Audience research
Part of Audience research for a lead network that separates both sides of the marketplace
Researching rival lead networks without personal data shortcuts
Research England lead network competitors with dated first-party records, verifiable comparisons, review limits and no invented behaviour for buyers.
Lead generation networks competitor research should produce a dated evidence ledger, not a story about what another business intends. Record what a first-party page or public authority actually shows, preserve the page date and limitation, then compare only equivalent events.
Use this checklist for England-facing research completed on 5 September 2026.
What to take away
- This checklist reports no market share, customer sentiment, pricing, conversion or competitor conduct data.
- Compare only equivalent events; if units cannot be reconciled, present them as different models.
- Treat Companies House as an identity and filing source, not proof of ownership claims or solvency.
- Keep reviews as a separate dataset and do not infer a customer population from self-selected reviewers.
- Public availability does not remove fairness, lawfulness and transparency duties for personal information used in direct marketing.
Define the comparison before searching
- Write the buyer decision the research will inform.
- Define the unitlisting, request, revealed contact, shortlist, appointment or completed transaction.
- Set the English geography, category and observation date.
- List exclusions, including unavailable account-only material and promotional outcome claims.
- Name the owner and publication-day recheck.
England-facing marketplaces such as Bark, Checkatrade, MyBuilder and Rated People can serve as comparison subjects. Check each site's own terms page for the unit it sells, and do not treat the units as equivalent.
Do not compare a subscription that includes profile visibility with a fee for one contact as if both buy the same event. If the units cannot be reconciled, present them as different models.
Define the comparison first
- Write the buyer decision
- Define the unit
- Set geography, category, date
- List exclusions
- Name owner and recheck
Build an identity record with limits
- Save the legal name, company number and filing date where relevant.
- Link the current first-party product, terms and privacy pages separately.
- Distinguish the operator from a trading name, group company or third-party supplier.
- Record a page's own geography instead of assuming an England service.
Terms and privacy pages are typically linked in the site footer and in the sign-up or checkout flow. The company number usually sits in the footer or on the terms page itself.
Companies House warns that information appears on the register in good faith and publication does not mean it was verified or validated. Treat the register as an identity and filing source, not proof of ownership claims, service quality, permission or solvency.
Build the identity record
- Save legal name and company number
- Link product, terms, privacy pages
- Separate operator from trading name
- Record the page's own geography
Capture claims without endorsing them
- Copy the exact proposition into the evidence ledger with its URL and date.
- Label provider descriptions as first-party claims.
- Note qualifiers, eligibility, exclusions and the event being promised.
- Keep testimonials outside independently observed evidence.
- Mark unavailable evidence instead of filling the gap with an inference.
The CAP Executive's current general comparison advice says marketers should hold documentary evidence for comparative claims. Its scope is non-broadcast advertising and the advice is not legal advice. A research spreadsheet may remain private, but any later "better", "cheaper" or market-leading advertisement needs separate qualified substantiation review.
Treat reviews as a separate dataset
- State the review platform, retrieval period and inclusion rule.
- Preserve positive, negative and neutral items under the same rule.
- Do not infer a customer population from self-selected reviewers.
- Identify disclosed incentives and moderation information.
- Avoid quoting a reviewer without a defensible right and purpose.
The CMA's online review-site guidance says sites should publish genuine, relevant and lawful negative as well as positive reviews, explain collection and checking, and disclose commercial relationships. This is a standard for review publishing, not evidence that every visible review is genuine or representative.
Keep personal information out of the shortcut
- Prefer organisation-level product records over named employee profiles.
- Do not scrape contact details merely because a page is public.
- Define the research purpose and minimum fields before collection.
- Restrict access and set deletion dates for any personal information retained.
- Assess direct-marketing rules separately before any outreach.
ICO guidance on collecting information and generating leads says public availability does not remove fairness, lawfulness and transparency duties for personal information used in direct marketing. Competitor analysis is not permission to turn staff names into a prospect list.
Close the ledger against the decision
For every comparison row, retain source, publisher, retrieval time, claim, unit, audience, geography, caveat and reviewer. Mark unknown rather than no when a feature is not documented. A missing public price is not evidence of a high price, and a review count is not market share.
An illustrative completed row looks like this:
| Source | Unit | Date | Caveat |
|---|---|---|---|
| Provider terms page opened from the site footer | One month of profile visibility, not a delivered lead | Retrieved 5 September 2026, no last-updated stamp shown | Visibility is not a delivered lead, so hold it as a separate model from any per-contact fee elsewhere |
Proceed only when another researcher can reproduce the comparison from live records. Pause publication when the basis is confidential, a competitor cannot verify an objective claim, review selection is unclear or personal data was gathered without an approved purpose. Recheck first-party pages and seek advertising, consumer-law, competition and privacy review before external use.
Before you act
- Work through the five section checklists above for one observation date, one owner and one declared purpose.
- Apply the reproduce, pause and review tests from the closed ledger before any external use.
Common questions
What should a lead generation competitor research produce?
A dated record built from first-party pages and public registers, with the retrieval date and the limitation of each source noted so another researcher can reproduce the comparison.
How should Companies House information be treated?
Treat the register as an identity and filing source, not proof of ownership claims, service quality, permission or solvency. Companies House warns that information appears on the register in good faith and publication does not mean it was verified or validated.
What does ICO guidance say about public availability and direct marketing?
ICO guidance says public availability does not remove fairness, lawfulness and transparency duties for personal information used in direct marketing. Competitor analysis is not permission to turn staff names into a prospect list.
