Information doesn’t flow evenly in today’s markets, and this imbalance impacts every decision, from pricing strategies to product development and customer engagement. Some organizations gain a clear edge through stronger market intelligence, while others are left reacting with incomplete visibility. As competition intensifies and data becomes more central to strategy, these gaps are becoming a defining factor in who leads and who lags behind.
To find out what 416,124 opinions of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders in the US were about information asymmetry, we utilized AI-driven audience profiling to synthesize insights from online discussions over 12 months, ending on June 10th, 2026, to a high statistical confidence level. The results show how organizations compete, adapt, and make decisions in the current market.
Index
- For 18% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders, information symmetry is a concept they are aware of but not yet formally addressed, 20% have not yet considered it in their strategy, and it’s not applicable to 22%’s business context; however, it’s a challenge that 19% are trying to overcome, and 21% recognize it as a strategic advantage they’re trying to cultivate
- 29% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders have slightly more access to market intelligence compared to their top competitors, 23% have significantly more access, and 6% have roughly the same access, but 23% have significantly less access, and 18% have slightly less, balancing the ratios out
- 37% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders are extremely confident that their customer insights are more accurate and timely than their key competitors’, 30% are somewhat confident, and 34% are neutral or unsure
- Information asymmetry has a major impact on competitive response and market entry for 12% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders; for 50%, product development and innovation have some impact, and for 38%, the impact is minor
- 72% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders regularly use information advantages to command premium pricing, 20% have not connected pricing decisions to information asymmetry, and 8% occasionally use market intelligence to optimize their organization’s pricing
- To their knowledge, 68% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders’ organizations never lose competitive ground due to their competitors having better market information; however, 23% frequently lose ground quarterly, and 10% do so frequently, on a monthly or more regular basis
- 25% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders’ organizations have a partially formalized approach to managing market intelligence, 23% have a fully formalized approach with a dedicated team and processes, and 23% adopt an ad-hoc project-by-project basis, while another 23% have no defined approach, and 6% have an informal one
- At 49% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders’ organizations, market intelligence has no single owner, while at 33%, the insights or strategy function has ownership, and at 18%, a cross-functional team or committee owns the market intelligence strategy
- 28% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders’ teams are fully aligned with shared goals and workflows, 26% are partially aligned, and 21% are mostly aligned with some friction, but 24% are not aligned at all, and 1% are poorly aligned with significant disconnect
- While insights always drive every campaign decision for 28% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders, and they usually do so for 27%, 46% agree that insights are one of many inputs and only sometimes shape these decisions
- Customer insights almost never go unused at 63% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders’ organizations; however, most insights go unused at 18% of organizations, and 17% agree that many insights don’t reach decision makers, while 2% say some insights are shelved
- 61% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders’ teams can act on new market intelligence within weeks, 5% within days, and 55 within hours, yet 29% lack a defined process for acting on intelligence
- 23% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders use AI tools daily to gather or analyze competitive intelligence, 23% use them weekly, 17% monthly, and 18% rarely, while 19% never use these tools for CI
- 72% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders trust AI insights significantly more than human-led research, 11% trust AI slightly more, 7% trust both equally, and 10% trust human research slightly more
- 1% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders find AI somewhat valuable for predictive analytics and trend forecasting, another 1% find generative AI for insight synthesis and reporting extremely valuable, while 3% find it somewhat so, and 4% find it not very valuable for this purpose, while the remaining 91% are not currently using AI capabilities to reduce information gaps
- Overall, 32% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders’ insight budget is between 25 and 29% for AI-powered tools, 29% have dedicated between 50 and 74%, 14% set aside between 10 and 24%, and 1% – 75% or more of their insight budget, but 22% have less than 10% earmarked for AI
- For 75% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders, a lack of leadership prioritization is a significant barrier to better market intelligence, and 15% cite this as a minor barrier, while 10% feel that a lack of skilled talent or expertise is also a minor barrier for them
- 99% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders have the worst information gaps in B2B vs. B2C crossover audiences, and 1% in emerging or secondary US markets
- 78% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders’ top goal for market intelligence in the next 12 months is to integrate AI tools into their intelligence workflow, which is an important goal for 15%, but less of a focus or priority for 2%, while reducing time-to-insight for faster decision-making is an important goal for 4%
- While 28% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders already have a budget allocated to intelligence capabilities and are extremely likely to invest more this year, and 28% have a budget actively under construction, 29% have not made a decision yet, 9% are unlikely to, and 5% are very unlikely, as this is not a priority this year
- Information asymmetry is becoming a strategic priority
- About the data
How does information asymmetry relate to marketing insights leaders?
