Beth Cooper, JD/MBA, Chief Commercial Officer
Your biotech competitor appears in a major trade publication. Its CEO is quoted in an article about the future of drug development. Its Chief Medical Officer is speaking at a conference. Its latest clinical milestone is covered by several outlets, and the company seems to release a steady stream of research, interviews and contributed articles.
Meanwhile, your company is struggling to secure more than an occasional announcement.
It is reasonable to ask: How much is that competitor spending on public relations?
There is no public database that reliably reveals every company’s PR budget. Unlike paid search, where platforms such as Semrush can estimate advertising expenditures, earned media does not have a direct relationship between dollars spent and placements received.
That does not mean competitor PR spending is impossible to estimate.
A company’s communications investment leaves a trail. Media volume, share of voice, internal communications headcount, press release frequency, executive participation, outside agency involvement, clinical milestones, conference activity and public financial disclosures can all help establish a defensible range.
The objective is not to declare that a competitor spends exactly $27,500 per month. Unless you have seen its contract or internal budget, that degree of precision is not credible.
The objective is to answer a more useful question:
What level of communications infrastructure would reasonably be required to produce this volume, quality and consistency of visibility?
Estimating public relations spending is particularly complicated in biotech, pharmaceutical, medtech and life sciences markets.
A clinical-stage biotechnology company can receive a burst of coverage because it announced positive trial data, entered a major licensing agreement or received an FDA designation. A publicly traded company may operate separate corporate communications, investor relations and scientific communications programs. A commercial pharmaceutical organization may also have product communications, disease-awareness campaigns, advocacy relationships and public affairs activity.
Some of that work may be handled internally. Some may be divided among multiple agencies. Some may be supported by medical writers, regulatory counsel, market research firms, conference partners or investor relations consultants.
A media-placement count alone cannot reveal that structure.
A credible life sciences PR budget estimate must consider five different dimensions:
The more independent evidence you collect, the narrower and more defensible your estimate becomes.
Begin with three to six genuine competitors.
Companies should compete for more than a broad category label. Two organizations may both describe themselves as biotechnology companies while pursuing different indications, development stages, investors and commercial partners.
A useful competitive set should overlap across several dimensions:
For a cell and gene therapy company, the appropriate media competitors might include companies pursuing similar delivery methods, manufacturing models or health system partnerships. For a health technology platform, the set might include companies selling to the same hospital executives, payers or pharmaceutical manufacturers.
Establish the geography and media market as well. A global pharmaceutical company should not be compared with a regional startup unless the analysis is intentionally limited to a specific topic.
Finally, choose a consistent timeframe.
Avoid estimating a competitor’s normal PR budget from a single month. Trial results, financing announcements, acquisitions and regulatory decisions can create temporary coverage spikes.
Create a spreadsheet containing every relevant article, interview, podcast, byline, announcement and speaking appearance during the analysis period.
At minimum, capture:
|
Field |
Information to Record |
|
Date |
Publication or appearance date |
|
Company |
Competitor associated with the result |
|
Outlet |
Publication, podcast or conference |
|
Headline |
Exact title |
|
URL |
Source link |
|
Coverage type |
Feature, quote, byline, mention, interview or release |
|
Topic |
Clinical, regulatory, corporate, financing or market commentary |
|
Spokesperson |
Executive or subject matter expert featured |
|
Earned or paid |
Independent coverage, sponsored content or company-owned material |
|
Original or syndicated |
Unique story or duplicated release |
|
Outlet priority |
Tier-one, industry trade, regional or low-value aggregation |
|
Weight |
Quality score applied consistently across competitors |
Media-monitoring platforms such as Muck Rack, Cision, Meltwater, Onclusive and Brandwatch can accelerate this process. For a smaller competitive set, the research can also be completed manually through Google News, publication searches, company newsrooms and conference agendas.
Use multiple searches for each company:
Company names that overlap with common words require additional exclusions. Product names, former company names and commonly used abbreviations may also need to be included.
Share of voice measures the percentage of a defined media conversation captured by one company relative to the entire competitive set.
The basic formula is:
If your company receives three qualifying mentions and the competitive set receives 100 total mentions, your share of voice is 3%.
Muck Rack defines PR share of voice as a company’s portion of a defined media conversation and recommends maintaining a consistent competitor list, timeframe and measurement methodology. It also cautions that volume without context can be misleading. Outlet authority, prominence, reach and sentiment all affect the value of a mention. Read Muck Rack’s share-of-voice methodology.
Calculate at least two forms of share of voice:
Every qualifying original mention receives one count.
This answers:
How frequently is each company appearing in the conversation?
Coverage is scored according to strategic value.
