Key takeaways
- Big pharma doesn't invent most of what it sells anymore. Across the top 20 companies, about 65% of newly approved drugs came from somewhere else, and only 28% from their own labs. If you're a biotech, you're selling to someone who needs you.
- Getting a meeting isn't the hard part. Proving you fit is.
- The research that works is gap research: finding the specific hole in their portfolio that you can fill.
- Start with something that just changed, like a patent expiry, a failed trial, a new therapeutic area head. Let that pick your target list.
- Let software gather the facts. Keep the thinking for yourself.
Three days of research, one bad email
A biotech CBO sits down on Monday to prepare for first contact with a big pharma account.
She starts on euClinicalTrials.eu checking what they already have in her indication. Then the last two earnings calls, because she needs to know which therapeutic areas survived the latest round of cuts. Then their partnering page, which hasn't been updated in about eighteen months. Then a deal database, to see what they've licensed in recently and at what stage. Then LinkedIn, because R&D was restructured in the spring and she has no idea who runs immunology now.
By Wednesday the email goes out. It opens with "I noticed your commitment to innovation in oncology."
She knows it's a bad email. But doing that work properly across twenty accounts would take a month of her time, and her company has fourteen months of runway.
Everyone selling into pharma has some version of this problem. When you're a biotech, though, it's a different problem than it is for a software vendor, and the fix looks different too.
What "selling to pharma" means when you're a biotech
It usually means one of two things.
You're looking for a partner. You have an asset, a platform, or a technology, and you want a pharma company to develop or commercialize it. You'll be talking to business development and licensing, and to the search and evaluation team that screens opportunities for them. The deal is money up front, milestones, and royalties.
You're selling them something. You're a CRO, a CDMO, an analytics platform, an assay provider, a data company. Pharma is your customer. You'll be talking to a program lead, a head of technical operations, or R&D procurement, and the deal is a contract.
Two very different deals. But the first question from the other side of the table is the same either way: does this fit what we're trying to do right now? If your email doesn't answer that, it doesn't get a reply.
Why the research eats so much time
Because nothing you need lives in one place, and half of it goes stale fast.
To know whether a pharma company is worth pursuing, you need to know what's already in their pipeline for your indication, how much revenue they have coming off patent and when, what they say they want to partner on, what they've actually licensed lately (usually a better guide), what got reorganized recently, and who owns that therapeutic area this month.
That's clinical registries, financial filings, a corporate page, a deal database, press releases, and LinkedIn. Some of those will contradict each other on any given day. Putting together one brief you'd actually trust takes most of a working day. Twenty accounts is a quarter.
And the timing is rough right now. Early stage biotech funding got tighter again this year: J.P. Morgan counted 50 seed and Series A rounds worth $2.3 billion in the first quarter of 2026, down from 60 rounds worth $3.7 billion a year before. When money is tight, a month of your CSO's time spent on browser tabs isn't just annoying. It shows up in the cash burn.
Why generic outreach fails faster here
The person reading your email is usually a scientist, and their job is to say no to most things quickly.
Search and evaluation teams ask the hard questions first, before they'll look at any data. What's the mechanism, and why this target? How is it different from standard of care and from the programs they're already tracking? What does the IP look like, and how many years of protection are actually left? Then clinical maturity, whether it can be manufactured by someone other than you, freedom to operate, any regulatory designations. Your actual data comes much later, after a CDA is signed.
An email that says "innovative platform" answers none of that. It also tells them you're sending the same email to everyone, and an asset that's being shopped everywhere looks like an asset nobody wanted.
Write from one thing about them that's specific, current, and checkable. That's the whole trick.
What to actually look for
Relevance isn't personalization. It's writing to someone at the moment their priorities just changed. A handful of things do most of the work.
- A patent cliff creating a hole
- What they've actually licensed, not what they say they want
- A program that just failed
- A reorganization or a therapeutic area exit
- A new person in the seat
- Supplier requalification (including BIOSECURE Act dynamics)
- More outsourcing generally
- The conference calendar (JPM, BIO, BIO-Europe)
What all of these have in common: each one gives you a reason to email today, and something specific to say.
A faster way to work
You don't need to research harder. You need to do it in a different order.
Start with the gap, not the company. Don't open a list of the top 20 pharma companies and work down it. Start with a gap you can fill, then ask who has that gap. Ten targets you picked for a reason will beat fifty you didn't, and it's less work.
Use the same brief every time. Decide once what you need to know, then fill in the same template for every account.
Know who you're actually writing to. If you're looking for a partner, your first reader is usually a scout. If you're selling a service, it's a program lead or procurement.
Let software do the gathering. Registries, filings, deal news, org changes: all of that can be collected automatically. Save your scientists for the part that needs a scientist.
Say one thing, not everything. One real observation is enough.
Work backward from the calendar. Finish your target mapping before meeting requests open.
Where SalesPort comes in
Account Intelligence tells you where to start. The AI Researcher builds the brief. Contact Finder gets you past info@. The Email Writer drafts the opener from the signal you just found.
What it won't do is make the call for you. It can't tell you whether your mechanism is differentiated or what your asset is worth. That's still your job. Customers report about 80% less research time, 4x faster account research, and 20x more accurate data.
FAQ
How do biotech companies sell to pharma?
Two ways. Either you're out-licensing, or you're selling a service, tool, or manufacturing capacity. Both start the same way: find a specific gap you can fill, then find the person responsible for it.
How long should research take before I reach out?
By hand, a brief you'd actually trust takes most of a working day. With the right tooling and a clear trigger, teams get that down to minutes per account.
Who should I contact first?
For a licensing deal, usually a search and evaluation scout or BD lead. For a service or product, a program lead, head of technical operations, or R&D procurement.
The takeaway
Pharma needs what biotech makes. Being needed doesn't get you a meeting. Start with what just changed, use the same brief every time, know who you're writing to, let software do the collecting, and spend the time you save on the science and the conversation.