Conquesting vs. Defending

When should you defend your brand terms and when should you conquest those of competitors? Category-specific tactics for analgesics, allergies and digestive health. Budget allocation between attack and defence. Measuring share of voice in sponsored results on Amazon.co.uk, Boots and Superdrug.

Introduction: The Retail Media Battlefield in Pharmacy

Retail media has become the number one strategic battleground for OTC pharmaceutical brands in the United Kingdom. On Amazon.co.uk, Boots, Superdrug and other health e-commerce platforms, the battle for visibility in sponsored results increasingly determines market share. Each advertising position won or lost in search results directly translates into sales captured or ceded to a competitor.

In this ecosystem, two fundamental strategies compete: defending, which consists of protecting your own brand terms by bidding on them to prevent competitors from capturing intentional traffic, and conquesting, which aims to position your products on competitor brand queries to divert their qualified traffic.

For brand managers and competitive strategy heads in the pharmaceutical sector, the question isn't choosing between one approach or the other, but finding the right balance. How should budgets be allocated between attack and defence? What tactics should be deployed according to categories—analgesics, allergies, digestive health? How can the effectiveness of each approach be measured in real time?

This article proposes a comprehensive strategic framework for navigating this duality, with concrete recommendations adapted to the UK market and its specific regulatory and competitive characteristics.