In B2B market research, accurate findings are essential; they provide the insights that drive critical strategic business decisions. Achieving this accuracy depends heavily on recruiting the right participants—individuals whose roles, experiences, and expertise align with the market research study’s needs. These participants must be able to provide the level of depth and specificity required to uncover insights that drive meaningful change.
However, challenges within the recruiting industry itself often prevent companies from achieving this level of accuracy. At the core of the issue is how recruiting vendors calculate incidence rates, which frequently miss the mark. Ideally, these estimates should accurately predict how many qualified respondents meet a project’s criteria, setting clear expectations from the start. But when these estimates are inaccurate, timelines can be derailed, budgets strained, and client relationships damaged.
Below, we explore the reasons behind inaccurate incidence rate estimates from research partners, examine transparency concerns within vendor processes, and outline potential solutions for improving accuracy.
How Incidence Rates are Calculated – and Why They Often Miss the Mark
Many recruit vendors are eager to take on projects, especially B2B projects that promise higher fees. However, despite their enthusiasm, a lot of recruiters lack a deep understanding of the complexities of B2B sampling. This knowledge gap poses a significant risk to both the market research company hiring them, as well as the end client.
Incidence rates in B2B research are often inaccurate due to misaligned data or flawed estimation methods. Estimating the availability of qualified respondents is particularly challenging in specialized fields where niche audiences are common. Complex factors—such as respondent fatigue, competitive overlaps, and a limited pool of potential respondents—can distort incidence rates. When these nuances are overlooked, recruit vendors frequently produce overly optimistic estimates that lead to recruitment challenges.
Recruiting vendors typically use various methods to estimate incidence rates, each with its own strengths and limitations. They may rely on open-source data from industry databases, LinkedIn, and competitive intelligence, but these sources often fail to capture the unique nuances of each project, such as evolving market dynamics or shifts in respondent availability. Outdated social media profiles and insufficient detail in industry databases can further lead to a disconnect between projected and actual incidence rates.
In many cases, vendors rely heavily on historical data without adjusting for the specific demands of a new project, which can result in inaccurate estimates. Some vendors even take a “spray and pray” approach, sending screeners to a broad audience without precise targeting, inflating initial estimates.
This lack of standardized methodology complicates incidence rate estimation in B2B research. Each vendor’s unique approach—often lacking transparency—leads to confusion and unpredictable recruitment outcomes.
The Need for Transparency in Recruit Vendor Processes
Transparency is essential for building trust and all stakeholders in the project. From the start of a project, vendors should clearly outline their assumptions, data sources, and methodologies, offering a clear rationale for their incidence rate estimates. This open communication fosters a collaborative partnership built on shared understanding. Unfortunately, full transparency is not yet the industry standard.
The lack of transparency from vendors regarding incidence rate estimates adds to the frustration when estimates frequently miss the mark. Often, vendors provide incidence rate estimates without fully disclosing the data or methodology behind them. Market research firms receive a number—perhaps 20% or 30%—but they have little insight into how that number was derived.
For example, when hearing from a potential new recruiting partner, who has been given a recruit profile to assess and ultimately bid on, we might hear something like this:
“This assumes an incidence rate of 20%.”
When we ask for insight into how that percentage was derived, a good potential partner will strive to give a clear answer, calling out their use of internal data sets, LinkedIn, past project history, or other data sources, in essence showing us their homework. Or in some cases, outright declaring that they are unsure of what the incidence rate will be – and they will have to proceed on a best effort basis. Whereas others will ask – “what do you think it should be?” Or – “what does your end client think it should be?” Or worse yet, they are simply unable to provide a clear answer as to how they derived that initial incidence rate percentage.
This type of reaction is nothing more than passing the buck. Market Research recruit vendors have an obligation to assess the projects they are given an opportunity to bid on more closely than this example shows.
This lack of transparency and “buck passing” leads to a frustrating dynamic. Market Research firms are left in the dark about the assumptions vendors have made or the sources of data they’ve used. If the actual incidence rate turns out to be much lower than promised, the market research firm and the end client is blindsided, and the project timeline is suddenly in jeopardy. The recruitment phase may stretch out as teams scramble to find qualified respondents, and the project’s overall deliverables are at risk.
In short, without transparency there is no potential for an effective relationship between a market research firm and recruiting firm. Yet, when market research recruiters are upfront about how they arrive at their incidence rate estimates, market research firms and clients can make decisions that are informed, realistic, and trustworthy. Which is one reason, among many, that we take great care in deciding who we chose to partner with as a firm.
