Site outreach rarely pays off at the send.
November 8, 2026
6
min read
By
Julio G. Martinez-Clark, CEO, bioaccess®
I posed a simple question to fellow site leaders in the Society for Clinical Research Sites (SCRS) community: beyond referrals and repeat sponsors, how does your site find new studies? The poll drew nine votes. Repeat sponsors and CROs led at 56 percent, and a site's own outreach came second at 22 percent. One reply, from Ruby Rojo, named the part most sites miss: outreach works, but it pays off roughly six months later, not when the message goes out. That has been my experience from both sides of the table. As chief executive officer (CEO) of bioaccess®, a first-in-human (FIH) CRO running trials anywhere from Canada down to Argentina, I see which sites sponsors remember when a protocol opens. As CEO of Amavita Research Services, a Miami cardiovascular research site operated for seven years with zero United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Form 483 findings, I do the outreach myself — and I log every reply.
Why send volume is the wrong metric
Most outreach reporting counts sends: messages sent this week, contacts touched this month. Those numbers describe activity, not progress, because almost no study is awarded in the week a site introduces itself. A sponsor who receives a capable introduction in January usually has no matching protocol in January. The introduction creates a possibility, not a pipeline entry.
Judged by sends, outreach always looks inefficient. A thoughtful reply that says "nothing in this indication this quarter, but keep us in mind for Phase II work" reads as a dead end in a weekly report. Six months later, it may be the most valuable message the site received all year — a named contact, at a named sponsor, who stated a future need in the site's own area. A site that only tracks sends never sees that value, because it never recorded the reply that carried it.
The six-month lag is how outreach actually works
Study placement runs on protocol timing, not outreach timing. A sponsor's pipeline moves through internal review, budget approval, and feasibility preparation before any site hears about a study. The gap between a first conversation and a fitting study opening is commonly about six months, and it can be longer. Ruby's observation matches that cycle exactly.
The lag changes what good outreach looks like. If the return arrives six months after the contact, the contact has to be built to survive six months: specific enough to be remembered, and recorded well enough to be found again. A generic capability message is forgotten within weeks. A short message tied to a defined indication, a phase the site runs well, and a concrete enrollment strength is still meaningful two quarters later, because it maps onto a decision the sponsor will actually face. Outreach done this quarter is an investment in the next two quarters' shortlists. Sites that abandon it because the first month produced no study are quitting just before the lag expires.
What to log when a reply comes in
The send belongs in a campaign tool. The reply belongs in a record the site will still be using next year. For every substantive reply, log enough that a follow-up writes itself:
- Contact and role: The named person who replied, their organization, and whether they work in feasibility, clinical operations, or business development.
- Indication discussed: The condition or therapeutic area the conversation actually covered, stated narrowly, not the sponsor's whole portfolio.
- Phase and study type: The phase or study type they mentioned, including work they said is coming but not yet open.
- Enrollment need: Any number, population, or timeline they named as a pressure point, in their words where possible.
- Reply substance: What they actually said — interest, a future need, a referral to a colleague, or a clear no — rather than a generic "responded" tag.
- Date and next trigger: When the reply arrived, and the event that should prompt follow-up, such as a study opening in that indication or a new quarter.
Six fields take two minutes to complete. They are the difference between an inbox full of forgotten courtesy replies and a working map of who needs what, and when.
Tie every contact to a specific fit
Logging only preserves value the outreach created in the first place, and that value comes from fit. Outreach works best when each message is tied to a specific fit: this indication, this phase, this enrollment need. At Amavita Research Services, a message about our cardiovascular population only persuades when it narrows our more than 18,000 active cardiology patients to the patients a named protocol could actually enroll. The same discipline applies at bioaccess® when we introduce sites to sponsors: the introduction that survives states a match, not a menu.
Fit also makes the reply easier to give. A feasibility contact can answer a specific message in one line — "not this year," "wrong phase for us," "yes, our Phase II program opens in the fall" — and every answer is loggable and useful. A vague message earns a vague reply, or none, and there is nothing to build on six months later.
Follow up when a study in that area opens
The log earns its keep at one moment: when a study opens in an area a past reply covered. Then the follow-up is not a cold restart. It references the earlier conversation, the indication and phase the contact named, and the enrollment need they described — and it arrives exactly when that need is live. Few messages a site sends are as well timed.
This is also where most sites lose the return on work already done. The reply sits in an individual's inbox, the person changes roles or forgets, and when the fitting study appears the site starts over with a cold introduction to the same sponsor. Both sites did the same outreach. Only one of them collects.
What repeat sponsors reward
The poll's leading answer deserves its due: 56 percent of sites find new studies through repeat sponsors and CROs, far ahead of any other channel. That is not a separate strategy from outreach. Repeat business is what outreach becomes when the lag is respected and the replies are logged. A sponsor returns to the site that answered feasibility fast, delivered what it projected, and stayed easy to find when the next protocol in the same indication opened.
That is the standard I hear on Global Trial Accelerators, the podcast I founded, hosted by Jesús E. Moreno, and the standard we apply at bioaccess® when we build site shortlists for sponsors. So log the reply, not just the send. Six months from now, when the fitting study opens, the site that can find the reply is the site that gets the call.
Julio G. Martinez-Clark is chief executive officer (CEO) of bioaccess\u00AE, a first-in-human contract research organization running early-phase trials anywhere from Canada down to Argentina, and of Amavita Research Services, a Miami cardiovascular research site he has operated for seven years with zero United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Form 483 inspection findings. He founded Global Trial Accelerators\u2122, a podcast for medtech and biotech founders navigating first-in-human studies.