Brent Bowman: Yeah. So, I’m not going to get into specific ARR values, but just — what’s important is Link is a big opportunity for us. We’re executing well. Our first application Link for Key People is getting really good traction, and you’re seeing that as a driver to our revenue growth. So, it’s one of the — that is one of the primary drivers you saw in Q2 and for the balance of the year from a commercial revenue growth perspective.
Peter Gassner: This is Peter. I’m sorry. I’ll talk about the — sorry for the audio there. I had a little issue. This is Peter. I’ll talk about Link overall. We started out with Link for Key People. And when we were building that, we were also building the Link platform, so that we could expand it to different solution areas and you’re seeing that. You started seeing that last year. So, Link for Key Accounts, for [Multiple Countries] (ph), Link for Scientific Awareness, for Medical Insights, Link Workflow. And then over into the clinical area, we’ve announced Link TrialBase and Link SiteBase. So, we’ve really announced a broad, broad set of products. Now each of those products, they’re going to take a long time to mature, as Brent said.
The bulk of our Link revenue, I don’t have the exact number, but let’s say probably more than 90% right now, is in the Link for Key People. We think it can be a broad, broad set of solutions that can add significant value. But we’ll have to see. We’ll have to see, can we make excellent applications and make customers happy. We’re very mature in Link Key People. A lot more customers to sell into. The product is very mature, by far the market-leading product. We have to see if we can get there with our other Link products.
Stan Berenshteyn: Got it. And then maybe just a quick one on Crossix. Obviously, that’s a choppier business quarter-to-quarter, but can you share with us any trends you’re seeing as it relates to pharma marketing activities and demand? Thanks.
Peter Gassner: Marketing, no broad level trends that we haven’t seen before, just increased scrutiny. Marketing is a spend, and I would say there’s increased scrutiny, especially more than it was a couple years ago. But it continues to go well for us at Crossix. And it’s going to have its ups and down quarter-to-quarter. But as companies, they want to reach their customers, in the U.S., specifically in two ways: face to face and through digital. And they’re always going to use both methods and digital marketing is a big part of it. Crossix is the leading measurement solution. So, I think you have a good long-term business there. Our focus is to integrate Crossix more tightly with CRM, so that it becomes more towards enterprise license agreements and it became — comes a little bit less of a standalone measurement tool.
Stan Berenshteyn: Great. Thanks so much.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Saket Kalia with Barclays. Your line is open.
Saket Kalia: Okay. Great. Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my questions here. Apologies in advance if these questions have been asked, but I’m going to try it anyway. Peter, maybe first for you. Great to see the growth in the EDC customer base. I think we said we added eight, right, in the quarter. Maybe the question for you is, are there any commonalities that you’re seeing across some of those wins? Whether it’s coming from one or two specific competitors or maybe a common reasoning that you’re seeing those customers choose to switch Any observations that that you would make just as you look at a bigger EDC customer base now?
Peter Gassner: Yeah, there are some commonalities. I would say, the bulk of them are either coming from Medidata, which is the leading by volume in industry solution, or they’re coming from a series of small competitors that are targeted for the SMB. As it relates to Medidata, I would say, they’re like the EDC solutions from Veeva, but they also like the integration with our clinical operations suite. In the [EAC] (ph) solution, why they like our solution better at times — sometimes is, and that’ll be the primary driver, it — specific, what I call, meat and potatoes things. For example, when you do a study amendment, you change the design of the study many times with competitive solutions, you have to unload the data, reload the data.
The site can’t — the clinical research site can’t operate during time. With Veeva, because there’s a newer architecture, that doesn’t happen. We also are able to — through the use of our tooling, our customers can build their studies, can define their studies dramatically faster. It might do four weeks instead of eight weeks. And then, the way that Veeva system works has less custom programming. There’s custom programming needed in these other solutions that is expensive, but also [indiscernible] specialized skill. You don’t need that. You can define that and leave it. So these very specific things. And then as to why they would use Veeva instead of maybe smaller SMB solutions, I think, again, they would like to get solutions from one partner that fits together.
And that’s what we do. A good example of that is we have a great clinical trial management system and we have a great EDC system. You don’t have to use both. If you use both, they’re better together. Our ePRO system and our RTSM system, they work fine if you don’t have our EDC. They don’t require our EDC at all. Their best stand alone, and nobody else has done that before, right? Nobody else that has an EAC product. But if you have all of our products, the integration is even better, and it’s just easier to get these solutions from — an integrated solution from one company. So that’s what we’re seeing. People want a broad clinical partner where all of the applications are excellent, and that’s what they can find in Veeva.
Saket Kalia: Got it. That makes a lot of sense. Brent, maybe for my follow-up for you, and, again, apologies if this has already been asked. But some competitors during the quarter talked about maybe some lower clinical trial volume just kind of industry wide, and that potentially impacting their revenue. Maybe just to level set for all of us, can you just remind us how much of Veeva’s business, if any at all, is dependent on sort of near-term in-quarter clinical trial volume that we could sort of get a sense for Veeva’s exposure to that potential trend?
Brent Bowman: Hi, Saket. So, minimal — a very small amount is going to be variable based on near-term trial volumes. If you think about our six top 20 EDC wins, those are typically multi-year predefined ramping deals. So, they’re going to — they’re not going to move with the ebb and flow of a near-term trial volume. So, I would say that has a minimal impact in kind of how we go to market and contract with our customers.
Saket Kalia: Very helpful. Thanks, guys.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Brad Sills with Bank of America Securities. Your line is open.
Unidentified Analyst: Hey, this is Carly on for Brad. I know we talked about just the fiscal year guidance, I guess the implied Q3 guidance kind of assuming current macro to continue. I just want to dig in a little deeper into, I guess, specific cohort or product wise. I know you guys pointed out smaller biotech customers impacting the R&D business. But just wondering, going forward, looking at the second half, what segments do you expect to be impacted more than the other, perhaps and maybe some that are going to recover sooner than the other, which will offset some of that weaker macro. Yes, I just want to like learn — dig into a little deeper into nuances here.
Brent Bowman: Yes. So, starting from the top, the macro, again, we expect it to be a continuation of what we saw in the first half and the back half. If you look at our full year guide and you look at R&D, we’re growing that business at about 28% adjusted for termination for convenience. So that’s a very healthy business, growing nicely, and we continue to execute, and we see the strength to be broad-based across clinical, quality, and safety in the rest of the businesses in regulatory. So broad-based strength there. The macro was going to impact both commercial and R&D, but nothing more than what we’ve been seeing. So, we’re happy with the execution we have broadly across the portfolio.
