor C, and few make it their main vendor

¹ Q4 to Q7. Funnel questions for Vendors A to D: aware, would consider, have tried, main vendor. n = 180.

² Reasons for leaving after a first order are directional; see the appendix tables.

78%n = 180

know Vendor C

9%n = 180

use Vendor C as their main vendor

31%keep rate

of labs that tried Vendor C made it their main vendor

67%keep rate

for Vendor A, the market leader

Main sequencing vendor, and Vendor C’s funnel

Main sequencing vendor, share of labs (n = 180)

Vendor C funnel (n = 180)

Keep rate: tried, then made it their main vendor

Main vendor: the vendor that receives the largest share of a lab’s outsourced sequencing spend. Keep rate: labs using a vendor as their main vendor divided by labs that have tried it.

Supporting evidence

Vendor D keeps more than half the labs that try it, but only 14% have tried it. § 3.2
Labs that left Vendor C after a first order most often cite a late result, the trigger in top line 2. § 3.3²

Illustrative report03

Sequencing vendor choice · Executive reportTop line 2

Top line 2 of 4

A missed delivery date moves work more often than a price rise

¹ Q14. Which of these would make you move your main sequencing work to another vendor? Multi-select, n = 180.

² Q21. Why did you move your main sequencing work? Single select, asked of the 64 labs that switched.

63%n = 180

would move after a missed delivery date

21%n = 180

would move after a price rise

58%n = 64

of recent switchers left after a late order

66%n = 80

of industry labs would move after a missed date

What would make a lab move its main sequencing work

What would make a lab move its main work, multi-select (n = 180)

Would move after a missed date, by segment

Main reason the 64 switchers left their last vendor

Late orderData qualityPriceOther

Multi-select; shares do not sum to 100. Switchers are labs that moved their main sequencing work to another vendor in the past two years (n = 64).

Supporting evidence

A price rise ranks fourth of the five triggers in both segments, behind support. § 4.2
Industry leaders say their delivery dates are tied to project milestones, so a late order costs them more. § 4.3²

Illustrative report04

Sequencing vendor choice · Executive reportTop line 3

Top line 3 of 4

Four labs in ten had a missed date in the past year

¹ Q24. In the past year, has your main vendor missed a promised delivery date? n = 180.

² Q27. After a missed date, what would you want from a vendor? Ranked, asked of the 76 labs with a missed date.

42%n = 180

had a missed delivery date in the past year

56%n = 80

of industry labs had a missed date

31%n = 100

of academic labs had a missed date

61%n = 76

say the late result held up a milestone

Missed delivery dates in the past year, by segment

Main vendor missed a promised delivery date in the past year

What the late result held up, multi-select (n = 76)

What labs want after a missed date

1A guaranteed delivery date
2Live order tracking
3A credit on the late order

Self-reported, past twelve months. A missed date means results delivered after the date the vendor promised at order; held up means a dependent task, deadline or report had to move.

Supporting evidence

Missed dates are spread across the customers of all four vendors. § 5.2
A guaranteed date ranks first, ahead of any discount. § 5.3²

Illustrative report05

Sequencing vendor choice · Executive reportTop line 4

Top line 4 of 4

After a missed date, an 8% cut would win the lab

¹ Q28. At what price cut would you move your main sequencing work to another vendor? Ladder in 2% steps, n = 180.

² Switchers against non-switchers is directional; switchers n = 64.

8%n = 76

median cut that would move a lab after a missed date

24%n = 104

median cut for labs whose vendor kept its dates

58%n = 76

of labs after a missed date would move at an 8% cut

40%n = 180

of all labs would move at an 8% cut

Share that would move their main work, by price cut

Would move main work at each cut, labs after a missed date (n = 76)

Labs whose vendor kept its dates (n = 104)

Would move at an 8% cut, by segment

Cumulative share that would move most of their sequencing work to a vendor offering each cut, other terms equal; selected steps shown. The median is the first step at which half would move.