The Discrepancy Between Estimated and Actual Incidence Rates: Why Estimates Often Fail
There are several reasons why estimated incidence rates frequently fall short of reality, creating challenges for B2B research projects. These discrepancies often stem from external factors that impact the availability of qualified respondents. Here are some key issues that contribute to this problem:
Available Data Doesn’t Match Current Reality
One major reason for inaccurate estimates is the reliance on generalized data that doesn’t align with the specific needs of the project. In B2B tech research, studies often target highly specialized audiences, such as targeting an organization that has a specific use case for Generative AI. Finding respondents with such niche qualifications can be particularly challenging, and broad industry databases may not accurately reflect the true incidence rate. This disconnect between available data and the specific project requirements often leads to overestimated rates.
Competitive Recruitment Efforts
In highly specialized industries, multiple vendors or organizations may be targeting the same pool of respondents for different research studies. This competition can quickly deplete the pool, making it even harder to find suitable candidates at a set price. As the available pool shrinks, the recruiting process often turns into a bidding market, where vendors compete for limited respondents, driving up costs and complicating recruitment efforts. This not only impacts timelines but also puts additional pressure on budgets, creating another layer of challenge for research teams.
Geographical Limitations
For studies that require respondents in specific regions, geographical limitations can significantly impact the availability of qualified participants. If the target audience is concentrated in a particular area, finding enough respondents who fit the criteria becomes a challenge.
Beyond geography, other variables such as the specific use case of the product, the respondent’s role, title, and seniority level further complicate recruitment. For example, targeting senior decision-makers with niche expertise or specialized job functions often narrows the pool even more.
All of these factors make the estimation process more complex and increase the difficulty for vendors to provide precise incidence rate estimates, especially in industries where the respondent pool is small or has been over-tapped. These challenges underscore the importance of using a more nuanced and tailored approach to incidence rate estimation in B2B research.
The Cost of Misaligned Incidence Rate Estimates
When estimated incidence rates fail to align with actual rates, the impact on project outcomes can be substantial. Recruitment delays often force teams to extend timelines, inflating costs. In extreme cases, projects can derail if qualified respondents cannot be recruited in sufficient numbers, leading to indefinite pauses, scaled-back study scopes, or even project cancellations. This inability to recruit respondents not only wastes resources but also erodes client trust, potentially damaging long-term relationships and future opportunities.
Financial and Resource Impact
Overly optimistic incidence rate estimates can have a significant financial impact. Research teams may need to invest additional time and money to meet recruitment targets, driving up costs and stretching timelines. Delays often require higher compensation for respondents, further inflating the project budget. In some cases, the project may even become unfeasible if the recruitment phase stalls indefinitely.
Effects on Project Credibility and Client Relationships
Misaligned estimates can also undermine a project’s credibility. Missed deadlines, extended recruitment timelines, and budget overruns create tension between clients and vendors. Clients may begin to doubt the vendor’s ability to deliver, straining relationships and jeopardizing long-term partnerships.
Impact on Data Quality and Insights
Inaccurate incidence rates can compromise data quality. When vendors struggle to find the right respondents, clients may feel pressured to lower their standards, leading to the inclusion of participants who don’t meet the initial criteria. This diminishes the accuracy and relevance of the study’s insights, affecting the client’s ability to make well-informed business decisions.
Solutions for Improving Incidence Rate Accuracy and Transparency
We would like to see more concrete measures from vendors to improve the accuracy and transparency of incidence rate estimates. The challenges are clear, but there are steps that can be taken to address them more effectively.
Recruiting Firm Transparency: Recruit firms should be willing to share their approach to determining incidence rates with market research firms, outlining exactly how estimates are calculated, what assumptions are being made, and where the data is coming from.
Tailored Estimates: Broad historical data and generalized assumptions aren’t sufficient. Recruiting firms should tailor estimates to each project’s specific needs, using detailed and relevant data points. If a potential partner claims to have respondents who match a study’s criteria based on previous experience, they should support this with clear evidence, not vague assurances.
Addressing Client Objections and Working Collaboratively: Market research recruiters may argue, “As the market research firm, it’s your job to determine the incidence rate.” While market research firms may have an ability to “weigh in” on a potential estimate, a recruiting firm should have the depth of expertise to stand behind their incidence estimate and not place it on shifting sand. Market research recruiters should offer contractual guarantees that incidence rates have been carefully assessed, with contingencies already in place if reality doesn’t align with projections.
From Estimates to Insights: A New Standard for Incidence Rates
Inaccurate incidence rates can derail B2B research projects, wasting resources, straining relationships, and leading to unreliable insights. Transparency and accuracy aren’t just best practices—they’re essential for delivering results that drive business success.
Market research firms shouldn’t settle for vague promises and limited commitments when it comes to incidence rates. Transparency is essential, as the future of B2B research depends on precise incidence rates. Ultimately, firms like ours will choose to partner with market research recruiters who exhibit these tendencies and steer clear of those who don’t.
This blog post is brought to you by Cascade Insights, a firm that provides market research & marketing services exclusively to organizations with B2B tech sector initiatives. If you need a specialist to address your specific needs, check out our B2B Market Research Services.