Sanofi: immunity is not a scientific category in people's minds, it is a theory of the body

Context

Sanofi: immunity is not a scientific category in people's minds, it is a theory of the body

The word "immunity" is the first problem in the subject. In medical language it designates a precise set of biological mechanisms. In people's minds it designates something else: a general strength, a reserve that fills and empties, a resistance that depends on what you eat, on tiredness, on cold, on the body's balance. Those two definitions coexist without meeting.

Until you have established what people believe immunity to be, you cannot map opportunities: you map a category that exists only for the company. This case describes that preliminary decoding work and what it changes. The opportunities identified, the conclusions and proprietary client data are not disclosed.

A subject that has become central and remains ill-defined: Immunity has established itself as one of the principal territories of consumer health, and its importance grew after the pandemic period. It is also one of the least stabilised subjects: it covers at once a biological reality, an everyday preoccupation and a set of inherited practices.

Market studies converge on one point: Asian and Latin American consumers are among those most actively seeking foods and drinks supporting immune health, and most likely to value functional ingredients.

A competitive ecosystem that is not the one you would expect: The most decisive point concerns the nature of the competition. In Vietnam, herbal products are reported to represent more than 70% of the health supplements market, reflecting a marked cultural preference for traditional remedies over modern pharmaceutical products.

The reasons given are explicit: plant-based products are perceived as safer and associated with fewer side effects than synthetic formulations. Ginseng is particularly popular there, and that preference rests on a long tradition of using plants in everyday health management, reinforced since the pandemic. Turmeric, ginger and other plants are advancing across several markets, with growing integration of traditional medicine into modern formulations.

A lay theory of the body: People do not think about their health in terms of mechanisms. They think in terms of forces, balances and reserves. Immunity, within that logic, resembles a capital that is spent and replenished: tiredness empties it, cold attacks it, certain foods recharge it, certain excesses exhaust it.

That lay theory is not an error to be corrected: it is the grammar in which decisions are made. A brand speaking another language can be scientifically impeccable and remain inaudible.

What that changes for opportunity identification: The likely strategic challenge was therefore twofold: to establish what immunity actually means in each context, then to derive a competitive perimeter corresponding to the reality of trade-offs rather than to the industry's nomenclature.

An opportunity identified on the basis of an administrative category — supplements, over-the-counter products — describes a shelf, not a need. An opportunity identified on the basis of a need describes a demand that several types of offer compete for, including offers that appear in no sector study.

Two regions, not one model: Southeast Asia and South America share a strong attachment to traditional remedies, but the belief systems underlying them differ profoundly — medical traditions, the relationship to hot and cold, the family's place in decisions, the pharmacist's status. Surface resemblance is a classic trap: it encourages a shared reading that describes neither.

The work was framed around questions of this kind:

In these markets, the competitor to an immunity product is not another laboratory. It is a root, a soup, a tea and a grandmother's advice.

Strategic challenge

The questions that structured the work

Research and work conducted

What the engagement covered

• The first question is the one quantitative research cannot pose. It requires listening before measuring, failing which you measure responses to a vocabulary people do not use.
• The approach rests on one principle: you establish what the subject means locally first, and what the market contains second.
• The gap between medical and lived vocabulary: The terms used by the industry are not those used by people. Asking questions in category vocabulary produces compliant answers with no explanatory value.
• The temptation to correct beliefs: A scientific organisation has a natural reflex: to rectify what is inaccurate. On this subject, that reflex prevents understanding. Describing a belief is not endorsing it; it is recognising that it steers real decisions.
• A competitive perimeter invisible in the data: Home remedies, family preparations and foods consumed for health purposes appear in no market share study. They nonetheless constitute a significant share of real competition.
• False resemblance between regions: Southeast Asia and South America share an attachment to traditional remedies, but their belief systems differ. Producing a synthesis too early erases what has value.
• Constraints on health claims: What can be asserted about an immunity-related product is strictly framed and varies by country. A real opportunity can prove impossible to formulate legally.
• Internal heterogeneity of markets: Cities and rural areas, generations, income levels and health systems vary sharply within each country. A single national reading produces an average that describes nobody.

Deliverables

Objects teams can use beyond the engagement

• A decoding of what immunity covers in local representations, region by region.
• A reconstruction of the implicit logic connecting tiredness, food, climate and resistance.
• A map of the real competitive ecosystem, including non-pharmaceutical offers.
• An identification of the moments that trigger concern about immunity.
• A reading of the advice sources actually consulted.
• An opportunity map positioned on the map of beliefs rather than of categories.
• An explicit distinction between cross-regional observations and local specificities.

Key learnings

What this case makes clear

• Immunity is not a scientific category in people's minds; it is a theory of the body made of forces, reserves and balances.
• A lay theory is not an error to correct: it is the language in which decisions are made.
• The competitor to an immunity product is often not another laboratory but a food, a plant or a domestic practice.
• A competitive perimeter defined by regulation describes an industry; one defined by need describes a market.
• Asking questions in category vocabulary produces compliant answers with no explanatory value.
• Two regions attached to traditional remedies can hold opposing belief systems. Surface resemblance is a trap.

For comparable organisations

Where this approach is useful

This case will speak to organisations showing at least one of the following characteristics: A subject whose meaning differs between company vocabulary and consumer vocabulary. Competition that does not appear in market share data. Markets where local medical tradition remains decisive. A scientific organisation whose reflex is to correct beliefs rather than understand them. Deployment across several regions whose apparent resemblance conceals different logics. A regulatory framework limiting what can be asserted about a health benefit. These situations recur in consumer health, pharmacy, nutrition, food supplements, active cosmetics and personal care — wherever scientific knowledge meets a culture of the body.