For 18% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders, information symmetry is a concept they are aware of but not yet formally addressed, 20% have not yet considered it in their strategy, and it’s not applicable to 22%’s business context; however, it’s a challenge that 19% are trying to overcome, and 21% recognize it as a strategic advantage they’re trying to cultivate.
Relations to roles vary across the board:
Insights, strategy, or marketing leaders have vastly different opinions about how information asymmetry relates to their roles, with 6% of conversations revolving around it being central to their roles but not applicable to their business context. 11% state that information asymmetry is neither a main factor nor is it applicable to their business context, while 5% make it clear that it’s not at all relevant to their role or their business context.
However, information asymmetry is central to the role of 3%, who regard it as a strategic advantage and actively cultivate it. Among the others whose organizations cultivate it as a strategic advantage, 5% indicate it’s somewhat relevant to insights, strategy, or marketing leaders’ roles, 10% state that it’s not a main factor in their role, and 3% say it’s not relevant.
2% explain that, while central to these leaders’ roles, information asymmetry isn’t something they’ve considered in their strategy. 6% regard it as somewhat relevant to their role, even though they haven’t thought about incorporating it into their strategies, and 10% don’t consider it to be a main factor and aren’t using it strategically. 2% agree it’s relevant to neither their role nor their organization’s strategies.
6% acknowledge that information asymmetry is central to their role, and they elaborate that it’s a challenge they’re working to overcome. 13% are in a similar position, although it’s only somewhat relevant to their role; like the previous segment, it’s a segment they’re trying to overcome. The remaining 18% are aware of it as a concept that’s central to their role, although they haven’t formally addressed it.
The growing strategic risk of unequal information
The majority of our audience may not regard information asymmetry as important to their role or their organization’s strategies at the moment, but this is likely to change in the future, as it can distort markets and lead to various inefficiencies, if not market failure.
One study explored signaling and screening as potential solutions, both of which would be relevant to insights, strategy, or marketing leaders. Signaling involves providing detailed, credible information to help bridge gaps that can make it difficult for customers to decide which product to purchase.
Screening can help companies such as insurance providers learn more about their customers through demographic characteristics, historical records, and health conditions, enabling them to predict and assess risks.
What are marketing insights leaders’ organizations’ levels of access to market intelligence compared to competitors?
29% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders have slightly more access to market intelligence compared to their top competitors, 23% have significantly more access, and 6% have roughly the same access, but 23% have significantly less access, and 18% have slightly less, balancing the ratios out.
Access levels swing in different directions:
Given how broad market intelligence is, organizations can use it when making almost any decision, especially those aimed at growing the company by increasing market share, profit, or revenue.
A Greenbook paper states that investing between $40,000 and $150,000 in good market intelligence can save or generate many times that amount through avoiding making bad decisions or generating additional customer revenue. That said, not every organization has the same access to this intelligence.
29% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders’ organizations have slightly more access than their competitors, while 23% have significantly more access. These leaders are likely aware of this because they forecast industry trends accurately, use optimal prices for their products, and accurately anticipate what their competitors will do.