This answers:
Which company is earning the most meaningful visibility?
A practical life sciences weighting model might look like this:
|
Life Sciences Media Result |
Suggested Weight |
|
Major national feature or company profile |
8 points |
|
Major business publication feature |
7 points |
|
In-depth feature in a priority life sciences publication |
6 points |
|
Exclusive clinical, regulatory or financing story |
6 points |
|
Executive byline in a priority publication |
4 points |
|
Executive quoted as a central expert |
4 points |
|
Podcast or substantial interview |
3 points |
|
Conference speaking appearance |
3 points |
|
Meaningful company mention |
2 points |
|
Brief inclusion in an industry roundup |
1 point |
|
Original press release |
1 point |
|
Automated press release syndication |
0.1 to 0.25 points |
The exact weights can be adjusted. Consistency matters more than the particular numbers selected.
A feature in STAT, Endpoints News, Fierce Biotech, BioSpace, MedTech Dive or a highly specialized trade publication may be more commercially valuable than a passing mention in a larger general-interest outlet. Publication quality should be judged according to the audiences the company actually needs to reach.
One press release can appear on dozens or hundreds of websites.
That does not mean dozens or hundreds of journalists independently decided to cover the company.
Newswire services distribute releases across broad networks and track the websites on which they appear. Cision describes PR Newswire as a distribution service that targets releases by geography, industry and topic while tracking site postings and other results. Review Cision’s description of PR Newswire distribution.
Wire distribution has legitimate value. It can provide:
However, syndicated release copies must not be counted as independent earned stories.
Group identical or substantially identical headlines together. Classify them as one distributed announcement with multiple syndicated copies.
Maintain separate totals for:
Without this step, a competitor that distributes frequent releases can appear to have dramatically more earned visibility than it actually does.
Life sciences companies frequently purchase conference packages, publication sponsorships, podcast appearances, newsletter placements and native articles.
Sponsored content can resemble editorial coverage. Look for labels such as:
The Federal Trade Commission states that native advertising may require clear and prominent disclosure when the commercial nature of the content would not otherwise be apparent. Review the FTC’s native advertising guidance.
Paid content should be documented because it reveals part of the competitor’s visibility investment. It should not be classified as earned media.
Create three distinct categories:
Earned visibility
A competitor may have relatively modest earned media results but a significant paid visibility program. That company could still be investing heavily, but the investment is operating differently.
Life sciences companies do not have equal access to news.
A company with three active clinical trials, an approaching data readout and several regulatory milestones has more natural media opportunities than a preclinical company with no expected data for 18 months.
Before attributing every difference in coverage to PR spending, inventory the events each competitor could reasonably publicize.
ClinicalTrials.gov can help identify:
ClinicalTrials.gov explains that organizations listed as sponsors and collaborators are considered study funders and provides definitions for trial status, sponsorship and other study elements. Review the ClinicalTrials.gov glossary.
Potential life sciences news drivers include:
Build a “news opportunity index” for each company.
|
News Environment |
Typical Characteristics |
|
Limited |
Preclinical company with few visible milestones |
|
Moderate |
One active program with periodic corporate announcements |
|
Strong |
Multiple trials, frequent data, partnerships and financing activity |
|
Exceptional |
Late-stage or commercial company with regulatory, clinical and corporate news |
A competitor earning 20 stories from two major trial readouts is different from a competitor earning 20 stories without any material company announcement. The second result may indicate a stronger proactive media operation.
Life sciences PR requires more than identifying journalists and sending pitches.
Communications may require review by:
The FDA generally prohibits representing an investigational drug as safe or effective for the purpose for which it is being studied. At the same time, the regulation does not prohibit the full exchange of scientific information, including dissemination of scientific findings through scientific or general media. Review FDA’s discussion of 21 CFR 312.7.
This distinction affects how press releases, executive commentary, trial announcements and media materials are developed.
A life sciences program may therefore require:
Two companies may publish the same number of press releases while incurring very different costs because one operates in a much more complex regulatory environment.
A competitor’s spokesperson bench can reveal the scale and maturity of its PR program.
A small or reactive program often depends entirely on the CEO. A more developed life sciences program typically assigns different narratives to different experts.
