¡°¾î·Á¿î °æÁ¦Çö½Ç°ú °æÀï½ÉÈ·Î ÀÎÇØ ¸¶ÄÏ ÀÎÅÚ¸®Àü½º°¡ ÀÌÁ¦ ±â¾÷ÀÇ Áß¿äÇÑ ±â´ÉÀ¸·Î¼ ÀÚ¸®¸Å±èÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù´Â ºÐ¸íÇÑ Æ®·»µå°¡ º¸ÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ÀÌÁ¦ ±â¾÷µéÀº ½Å·ÚÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ÀÚ¹®¿ªÀ¸·Î¼ÀÇ ¸¶ÄÏ ÀÎÅÚ¸®Àü½º ÆÀÀÌ ±â¾÷ÀÌ ½ÃÀ庸´Ù ºü¸£°Ô ¼ºÀåÇϵµ·Ï µµ¿ï ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù´Â Á¡À» ÀνÄÇÏ°í ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. ÀÌ·¯ÇÑ Ãß¼¼´Â ¾ÕÀ¸·Îµµ Áö¼ÓµÉ °ÍÀÔ´Ï´Ù.¡± -¿ä½ºÆ® µå¸®¸¸, GIA ºÎ»çÀå
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:namespace prefix = "o" />
The 2013 Global Market Intelligence Survey measures the state of market intelligence in over 880 companies from 21 separate industries and 64 different countries. Over 1,200 decision makers and market intelligence managers responded to the survey, making it the largest study on market intelligence to date.
The analysis is broken into three main sections. The first section highlights the state of market intelligence (MI) in 2013 in terms of the efficiency of and resources dedicated to MI compared to 2011. The second analyzes trends among World Class Market Intelligence functions and the third section investigates key differences between MI programs in B2B and B2C companies.
Key findings: Market intelligence is conducted more efficiently in global companies compared to 2011. 80% say investments in market intelligence have paid off.
l In relative terms, decision-making is 15% more efficient in companies that have a market intelligence function in place, compared to those without.
l Returns on investment (ROI) from market intelligence is becoming more apparent; 80% of all companies say that investments in market intelligence have paid-off, an increase of 2% since 2011.
l The average size of market intelligence teams has been reduced by one person to 12 people since 2011. However, the number of contributors to MI has risen by 15% to 109 people.
l The average MI budget for projects and services has increased 53% to ¢æ 1.6 million / $ 2.1 million since 2011. However, 50% of all companies spend only ¢æ 150,000 / $ 195,000 or less.
Key findings: Companies with World Class Market Intelligence functions are expanding their teams and operate with both centralized (in-house) and outsourced services to better serve needs throughout their organizations.
l Companies with World Class Market Intelligence functions are adopting a two-pronged approach to MI, where a larger central MI team serves top management, while the rest of the organization is served through a greater use of outsourced market intelligence services.
l Companies with World Class Market Intelligence operations have enlarged their central market intelligence teams by 5 people to 18 people on average.
l Companies with World Class MI have increased their use of outsourcing for MI deliverables from 13% to 18% since 2011.
l The proportion of MI deliverables directed towards top management has grown from 38% to 46% in companies with World Class MI.
Key findings: Market intelligence teams in B2B companies are closer to their top management, and operate with 20% of the budgets that B2C companies enjoy
l The average B2B company employs 12 people in market intelligence, 2 people more than in the average B2C company.
l B2B companies serve their top management 5% more often than B2C companies and spend 6% more of their time on ad-hoc market intelligence requests.
l The average B2C company outsources more MI work and operates with four times the MI budget of a typical B2B company (¢æ 4,2 million vs. ¢æ 0.8 million).
Key findings: Industry comparisons show that large budgets are no guarantee for more advanced market intelligence functions or higher ROI
l Market intelligence is most advanced in Media and Entertainment companies but interestingly, that is also where the perceived return on investment (ROI) is the lowest.
l The highest perceived ROI for market intelligence is instead in the Environment and Renewables industry, where budgets are slightly higher.
l Large budgets however, are no guarantee for advanced market intelligence functions. For example, Medical Devices and Healthcare companies spend significantly more on market intelligence every year than companies in other industries, yet their market intelligence programs are the fourth least advanced of all industries in the study.