John Montgomery: Good afternoon Thomas, and thanks so much for chatting with me. Moving into what we’re talking about today, I’d love to hear your thoughts on the role of having a well-defined brand in driving innovation. The word “innovation” is so widely used, it means different things to different people. How important do you think a strong brand or story is when you’re trying to foster innovation within your company?

Thomas Chalberg: That’s an interesting question. Innovation is about mindset—it’s saying, “We’re going to do things differently.” The opposite of innovation is just repeating what’s already been done, like copy-pasting from big pharma. In Silicon Valley, it’s understood that big companies don’t innovate. It’s not a criticism, but rather a structural issue—they acquire innovation rather than create it. Large companies play a crucial role in delivering medicines to patients, but smaller companies are more nimble, and able to adapt and try things quickly, which allows for innovation.

Small companies innovate because they’re nimble. We can adapt quickly, move faster, and try and fail more easily than big companies. The incentive and governance structures in large companies often don’t allow for the processes that lead to innovation. Of course, great things have come from big companies, especially when they work together with smaller companies or academics. But as a rule, smaller companies have a structural advantage in innovation. Sorry, did that answer your question?

JM: You’re already answering part of it, which is great. I was asking about the role of a strong brand or story in fostering innovation. You’ve touched on that, and I’d love to hear more about how you’ve leveraged design or intentional branding to drive outcomes, whether that’s innovation or something else.

TC: That’s an interesting point. Design, art, and branding speak to us on a subconscious level. When you visit a website and it looks outdated—like something from 1997 with basic fonts and black-and-white photos—you get an impression about the company, whether it’s accurate or not. A modern, artful design gives a sense that the company is forward-thinking and innovative. In tech, you see this all the time. A well-designed website can make you feel like you’re living in the future, whereas I’ve seen certain “big pharma” websites that make you feel like you’re stuck in the past.

In biotech, we live somewhere between these two worlds. If your website looks too “techy,” people might wonder if you’re serious scientists because this is a more mature industry where credibility and experience matter. It’s a regulated, traditional field, but if you can edge away from that outdated, big pharma feel toward something more modern, it communicates forward thinking and innovation. It shows prospective employees, investors, and the media that you’re a company doing things differently, not stuck in the past.

For example, when you go to the Genascence website, there’s a new image every time you refresh, and it’s simple but constantly changing. It gives the impression of a company that’s dynamic, forward-thinking, and embracing technology, rather than one bogged down by corporate bureaucracy.

JM: That’s interesting. I remember when we first started talking, you mentioned that the space you’re in—osteoarthritis and musculoskeletal issues—wasn’t seen as a particularly “sexy” area of biotech. It was considered a more stagnant field. You felt like you had to work harder to get investors to see that you were doing something different. Have you noticed a change in perception since we did the branding work together? 

TC: Honestly, it’s hard to measure. It’s not like people say, “I visited your website and now I see you’re doing things differently.” But almost everyone we talk to—whether it’s a potential employee, an investor, or anyone else—has visited the website. That’s just the world we live in. People will Google you, look at your LinkedIn, visit your site, and check out some basic facts. The feedback we consistently hear is that people are excited about what we’re doing and see it as innovative. Can we tie that directly to specific design elements? Not really. But we’ve quickly gained recognition in the musculoskeletal and osteoarthritis space, and part of that is because we’ve differentiated ourselves. We have a brand that communicates innovation, and we hear that repeatedly: “I love what you’re doing.”

JM: I think what you guys are doing is fantastic. I’d love to talk a bit about your personal journey. You have a background in ophthalmology and a past venture that dealt with eye diseases. Can you tell us more about how you ended up at Genascence? I’d love to understand your trajectory as an innovator, entrepreneur, and scientist.

TC: Sure. Going back to when I was applying to grad school, I was interested in genetic medicine, although we didn’t really call it that back then. It was more gene therapy, using DNA to cure disease. The idea appealed to me because it seemed like the ultimate rational drug design—you could write a sequence based on molecular biology and use that to treat disease. That was 25 years ago, and it seemed like a fascinating approach. I started working in a gene therapy lab in 2001 at Stanford, right around the time the human genome was sequenced. The genetics department at Stanford was booming, with groundbreaking research happening every week.

I joined a gene therapy lab because I was interested in translational science and drug discovery and development, and I ended up focusing on ophthalmology for a few reasons. One was personal—one of my best friends from college had a retinal disease and was losing his vision quickly. I thought, “This is a genetic disease; could gene therapy help?” As I dug into it, I realized that not only was ophthalmology an interesting area for gene therapy, it was one of the most promising. So, that became my project as a grad student. I spent a lot of my time in the lab working on translational projects for eye diseases.

