Awesome article! I completely agree that the definition of “women’s health” needs to be broadened to ensure that solutions are actually improving the overall health of women. Loved the point about the importance of trust...And for the non-women-only company, perhaps "women-inclusive" healthcare companies!
Love! After reading this very nice summary of the scene, it strikes me that there is something missing in the roundup of players.
To me, and granted I have something to gain from this stance (I’m the ceo of Vella bioscience, there seems to be a huge market opportunity for CPG. Are there any brands you know of who are using the women’s health research gap mandate to drive their product innovation? Besides diagnostics, healthcare, and compounding pharmacy prescriptions (Viagra creams for women are notably a profound illegal market—which deserves more media commentary and cultural criticism imo…), there appears to be a wide open space for companies willing to invest the money and time in research and science to create consumer solutions that seek to fill the women’s health research gap. Curious if you see any momentum here or what your take is.
thanks for the read and comment! yes, my market map is largely focused on services/diagnostic products vs. CPG, which merits a massive market map unto itself. I do think you could look at the CPG space through the same 4 buckets: products for women-only (like what you're doing at wella bioscience, or perelel or ritual), women-centric, non-women only (we know women are the biggest users of supplements), and women buyers. within that framing though, I think there is a MASSIVE gap in products actually TESTED ON WOMEN. Both Rx and CPG. I've been thinking a lot about a "tested on women" stamp of some type a la "certified organic." curious what you think about that concept as a builder in this space?
I think that's actually pretty brilliant, especially as it pertains to heritage brands (CPG & RX). If any are wanting to actively participate in the women's health research gap and/or use it in any way as a marketing platform, redoing their science to include women should absolutely be table stakes for meaningful participation. And it would be a pretty awesome way to stand out. (Great marketing advice CW--dang, our names are just too close!) For us, it would obviously be a foregone conclusion (lol I'd hope!) that our clinical studies are ONLY on women... but looking at products that were not built in an era that didn't require or reward the pre-clinical or at least clinical work of the female variable... that would be very cool indeed.
Awesome article! I completely agree that the definition of “women’s health” needs to be broadened to ensure that solutions are actually improving the overall health of women. Loved the point about the importance of trust...And for the non-women-only company, perhaps "women-inclusive" healthcare companies!
thank you for this! I like "women-inclusive" or "women-centered". great suggestion
Excellent summary and terrific insights on Oura!
Incredible summary. Thank you.
Exactly my thoughts on Oura too, so well said!
Would love to hear your opinions on hims and hers
Love! After reading this very nice summary of the scene, it strikes me that there is something missing in the roundup of players.
To me, and granted I have something to gain from this stance (I’m the ceo of Vella bioscience, there seems to be a huge market opportunity for CPG. Are there any brands you know of who are using the women’s health research gap mandate to drive their product innovation? Besides diagnostics, healthcare, and compounding pharmacy prescriptions (Viagra creams for women are notably a profound illegal market—which deserves more media commentary and cultural criticism imo…), there appears to be a wide open space for companies willing to invest the money and time in research and science to create consumer solutions that seek to fill the women’s health research gap. Curious if you see any momentum here or what your take is.
thanks for the read and comment! yes, my market map is largely focused on services/diagnostic products vs. CPG, which merits a massive market map unto itself. I do think you could look at the CPG space through the same 4 buckets: products for women-only (like what you're doing at wella bioscience, or perelel or ritual), women-centric, non-women only (we know women are the biggest users of supplements), and women buyers. within that framing though, I think there is a MASSIVE gap in products actually TESTED ON WOMEN. Both Rx and CPG. I've been thinking a lot about a "tested on women" stamp of some type a la "certified organic." curious what you think about that concept as a builder in this space?
I think that's actually pretty brilliant, especially as it pertains to heritage brands (CPG & RX). If any are wanting to actively participate in the women's health research gap and/or use it in any way as a marketing platform, redoing their science to include women should absolutely be table stakes for meaningful participation. And it would be a pretty awesome way to stand out. (Great marketing advice CW--dang, our names are just too close!) For us, it would obviously be a foregone conclusion (lol I'd hope!) that our clinical studies are ONLY on women... but looking at products that were not built in an era that didn't require or reward the pre-clinical or at least clinical work of the female variable... that would be very cool indeed.