However, another 23% have significantly less access than their competitors, although the situation is less dire for 18% who have slightly less access. These leaders are well aware of how their competitors anticipate their moves, price their products or services better, and outpace them in other ways. The remaining 6% have roughly the same access to market intelligence as their competitors do.
How confident are marketing insights leaders that their customer insights are more accurate than key competitors?
37% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders are extremely confident that their customer insights are more accurate and timely than their key competitors’, 30% are somewhat confident, and 34% are neutral or unsure.
Confidence levels are generally higher:
Customer insights are among the most important for organizations to ensure their offerings are relevant, provided those insights are accurate and up to date. Judging by their online conversations, this seems to be the case for most of our audience.
More than a third (37%) are extremely confident that their customer insights are more accurate and timelier than those of their key competitors. Two ways they can gauge this are by checking customer reviews and interactions with competitors online, and by comparing their offerings with those of competitors.
Although 34% feel neutrally or unsure about the quality of their customer insights compared to those of their competitors, 30% are somewhat confident that their insights are more accurate and timelier than their competitors’.
Which area of business is most affected by information asymmetry for marketing insights leaders?
Information asymmetry has a major impact on competitive response and market entry for 12% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders; for 50%, product development and innovation have some impact, and for 38%, the impact is minor.
Asymmetry’s impact is variable:
50% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders’ conversations focused on information asymmetry having some impact on product development and innovation in their businesses, although 38% suggest their businesses experience only a minor impact in this area. 12% of leaders indicate that information asymmetry has a major impact on their businesses’ competitive response and market entry.
At least some of these leaders may be among those who feel that their competitors have better access to market intelligence or who aren’t confident that their customer insights are more accurate or timelier than their competitors’.
The areas our audience mentions aren’t the only ones affected by information asymmetry. According to Investopedia, transactions that include a buyer and a seller are the most common types of transactions that have asymmetric information. This helps explain why one of the studies we referred to above recommends using signaling and screening to help level the playing field.
How does information asymmetry affect pricing decisions at marketing insights leaders’ organizations?
72% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders regularly use information advantages to command premium pricing, 20% have not connected pricing decisions to information asymmetry, and 8% occasionally use market intelligence to optimize their organization’s pricing.
Pricing decisions are not driven by information asymmetry:
As mentioned, transactions with a buyer and seller are most commonly affected by information asymmetry, and optimized pricing can be an indicator of the quality of an organization’s market intelligence and customer insights.
Of course, this is not to say that information asymmetry’s impact is necessarily negative. 72% of our audience regularly use information advantages to command premium pricing. While this advantage can lead to higher profits, these businesses may need to lower prices if competitors and customers eventually gain access to more symmetrical information.
This can also work the other way. For example, a business or organization that lends money may lend money to a customer who didn’t provide a full or entirely honest explanation of what they wanted the money for. If they had done so, the business may have declined to lend them the money.
As for the rest of our audience, 20% haven’t connected pricing decisions to information asymmetry, which may be due to poor competitor knowledge, a lack of relevant customer insights, or limited access to market intelligence. However, 8% indicate that insights, strategy, or marketing leaders’ organizations occasionally use market intelligence to optimize pricing.
How often do marketing insights leaders’ organizations lose ground to competitors with better market information?
To their knowledge, 68% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders’ organizations never lose competitive ground due to their competitors having better market information; however, 23% frequently lose ground quarterly, and 10% do so frequently, on a monthly or more regular basis.
Losing ground is commonplace, or not known about:
We saw how some insights, strategy, or marketing leaders think their competitors have access to better market information. One of the clearest signs that this is the case is when their organizations lose competitive ground to competitors with better information. However, this isn’t the case for the majority of our audience, as 68% report that, to their knowledge, they’ve never lost competitive ground for this reason.
Unfortunately, losing ground to the competition is a recurring issue for the rest of our audience. 23% point to this happening frequently (quarterly), while 10% state that this happens very frequently (monthly or more).
How formalized is the approach to managing market intelligence at marketing insights leaders’ organizations?
25% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders’ organizations have a partially formalized approach to managing market intelligence, 23% have a fully formalized approach with a dedicated team and processes, and 23% adopt an ad-hoc project-by-project basis, while another 23% have no defined approach, and 6% have an informal one.
Formalized approaches are not the standard approach:
As information asymmetry involves gaps or imbalances in the information possessed by different parties before entering into agreements or transactions, it’s something that organizations can manage formally or informally. Both of these approaches are found among our audience.
25% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders say their organizations have a partially formalized approach with some structured processes, while slightly less than a quarter (23%) say their organizations do not have a defined approach. This may be because they haven’t spent enough time looking at the potential consequences of information asymmetry.
Another 23% describe an ad hoc approach that sees information asymmetry managed on a project-by-project basis. This approach may provide valuable insights if these organizations ever decide to adopt a more formalized, structured way of dealing with this issue. Still another 23% of leaders’ organizations have a fully formalized approach with a dedicated team and processes.
These organizations want to take advantage of situations in which information is imbalanced in their favor while also trying to decrease the imbalance where providers or competitors have the advantage. The remaining 6% adopt an informal approach that relies largely on individual initiative, possibly because while individual employees understand the importance of information asymmetry, the organization does not.
Who owns market intelligence strategy at marketing insights leaders’ organizations?
At 49% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders’ organizations, market intelligence has no single owner, while at 33%, the insights or strategy function has ownership, and at 18%, a cross-functional team or committee owns the market intelligence strategy.
Ownership in organizations is split three ways:
It’s reasonable to assume that, given their roles, insights, strategy, or marketing leaders own the market intelligence strategy in their organizations, but this isn’t necessarily the case. In the organizations of 2%, there’s no single owner. Instead, it’s distributed, with those it’s distributed to being clearly responsible for it. 28% have a similar approach, with those involved likely responsible for it. 8% also say it’s distributed, although those involved only have some involvement. 11% indicate that they’re not responsible, nor are those who are involved in market intelligence strategy.
16% explain that the insights or strategy function, that is themselves and/or colleagues on the same level, are clearly responsible for marketing intelligence strategy in their organization. 15% are less committal, opining that the insights or strategy function is likely responsible. This function has some involvement in the organizations of 2%. According to 14%, a cross-functional team or committee is clearly responsible, although 4% reckon a similar team in their organization is likely responsible.
Cross-functional teams a coup
A cross-functional team or committee may be the way to go when it comes to market intelligence strategy ownership. According to FTR, the greatest benefits of these teams include better decisions, faster problem-solving, greater innovation, stronger market response, and improved alignment between departments.
Building a strong team requires the involvement of several key departments, including sales and business development, marketing, product development, finance, operations and supply chain, customer support, technology and IT, and executive leadership.
How aligned are marketing insights teams at leaders’ organizations?
28% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders’ teams are fully aligned with shared goals and workflows, 26% are partially aligned, and 21% are mostly aligned with some friction, but 24% are not aligned at all, and 1% are poorly aligned with significant disconnect.
Alignment needs some work:
Information asymmetry can also exist within organizations, often in the form of data silos that leave teams unaligned. Only 28% of our audience points to insights and marketing teams that are fully aligned with shared goals and workflows, while 26% indicate teams are partially aligned, with collaboration being inconsistent. The former segment undoubtedly ensures all teams are on the same page, while the latter is still faced with asymmetries that make regular, effective collaboration difficult.
Even though the situation just described is not ideal, it’s still better than it is for the teams of the 24% who reveal that their insights and marketing teams aren’t aligned at all, with teams operating in silos.
21% paint a more encouraging picture, with their teams being mostly aligned, even if they still experience some friction. 1% of conversations were about poorly aligned teams characterized by significant disconnection. This indicates that these teams also operate in silos while their organizations do little to improve things.
How often do insights shape campaign decisions for marketing insights leaders?