From there, I went to Genentech and worked on ophthalmology, although not specifically gene therapy at that point. Then, I left to start my first company, which focused on gene therapy for eye diseases. It was a natural progression from my grad school work and early career. It was a wild ride—full of ups and downs, and I certainly learned a lot. We didn’t raise any significant money for the first three or four years.

JM: Wait, so you bootstrapped the whole time?

TC: Right, we founded the company in 2006, but it wasn’t until early 2007 that we really started. We licensed some patents and raised a small angel round. Then the global financial crisis hit, and raising money in 2008, 2009, 2010? Forget about it. No one was raising money for anything. But in 2010, things started to clear up, and we raised a few million dollars. It wasn’t much, but it was a start.

By 2014, we were still bootstrapping, but we had solid data, and that’s when things took off. We raised $350 million in about nine months across three rounds, including an IPO. We had spent so little money before that, doing things the entrepreneurial way—offering equity for services, working on a shoestring budget—we really stretched every dollar.

It’s funny how perception can change everything. We eventually raised all the money we needed, but it wasn’t until we learned how to tell our story that investors really bought in. Every slide in our corporate presentation anticipated the next question and then answered it, and investors could quickly understand what we were doing. By the time we finished the presentation, they understood exactly what we were doing and why it mattered.

After I left that company, my co-founder, Annahita Keravala, mentioned a project she knew about through her PhD connections in Pittsburgh. It was an academic project focused on a major market, similar to macular degeneration, and she thought it was worth looking into. At the time, it didn’t fit with our company’s goals, but a few years later, we reconnected with those scientists. That’s how I became involved with what eventually became Genascence. It’s still gene therapy, but this time for musculoskeletal issues, which is new to me. But I saw the potential and thought, maybe this is an area where we can make a contribution on behalf of patients with osteoarthritis.

JM: That’s great. And from this, Genascence was born.

TC: Yes, exactly. That’s how it all started.

JM: I’m interested in hearing more about the challenges you faced in 2008, during the financial crisis, when it was so hard to raise money. When we first started working together, it was just before another market contraction, and we’ve seen companies struggle to raise capital in the current environment. They tell us, “We were fine in stealth mode, but now, with the capital markets tightening, we need more than just a deck and an idea.” Companies are realizing that they need to differentiate themselves, have a strong brand, and flex every muscle to raise money. I’d love to hear your thoughts on raising money in a capital-constrained environment and whether you think having a clear story and a modern brand has helped.

TC: One key is making your company seem more tangible, more real. If you don’t have a website or your site looks clunky, people have a hard time seeing your vision. Sophisticated investors might think, “This is just marketing, it doesn’t matter,” but they’re also human and develop a first impression. Investors think with their hearts—they need to fall in love with your company. There are a million reasons not to invest, but only one reason to invest: because something wonderful might happen. So, there’s a certain need to create an emotional connection through your story and brand.

Investing is emotional, not purely rational. People want to be excited about something, and excitement isn’t based on spreadsheets or return on investment—it’s based on vision, opportunity, and the feeling that this company is doing something important.

JM: I love that. We’ve seen the same thing. It’s not always rational, but it’s about creating that spark of excitement and curiosity. Investors want to feel like they’re on a journey with you.

TC: Exactly. Entrepreneurship is a lot about storytelling. You need to craft a narrative that engages people and makes them want to learn more. In a pitch, every slide should leave a question that the next slide answers. That way, investors are always leaning forward, wanting to know what comes next. When they feel like they’re discovering something new and exciting, they’re more likely to invest. And that’s where branding comes in—it’s the emotional component of the story.

JM: I know for a lot of biotech companies, going through a branding exercise can be unfamiliar territory, and some people find it a bit abstract or even intimidating. But once they get into it, they often find it to be a valuable, even cathartic, experience. Could you talk a bit about what it was like for you and your team to work on your brand, your story, and your visual language?

TC: It’s been a couple of years now, but I remember the experience being really positive. It’s definitely a different process for scientists, especially when we’re used to thinking in very black-and-white terms. Branding isn’t about data; it’s about emotions, purpose, and identity. You have to set aside that left-brain thinking for a bit and lean into the creative process. But that’s why we chose to work with GoodLab—you didn’t just give us a website or a PowerPoint template. You helped us start from the ground up by asking who we are and who we want to be.

I think that process was crucial for getting everyone on board. Even though I might have had a direction in mind, the branding exercises helped the whole team align on our identity. We spent time refining the language, discussing what words and images best represented us. It wasn’t just about choosing a logo; it was about defining who we are and what we stand for. Once we had that clarity, everything else fell into place—design, copy, visuals, everything.

JM: That’s fantastic to hear. I’m so glad the process was valuable for you and your team. 

TC: Absolutely, this has been great. I really appreciate it.