For example:
|
Subject Matter Expert |
Likely Topic Territory |
|
CEO |
Company vision, category direction and strategy |
|
Chief medical officer |
Clinical need, trial design and patient impact |
|
Chief scientific officer |
Mechanism, platform science and discovery |
|
Chief technology officer |
AI, data, security and technical infrastructure |
|
Chief commercial officer |
Market adoption, customer needs and commercialization |
|
Regulatory leader |
Policy, approval pathways and compliance |
|
Manufacturing leader |
Scale-up, quality and supply chain |
|
Health system or research partner |
Implementation and independent validation |
|
Patient or advocacy partner |
Lived experience and unmet need |
Each active expert requires:
Use the following directional guide:
|
Active Experts |
Likely PR Program Maturity |
|
1 |
Reactive or CEO-led program |
|
2 to 3 |
Sustained media-relations program |
|
4 to 6 |
Coordinated thought-leadership program |
|
7+ |
Enterprise or multi-agency communications operation |
This is not an absolute rule. A company may make several executives available without using them effectively. Look for actual media participation, not names listed on a leadership page.
Search LinkedIn, leadership pages, press release contacts, archived job listings and organizational announcements.
Relevant titles include:
Do not classify every marketing employee as a PR resource.
Estimate what percentage of each role is likely dedicated to external communications:
|
Role Structure |
Possible PR Allocation |
|
Dedicated media relations professional |
80% to 100% |
|
Corporate communications director |
50% to 80% |
|
Communications + content manager |
30% to 60% |
|
Marketing vice president overseeing many functions |
15% to 35% |
|
CEO or founder |
5% to 15% |
|
Scientific or medical executive |
5% to 10% |
These allocations are assumptions. Document them clearly and adjust them when job descriptions provide stronger evidence.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a May 2024 median annual wage of $69,780 for public relations specialists. View the BLS public relations specialist data.
For public relations managers, the national median was $138,520. The median within professional, scientific and technical services was $168,400. View the BLS public relations manager data.
Salary is not the company’s complete employment cost. Benefits, payroll taxes, technology, recruiting, management and overhead also contribute.
A practical formula is:
Monthly Loaded Cost = Annual Salary x 1.25 to 1.4 / 12
Then multiply the result by the estimated percentage of time allocated to PR.
Assume a biotechnology company employs a communications director earning approximately $150,000.
At a 1.3 loaded-cost multiplier:
$150,000 x 1.3 = $195,000
Monthly loaded employment cost:
$195,000 / 12 = $16,250
If approximately 60% of the role supports external PR:
$16,250 x 60% = $9,750
The company’s estimated internal PR investment for that role would therefore be approximately $9,750 per month.
Repeat this calculation for each relevant employee.
Public biotechnology and life sciences companies may disclose communications expenses in SEC filings, although PR is often combined with investor relations, consulting or general administrative costs.
Use the SEC EDGAR full-text search to search the company’s filings for terms such as:
Some companies disclose specific changes.
For example, Coya Therapeutics reported that a year-over-year increase in general + administrative costs included approximately $300,000 in increased investor relations + public relations expenses. This reveals the increase, not the company’s total communications budget. View the Coya Therapeutics filing.
Serina Therapeutics reported $100,000 in investment + public relations-related expenses during a quarter associated with broader increases in general + administrative costs. View the Serina Therapeutics filing.
These examples illustrate both the value and limitations of SEC data.
A filing may reveal:
It rarely provides a complete monthly corporate PR retainer.
Use SEC disclosures as one piece of corroborating evidence, not as the entire estimate.
Companies do not always publicly announce their PR agency relationships, but outside support often leaves evidence.
Look for:
If an outside contact appears on multiple releases, search the individual’s name, email domain and professional profile.
Do not estimate the retainer solely from the agency’s size or reputation. A large agency may handle a narrow project, while a smaller specialist firm may manage the entire communications function.
Estimate scope instead.
Possible scopes include:
The broader the visible scope, the larger the probable investment.
Published coverage represents only the visible output.
One executive quote may require:
A bylined article may require topic research, publication selection, abstract development, editor outreach, subject matter expert interviews, drafting, sourcing, revisions and approvals.
A major feature may follow months or years of relationship-building.
This is why placement counts should not be converted mechanically into budget estimates. Five high-quality results may require more work than 50 automated wire pickups.
The agency retainer and internal team are not the entire budget.
A mature life sciences PR program may also include:
These tools support media research, monitoring, competitive analysis, journalist outreach and share-of-voice reporting.
Distribution frequency, geographic reach, word count, multimedia and targeting affect wire costs.
A proprietary life sciences report may require:
Highly technical materials may require writers with scientific degrees, clinical expertise or experience interpreting study data.
Outside regulatory counsel, medical review and legal approval may sit outside the communications retainer.
Costs include entry fees, research, drafting, supporting evidence and deadline management.
Speaking opportunities may be earned, sponsored or connected to exhibit packages. Include only the communications-related portion when estimating PR spending.
A clinical-stage company preparing executives for data announcements, financing activity or regulatory milestones may conduct formal media training.