Supporting evidence

At every step of the ladder, a larger share of industry labs would move than of academic labs. § 6.2
Labs that have switched before would move for a smaller cut than labs that never have. § 6.3²

Illustrative report06

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

Question 1 · The funnel

Labs know Vendor C, and few make it their main vendor.

78% of labs know Vendor C and 47% would consider it, yet 9% use it as their main vendor. Vendor C keeps 31% of the labs that try it; Vendor A keeps 67%.

Aware of Vendor C78%

Would consider it47%

Have tried it28%

Use it as their main vendor9%

Vendor C funnel · n = 180

Question 2 · The triggers

A missed date moves work more often than a price rise.

A missed delivery date63%

A data quality problem42%

Slow or unclear support31%

A price rise21%

What would make a lab move its main work · multi-select · n = 180

Question 2 · The missed date

42% had a missed date, industry labs most.

All labs42%

Industry labs56%

Academic labs31%

Vendor missed a promised date in the past year · n = 180

Question 3 · The price

After a missed date, labs move for an 8% cut.

Labs whose vendor missed a date in the past year, 42% of the sample, would move their main work for a median 8% price cut. The rest held out for a median 24%.

8%median cut, vendor missed a date

24%median cut, vendor kept its dates

Median price cut needed to switch · n = 76 vs n = 104

Three themes behind the numbers.

Missed dates

“We moved our whole program after two late runs in one quarter. Nobody called to warn us, and that was the part I could not forgive.”

Industry lab head

Price

“Every vendor discounts at renewal. A few points off does not justify retraining my staff on a new submission portal.”

Core facility manager

Trying a vendor

“We send a pilot batch to a new vendor every year. Whether they get the main work depends on that batch showing up when they said it would.”

Genomics lab director

Three moves made with the report.

1The offer · from finding 4

Guaranteed its dates and kept its prices.

Vendor C kept its prices and launched a guaranteed delivery date, with 8% off a first order for labs whose vendor had missed one.

2The target · from finding 3

Aimed outreach at labs after a missed date.

Sales now tracks which labs report a late run, starting with industry labs, where 56% had a missed date in the past year.

3The first order · from finding 1

Rebuilt the first order around the trial batch.

Trial batches now get live order tracking and a call before any delay, to lift the 31% of trying labs that make Vendor C their main vendor.

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.

Will a lower price pull labs from their vendor?

Which sequencing vendors do labs know, consider and choose?

What makes a lab move its work to another vendor?

What price cut would it take to win a lab’s main work?

How the study ran, start to finish.

A drafted price cut, tested first.

A four-vendor funnel, two lab types.

180 lab buyers, in their own words.

Missed dates make labs cheap to win.

After a missed date, 8% wins the lab.

Four findings from the report.

Labs know Vendor C, and few make it their main vendor.

A missed date moves work more often than a price rise.

42% had a missed date, industry labs most.

After a missed date, labs move for an 8% cut.

Three themes behind the numbers.

Three moves made with the report.

Guaranteed its dates and kept its prices.

Aimed outreach at labs after a missed date.

Rebuilt the first order around the trial batch.

Bring us your next pricing question.

Lab Capital Instrument Buyer Journey

Plant Science Reagent Supplier Selection

Biopharma Lab Operations Spending Pulse

Will a lower price pull labs from their vendor?

Which sequencing vendors do labs know, consider and choose?

What makes a lab move its work to another vendor?

What price cut would it take to win a lab’s main work?

How the study ran, start to finish.

A drafted price cut, tested first.

A four-vendor funnel, two lab types.

180 lab buyers, in their own words.

Missed dates make labs cheap to win.

After a missed date, 8% wins the lab.

Four findings from the report.

Labs know Vendor C, and few make it their main vendor.

A missed date moves work more often than a price rise.

42% had a missed date, industry labs most.

After a missed date, labs move for an 8% cut.

Three themes behind the numbers.

Three moves made with the report.

Guaranteed its dates and kept its prices.

Aimed outreach at labs after a missed date.

Rebuilt the first order around the trial batch.

Bring us your next pricing question.

Lab Capital Instrument Buyer Journey

Plant Science Reagent Supplier Selection

Biopharma Lab Operations Spending Pulse