From Ozempic to Tylenol, pharmaceutical product brands now have celebrity status. They dominate headlines, provide fodder for gossip, sit at the center of political controversy, and like movie stars, generate real market impact by increasing or decreasing consumer demand through their notoriety and reputations.

However, the pharmaceutical industry is entering a new phase of brand strategy. As innovation cycles shorten and the line between prescription and consumer health blurs, corporate identity is becoming the sector’s most enduring competitive advantage.

In a sector built on science and regulation, trust has become the defining currency of brand strength. A credible parent brand reassures regulators that research is sound, gives prescribers confidence in safety and efficacy, and signals to investors that innovation will be rewarded. That trust accelerates product uptake and provides resilience when reputational or scientific risks arise.

Brand Finance conducts proprietary market research on corporate pharmaceutical brands in more than 30 countries, giving a comparative view of how familiarity, trust and perceived quality influence overall brand strength. Our data shows that brands combining scientific authority with broad consumer familiarity tend to achieve the highest and most stable scores.

The rise of the parent brand

Product lifecycles in pharma are shortening. New formulations, delivery technologies, biosimilars and AI-enabled R&D mean that a treatment can move from breakthrough to baseline far faster than it once did. As a result, product-level equity is becoming less stable and the corporate brand now carries a greater share of long-term value.

Brand Finance data illustrates this shift clearly. Eli Lilly’s brand value rose 36% to USD8.0 billion in 2025, driven by the success of Zepbound and Mounjaro. Novo Nordisk has followed a similar pattern. Its brand value has increased by more than 75% since 2023 on the strength of Wegovy and Ozempic. This extends beyond the balance sheets – Brand Finance data shows familiarity for Lilly in the US has risen from 43% to 52% in the past year, and respondents describing Eli Lilly as a 'brand I know well' rose to 17% from 10%. Novo Nordisk shows a comparable trend, with familiarity rising from 22% to 36% and “brand I know well” moving from 8% to 16%.

As individual products move through compressed cycles, the corporate name becomes the enduring point of confidence for stakeholders. It provides continuity as portfolios evolve.

Two contrasting models: Johnson & Johnson and Bayer

Johnson & Johnson and Bayer exemplify two opposing strategies for strengthening the corporate name.

Johnson & Johnson remains the world’s most valuable and strongest pharmaceutical brand, worth USD15.5 billion in 2025, up 16% year-on-year, with a Brand Strength Index score of 83.5 out of 100. This places it on par with well-known corporate names such as General Electric, Netflix and American Airlines, though still below the strongest US brands, which sit in the mid-90s.

The 2023 spin-off of its consumer division, Kenvue, sharpened the company’s focus on medical and pharmaceutical innovation. While this strengthened its scientific credibility, the removal of the Johnson & Johnson name from consumer product packaging has reduced the everyday visibility that previously supported the corporate brand.

Bayer has taken the reverse route, keeping a single identity that unites consumer and prescription health in order to preserve familiarity and reach. Its brand value has risen to USD6.2 billion and its BSI score stands at 82.2, the second strongest in the sector. Familiar products such as Aspirin and Berocca sustain widespread awareness and trust in the Bayer name, linking consumer familiarity to perceptions of scientific reliability.

Although their structures differ, both companies demonstrate the same point. Strong parent brands remain trusted even as individual products evolve, and this trust underpins long-term performance.

Brand Strength is assessed using Brand Finance’s Brand Strength Index, a score out of 100 that reflects how a corporate name is perceived and how it influences behavior. It combines market research on familiarity, consideration and reputation with evidence of how those perceptions translate into demand, pricing power and advocacy. The BSI is a core component of how overall brand value is calculated.

Corporate familiarity as a strategic advantage

Trust is central to how the pharmaceutical market functions, but it often begins with familiarity. Long development timelines, regulatory scrutiny and evolving clinical evidence mean that prescribers, regulators and patients frequently rely on what they already know about a company when evaluating new treatments.