While insights always drive every campaign decision for 28% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders, and they usually do so for 27%, 46% agree that insights are one of many inputs and only sometimes shape these decisions.
Campaign decisions are not entirely reliant on insights:
Customer and market insights are among the factors that should inform campaigns if they are to be effective, although this doesn’t always happen, as other elements may carry more weight when some campaigns are being developed.
Insights sometimes shape campaign decisions for 46% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders, who admit that insights are only one of many inputs. 28% have a different appreciation of insights, which they say drive every campaign decision. For 27%, insights usually play a role, as they inform most campaign decisions.
It’s encouraging that everyone in our audience appreciates data insights, even if slightly less than half only use them sometimes when making decisions.
Beyond guiding customers through the sales funnel, this approach also delivers improved brand awareness, greater credibility, and enhanced longevity. If the data incorporated into campaigns isn’t limited to a few obvious statistics, customers come to see those organizations as authorities or experts, rather than as brands merely repeating conjecture or opinions.
How often do customer insights go unused at marketing insights leaders’ organizations?
Customer insights almost never go unused at 63% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders’ organizations; however, most insights go unused at 18% of organizations, and 17% agree that many insights don’t reach decision makers, while 2% say some insights are shelved.
Unused insights are commonplace:
A Harvard Business Review article presents a shocking statistic – between 60% and 73% of all data within an enterprise goes unused for analytics. With this in mind, it’s worth remembering that this average doesn’t necessarily apply to every organization. In fact, 63% of our audience let on that this almost never happens, as insights are consistently activated.
18% would likely agree with HBR, as they say most insights go unused, while 17% wouldn’t be far behind, as many insights frequently don’t reach decision-makers in their organizations. Things are better for the 2%, who explain that this happens occasionally because some insights are shelved. This may be because those insights aren’t applicable to specific projects or campaigns or are out of date.
How quickly can marketing insights leaders’ teams act on new market intelligence?
61% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders’ teams can act on new market intelligence within weeks, 5% within days, and 55 within hours, yet 29% lack a defined process for acting on intelligence.
Not everyone is primed to act:
Above, we mentioned that some organizations may shelve certain insights because they’re outdated. Picking up on that, it’s important that insights, strategy, or marketing leaders’ teams act quickly on new market intelligence for two reasons: the market is constantly evolving, and competition is fierce. In other words, if they snooze, they lose.
61% of our audience’s teams act on new intelligence within weeks. There’s room for improvement there, but it could be worse. It’s certainly better than the 29% that confess to not having a defined process for acting on intelligence. This may help explain why several segments of our audience admit to insights going unused in their organizations. The rest of our audience is decidedly more proactive, with 5% acting on insights within days and the other 5% within hours.
How often do marketing insights leaders use AI tools for competitive intelligence?
23% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders use AI tools daily to gather or analyze competitive intelligence, 23% use them weekly, 17% monthly, and 18% rarely, while 19% never use these tools for CI.
AI use is divided:
A study published in Frontiers in Pharmacology found that AI makes it easier to handle data overload, even in organizations that are short-staffed. By automating workflows, this technology speeds up research and boosts efficiency. It can also decrease evidence synthesis time by more than 50%, which could reduce the workload by over 75% compared to doing things manually.
Despite these benefits, not all insights, strategy, or marketing leaders’ teams use AI tools to gather or analyze competitive intelligence. Only 23% use AI tools for this purpose on a weekly basis, while another 23% use them every day. However, 19% never use AI tools for this, while 18% rarely use them. 17% use AI tools for competitive intelligence gathering and analytics on a monthly basis.
The more-than-a-third of our audience who don’t or rarely use AI tools may be unaware of the benefits they offer, not know how to use these tools for this purpose, or not trust AI.
How much do marketing insights leaders trust AI-generated insights vs. human-led research?
72% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders trust AI insights significantly more than human-led research, 11% trust AI slightly more, 7% trust both equally, and 10% trust human research slightly more.