Clinical holds, adverse events, litigation, data questions, cybersecurity incidents and regulatory scrutiny may require senior communications counsel without producing a high volume of visible content.
Once the program is mapped, assign it to a likely operating level.
The following are Sōvyn planning ranges based on program scope. They are directional estimates, not universal industry rate cards.
|
Life Sciences PR Program |
Observable Characteristics |
Estimated Total Monthly Investment |
|
Reactive Program |
Occasional releases, one spokesperson, little proactive pitching |
$10,000 to $25,000 |
|
Sustained Media Relations |
Regular outreach, monthly coverage, two to three experts, periodic bylines |
$25,000 to $50,000 |
|
Category-Building Program |
Multiple experts, proactive commentary, research, speaking + consistent coverage |
$50,000 to $100,000 |
|
Enterprise Communications |
Large internal team, multiple agencies, investor relations, public affairs + crisis support |
$100,000+ |
These estimates may include:
If you are estimating only the probable agency retainer, remove internal payroll and clearly separate pass-through expenses.
Use the following formula:
Estimated Monthly PR Investment =
Outside Support
+
Allocated Internal Payroll
+
Tools + Distribution
+
Program Expenses
Create low, probable and high scenarios for every component.
|
Cost Component |
Low |
Probable |
High |
|
Outside communications support |
$15,000 |
$25,000 |
$35,000 |
|
Allocated internal payroll |
$8,000 |
$14,000 |
$22,000 |
|
Tools + distribution |
$1,000 |
$3,000 |
$6,000 |
|
Scientific content + review |
$2,000 |
$6,000 |
$12,000 |
|
Research, awards + events |
$2,000 |
$7,000 |
$15,000 |
|
Total monthly investment |
$28,000 |
$55,000 |
$90,000 |
The wide range is intentional. Reduce it only when additional evidence supports greater precision.
Consider a clinical-stage biotechnology company with the following visible activity over 12 months:
After deduplicating wire syndication, the company averages approximately 3.5 original earned placements per month.
Its visibility is not supported by releases alone. The company has multiple experts, proactive thought leadership, conference activity and original research.
A reasonable estimate might be:
$42,000 - $88,000 per month
Because the internal team, outside support and 12 months of activity are identifiable, this estimate would receive a moderate-to-high confidence rating.
Suppose your life sciences company holds 0.3% media share of voice while a competitor holds 11.6%.
The competitor’s share is approximately 38.7 times larger:
11.6 / 0.3 = 38.67
This does not prove that the competitor spends 38.7 times more on PR.
PR performance is not perfectly proportional to investment. Results can be influenced by:
However, a gap of that size is unlikely to be explained by creativity alone.
It usually indicates a material difference in at least several areas:
The defensible conclusion is not:
The competitor must be spending exactly 38.7 times more.
The defensible conclusion is:
The competitor is operating at a materially higher level of communications activity, infrastructure and investment. Closing the share-of-voice gap will require a sustained program rather than an occasional campaign.
Assign one point for each evidence category you can substantiate:
Use the total to classify the estimate:
|
Score |
Confidence Level |
|
8 to 10 |
High-confidence range |
|
5 to 7 |
Moderate-confidence range |
|
0 to 4 |
Low-confidence range |
Even a high-confidence estimate remains a range.
One release syndicated to 100 sites is still one release.
Paid articles reveal investment but should not be credited as earned coverage.
A company approaching several trial milestones naturally has more opportunities than one in early preclinical development.
A competitor with a communications director, media manager and investor relations leader may already be investing tens of thousands of dollars per month before agency costs.
Demand generation, product marketing and sales enablement should not automatically be classified as media-relations spending.
Public life sciences companies frequently coordinate these functions, but they serve different audiences and may have separate budgets.
Clinical data, regulatory decisions and financing announcements can temporarily inflate coverage.
A company that has invested in communications for five years benefits from accumulated authority, relationships, backlinks and brand recognition.
Investment creates capacity. It does not guarantee a differentiated narrative, compelling evidence, responsive experts or strong execution.
You may never know exactly what a life sciences competitor pays its PR agency.
You can still determine whether it appears to operate a $15,000 reactive program, a $50,000 category-building program or a communications infrastructure exceeding $100,000 per month.
The evidence is visible in:
This analysis is particularly important when leadership expects to match a competitor’s visibility without matching the resources supporting it.
A brilliant idea cannot compensate indefinitely for insufficient output, limited executive participation or a lack of distribution.
Creativity matters. Strategy matters. Relationships matter.
But sustained visibility also requires sustained investment.
Sōvyn helps healthcare, health technology, biotech + life sciences organizations calculate competitive share of voice, analyze the communications systems supporting it and determine what it will realistically take to close the gap.