This dynamic is particularly visible in metabolic and weight-loss categories, where decision-making is more active and product cycles are moving quickly. Brand Finance research conducted in the fall of 2025 shows that Ozempic records much higher awareness and familiarity in the United States than newer competitors. Despite this, current usage levels for Mounjaro are almost identical, indicating a higher conversion rate once patients and prescribers engage with the treatment. This reflects a broader pattern: familiarity shapes early adoption, while clinical experience and perceived outcomes begin to guide choices as the category matures.

Recent market developments also show how rapidly momentum can shift. Novo Nordisk has experienced losses in GLP-1 market share and setbacks in adjacent indications, contributing to increased volatility around its flagship products. These fluctuations underline how exposed individual therapies can be to scientific or competitive pressures, even in categories with strong underlying demand.

At the same time, longer-term behavior in metabolic care continues to reflect the influence of corporate familiarity. Decades of leadership in diabetes and endocrinology have helped build confidence in both Lilly’s and Novo Nordisk’s portfolios, shaping how new products are received. Brand Finance research also shows that parent-brand familiarity for Eli Lilly is materially higher than for Novo Nordisk in the US, giving Lilly a stronger starting point in categories where new entrants appear frequently. This provides greater flexibility as products evolve and helps insulate the company from volatility at an individual-therapy level.

Even as new formulations and delivery mechanisms emerge, many patients will continue asking for Ozempic, creating a carryover effect that can support Novo Nordisk’s market position as subsequent therapies arrive. Ultimately, it is the reputation of the parent company that guides prescriber and patient confidence when the next generation of treatments, such as oral GLP-1 options, reaches the market.

Resilience: The parent brand as a buffer

A strong corporate name also provides resilience when external pressures intensify. Litigation, pricing scrutiny, clinical setbacks or political attention can all affect individual product lines. The corporate brand often absorbs the initial impact.

Bayer offers a recent example. Despite facing litigation challenges and restructuring pressures after 2020, the company’s brand value rose by more than 40% between 2021 and 2025. Over the same period, brand value as a proportion of enterprise value increased from 5% to 9%. This recovery reflects the strength of the Bayer name. Long-term familiarity and consistent reputation act as a stabilizing force when performance is tested.

Strong corporate brands recover more predictably than those reliant on isolated product success, supporting the sustainability of enterprise value over time.

Beyond patients

The influence of the parent brand extends well beyond patients and prescribers.

Investors

Capital allocation depends heavily on perceived stability. Brand Finance analysis of US companies shows stronger brand strength is associated with a lower cost of equity. In the US market, a BSI of 80 corresponds to a cost of equity roughly 0.75% lower than that of a company with a BSI of 50.

Talent

Competition for scientific talent continues to intensify. Brand Finance research with STEM graduates that a prestigious corporate name is the most important factor driving job consideration among STEM graduates, ahead of salary, culture or work-life balance. Visibility of the parent brand directly supports the recruitment of researchers and technical talent.

Partnerships and pipeline development

Early-stage biotech companies and research partners look for organizations that can provide stability, credibility and technical rigor. These agreements are made with the corporate entity, not a product brand, which makes the parent brand a central driver of partnership strength and pipeline development.

Brand Finance’s research on the world’s top Academic Medical Centers, based on surveys of medical professionals across 30 countries, shows that researchers are more likely to collaborate with organizations recognized as leaders in their field, a dynamic that strong pharmaceutical parent brands are well placed to benefit from.

Regulators

Regulatory authorities interact almost exclusively with the corporate entity. A well-established and trusted corporate identity supports smoother engagement and reduces perceived risk in complex submissions.

The pharmaceutical industry is moving from a model defined by product-led brand value to one where the corporate name carries the greater share of influence. In an era of rapid innovation, heightened scrutiny and rising expectations of trust, the parent brand has become the only asset with an indefinite useful life. Patents, formulations and individual product brands will evolve or expire. The corporate identity is what endures.

Companies that invest in strengthening their parent brand, improving familiarity, credibility and visibility, will be better positioned to drive uptake, withstand volatility and compete for talent, capital and partnerships. The next era of pharmaceutical competitiveness will be shaped not only by what companies make, but by the strength of the name behind it.