Trust in AI insights is high:
On the topic of trust in AI, 72% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders trust AI-generated insights significantly more than human-led research, while 11% trust AI insights slightly more than those produced by humans.
The high level of trust in this technology is surprising and stands in contrast to a global study on trust in AI by the University of Melbourne and KPMG, which revealed that more than half of people around the world are unwilling to trust AI. As for the rest of our audience, 10% trust human-led research slightly more than AI, and 7% trust both equally. The latter segments’ opinions may be based on personal experience using AI-generated insights and human-led research, with the results either being better when human-led research was used or comparable to those when AI-generated insights were used.
Which AI capability do marketing insights leaders find most valuable for reducing information gaps?
1% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders find AI somewhat valuable for predictive analytics and trend forecasting, another 1% find generative AI for insight synthesis and reporting extremely valuable, while 3% find it somewhat so, and 4% find it not very valuable for this purpose, while the remiing 91% are not currently using AI capabilities to reduce information gaps.
A lack of AI use for a specific purpose is noted:
McKinsey explains that reasoning enhances AI’s capacity for complex decision-making, allowing models to move beyond basic comprehension to nuanced understanding, with some AI models being better at this than others.
As a result, some AI capabilities are better for reducing information gaps than others. 1% indicate that some insights, strategy, or marketing leaders think AI is extremely valuable for reducing information gaps, although they do not currently use it for this purpose. However, 54% disagree, opining that AI isn’t very valuable in this context, while 36% think it’s not valuable at all. At least some of these leaders may have attempted to use AI for this purpose, only to be disappointed with the results, while others’ negative opinions may reflect mistrust, as mentioned above.
Another 1% indicate that some leaders think generative AI is extremely valuable for insight synthesis and reporting, suggesting they already use it and have seen good results. 3% aren’t far behind, saying generative AI is somewhat valuable for this, although 4% have a lower opinion, thinking that it’s not very valuable. Still another 1% discuss how predictive analytics and trend forecasting are somewhat valuable for reducing information gaps.
What percentage of the budget goes toward AI-powered tools at marketing insights leaders’ organizations?
Overall, 32% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders’ insight budget is between 25 and 29% for AI-powered tools, 29% have dedicated between 50 and 74%, 14% set aside between 10 and 24%, and 1% 75% or more of their insight budget, but 22% have less than 10% earmarked for AI.
Spending on AI isn’t a priority:
Survey data from Deloitte shows technology budgets rising from 8% of revenue in 2024 to 14% in 2025 and increasing by six percentage points each year thereafter. This means organizations should see their digital budgets reach 32% of revenue by 2028. This leads us to wonder what percentage of our audience’s organizations’ insights budget goes toward AI-powered tools.
Among those who mention 25 to 49% of the budget, less than 1% feel it should be the majority of the budget, and 19% think it should be a significant portion. However, 5% say it’s only a small part of the budget, and 8% reckon almost none of the budget is used for AI-powered tools.
Some point to 50 to 74% of the budget, with 15% of them describing this as a significant portion. Others say that, while this would be ideal, only a small part (6%) or almost none (8%) is used for this purpose. Among those who posted about less than 10% of their insights budget, 2% think the majority of the budget should be dedicated to AI-powered tools, while 13% think it should be a significant portion, 7% a small part, and less than 1% almost none.
There were also those who describe 10 to 24% of the budget, 1% believe the majority of the budget should be dedicated to AI-powered tools, and 11% feel a significant portion should be used.
However, 2% weighed in that a small part of the budget should be used. Less than 1% of these discussions assert that almost none of the budget should be used for AI. A significantly smaller number mentions 75% or more of the insights budget, with these leaders either saying a significant portion (1%) or a small part (less than 1%) should be dedicated to AI.
What is the biggest barrier to better market intelligence for marketing insights leaders?
