From Omnichannel to Optichannel: Why Many Pharma Engagement Strategies Will Fail

Omnichannel has become the default model for engagement in pharma. But despite years of investment, many organisations are seeing increased complexity without a corresponding improvement in impact.

Over the past decade, omnichannel has become one of the most widely adopted concepts in pharma. Strategies have been developed, capabilities have been built and technology stacks have been expanded and in most organisations, there is now no shortage of channels.

• Email

• Face-to-face

• Webinars

• Portals

• Social

• Remote engagement

On paper, this should represent progress with more ways to reach HCPs, more opportunities to personalise and more data to inform decisions. But in practice, a different pattern is emerging.

• More channels

• More activity

• More complexity

Not necessarily better engagement.

A common pattern is campaign replication across channels. A core message is developed centrally, then adapted for:

• email

• field teams

• webinars

• digital platforms

Each channel executes well. But the experience for the HCP is fragmented. They receive similar messages in different formats, at different times, without a clear progression or connection between them. What looks like coordination internally often feels like repetition externally.

You also see this in how planning is structured. Instead of starting with: “what outcome are we trying to achieve?”, planning often starts with: “what do we need to deliver across each channel this quarter?”. So teams build:

• an email plan

• a field plan

• a digital plan

Each with its own targets and timelines with integration happens afterwards, if at all. The result is not a designed engagement model, but a collection of parallel activities.

The system is working as designed. It just wasn’t designed for effectiveness.

The point where omnichannel drifted

Omnichannel started with the right intent. The idea was simple: “to move from isolated interactions to coordinated, relevant engagement across touchpoints.”

But somewhere along the way, the focus shifted and instead of asking: “What is the most effective way to engage this HCP?”, the question became: “How do we activate more channels?” That shift, while subtle, changed everything.

Because once channels become the focus, success starts to be measured in:

• volume of activity

• channel performance metrics

• campaign delivery

Rather than:

• quality of engagement

• changes in behaviour

• real-world impact

What fragmentation looks like in reality

You can see this clearly in how many omnichannel programmes are executed. A brand team develops a campaign intended to reach HCPs across multiple channels.

• Emails are created and optimised for open rates

• Webinars are planned and measured on attendance

• Field teams are briefed separately on key messages

• Digital content is developed for portals or websites

Each element is well executed, but they are rarely orchestrated in a meaningful way, so the same HCP might receive:

• an email on Monday

• a rep visit on Wednesday

• a webinar invite on Friday

All aligned in message, but not in intent and there’s no clear sense of:

• what the organisation is trying to change

• how each interaction builds on the previous one

• whether the overall experience is effective

So engagement becomes a series of well-executed activities, rather than a coherent system.

Why more channels don’t solve the problem

There’s an assumption that increasing the number of channels and layering in AI will improve engagement. In reality, it often does the opposite.

More channels create:

• more planning complexity

• more coordination requirements

• more potential for inconsistency

AI, while powerful, tends to amplify this and it enables:

• more content

• more variation

• more responsiveness

But without a clear strategy, this leads to:

• more messages being sent

• more touchpoints being added

• more noise being created

Not more relevance… The issue isn’t a lack of capability, but a lack of clarity about how that capability should be used.

The connection to the Human Adoption Gap

This is where omnichannel runs directly into the Human Adoption Gap. Because omnichannel doesn’t just require more channels, it requires different behaviour. It requires teams to:

• think beyond their own channel or business unit

• coordinate across functions

• prioritise outcomes over activity

But in many organisations:

• teams are still structured by channel or business unit

• KPIs are still channel-specific

• planning processes are still siloed

So while the strategy calls for integration, the system reinforces fragmentation and in that environment, omnichannel becomes difficult to execute, regardless of how well it is designed.

From omnichannel to optichannel

If omnichannel has become channel-led, the next step is to become outcome-led. This is where a different way of thinking becomes useful. Optichannel is not about adding more channels. It’s about making deliberate choices about:

• which channels to use

• when to use them

• and when not to use them

Based on a clear understanding of:

• the outcome you’re trying to achieve

• the context of the HCP

• the role each interaction plays

For example: Instead of planning a campaign across all available channels, an optichannel approach might ask:

• What is the single most important action we want this HCP to take?

• What is the minimum number of interactions required to support that?

• Which combination of channels is most likely to influence that outcome?

In some cases, the answer may involve multiple channels and in others, it may involve fewer than currently used.

The point is not coverage. It’s effectiveness.

What “good” actually looks like

When this shift happens, engagement starts to look different.

Instead of:

• every channel being activated

• every campaign being replicated across formats

You see:

• fewer, more intentional interactions

• clearer progression from one touchpoint to the next

• stronger alignment between teams

For example:

• A field interaction might be supported by a follow-up email that is directly linked to the conversation, not a generic campaign asset.

• Digital content might be used to reinforce a specific decision point, rather than exist as standalone material.

• Webinars might be targeted at a clearly defined audience with a specific objective, rather than broad reach.

The experience becomes more coherent. And importantly, more effective.

The shift from activity to impact

This ultimately comes down to how success is defined.

If success is measured by:

• number of emails sent

• number of interactions delivered

• number of channels activated

Then more activity will always look like progress.

But if success is defined by:

• changes in HCP behaviour

• improvements in decision-making

• measurable impact on outcomes

Then the focus changes.

Fewer interactions, done well, become more valuable than more interactions, done frequently!

But that requires a different way of thinking, not just a different set of tools.

Closing thought

Omnichannel is not inherently flawed, but the way it has been implemented in many organisations has led to increasing complexity without increasing effectiveness. The next phase is not about doing more, it’s about doing less, but with greater intent.

Moving from omnichannel to optichannel is not a shift in technology. It’s a shift in how decisions are made about engagement.

If this resonates

If your organisation is investing in omnichannel but struggling to translate that into meaningful engagement, the issue is often not the strategy itself, it’s how it is being applied.

This is the work Human Arc focuses on: helping organisations design engagement models that are intentional, aligned, and effective in practice.