For 75% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders, a lack of leadership prioritization is a significant barrier to better market intelligence, and 15% cite this as a minor barrier, while 10% feel that a lack of skilled talent or expertise is also a minor barrier for them.
Two main barriers emerge:
We saw how more than a third of our audience have slightly or significantly less access to market intelligence than their competitors. Taking a closer look, we found that 75% of their discussions online point to a lack of leadership prioritization being a significant barrier to better market intelligence, which tells us they’ve struggled to get sign-off for better tools or resources.
However, 15% think this is only a minor barrier. A lack of skilled talent or expertise is mentioned as a minor barrier in the remaining 10% of discussions. This indicates that they or others in their organizations have tried unsuccessfully to improve their access to better intelligence and were unable to do so.
Which region or segment has the worst information gaps for marketing insights leaders?
99% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders have the worst information gaps in B2B vs. B2C crossover audiences, and 1% in emerging or secondary US markets.
One segment has the biggest info gap by far:
The overwhelming majority (99%) of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders’ conversations about the region or segment with the worst information gaps mention B2B vs. B2C crossover audiences.
This isn’t unexpected, given what we’ve already seen about the most common types of transactions with information asymmetry. The remaining 1% indicate that emerging or secondary US markets have the worst information gaps.
What is the top goal for market intelligence for marketing insights leaders?
78% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders’ top goal for market intelligence in the next 12 months is to integrate AI tools into their intelligence workflow, which is an important goal for 15%, but less of a docs or priority for 2%, while reducing time-to-insight for faster decision-making is an important goal for 4%.
One goal stands out:
78% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders make it clear that integrating AI tools into their intelligence workflow is a top priority for market intelligence in the next 12 months. However, not everyone feels quite the same way, regarding this as either an important goal (15%), not a main focus (1%), or not a priority at all (2%). 4% indicate that reducing time-to-insight for faster decision-making is an important goal.
Interestingly, an EY AI pulse survey revealed that 96% of AI-investing organizations now report AI-driven productivity gains over the past year, and 57% are seeing significant AI-driven productivity gains. Those currently investing at least $10 million in AI are far more likely to see significant AI-driven productivity gains (71% vs. 52% for those investing less than $10 million), suggesting a link between scale and results.
Are marketing insights leaders likely to invest more in intelligence capabilities this year?
While 28% of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders already have a budget allocated to intelligence capabilities and are extremely likely to invest more this year, and 28% have a budget actively under construction, 29% have not made a decision yet, 9% are unlikely to, and 5% are very unlikely, as this is not a priority this year.
Investing in intelligence isn’t always a priority:
When it comes to the likelihood of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders investing more in intelligence capabilities this year, sentiment varies widely. 29% are currently neutral, as no decision has been made yet, while 28% are extremely likely, with budget already having been allocated for this.
Another 28% are likely to invest, with this option being actively under consideration. 9% are unlikely to invest more in intelligence capabilities due to budget constraints, while 5% are very unlikely to do so, as it’s not a priority in their organizations this year.
Information asymmetry is becoming a strategic priority
These opinions show that information asymmetry is continuing to influence how insights, strategy, and marketing leaders approach decision-making, pricing, and competitive positioning. While awareness and adoption vary, organizations rarely operate with fully balanced information.
As markets become more complex and data-driven, managing these gaps is increasingly important. Businesses are turning to market intelligence systems, stronger internal alignment, and AI tools to reduce uncertainty and improve decisions. Approaches like signaling and screening also help bridge information gaps by improving transparency and data quality.
Ultimately, managing information asymmetry is becoming a crucial factor in maintaining a competitive edge in today’s markets.
About the data
Sourced using Artios from an independent sample of 416,124 opinions of insights, strategy, or marketing leaders in the USA across X, Quora, Reddit, Bluesky, TikTok, and Threads. Responses are collected within a 95% confidence interval and 5% margin of error. Results are derived from what people describe online, from opinions expressed, not actual questions answered by people in the sample.