TL;DR
Many marketing reports are fluff disguised as research. The biggest red flag? Headline numbers showing spectacular results without providing methodology, data sources, or context. This is especially true when basic averages are used without indicators of the spread of the data. Averages don't mean typical, especially in marketing where data is rarely normally distributed, or in reports with small or specific samples. Before trusting any report, demand transparency: methodology, sample details, data spread, and discussion of limitations. Use multiple sources to identify patterns, but never substitute benchmarks for your own testing. Stay skeptical, ask better questions, and build strategies on solid ground rather than marketing spin.
Marketing reports are everywhere. LinkedIn feeds overflow with white papers promising game-changing insights. Email inboxes collect "research" from every vendor under the sun. But there’s a problem: most of these reports are marketing disguised as research, and the average marketer doesn't have the tools to tell the difference.
As marketers juggling content creation, ad spend, creator partnerships, and everything else, it's tempting to grab onto any data point to validate our strategies. But "numbers don't lie" is one of the most dangerous phrases in marketing, because numbers absolutely do lie when they're misrepresented.
The red flag that should make you run: averages without context
The most common red flag in any marketing report? Headline results built on averages without methodology, citations, or discussion of limitations.
Here's why averages are so misleading: intuitively, we tend to think of an average as the ‘typical’ result, or the middle of a normal distribution (think bell curve). But most marketing metrics don't work that way. Take conversion rates - many websites have relatively low aggregate conversion rates, with a small few having very large conversion rates. This is because each website or brand has its own mix of traffic sources, market dynamics and mental availability. If a report claims companies saw "20% lift on average," that could mean two companies out of 200 saw massive gains while everyone else saw zero. The average would still be 20%, but it wouldn't represent anyone's typical experience, just a handful of outliers.
Average does not mean typical.
What to look for in credible marketing research
Before trusting any report, demand answers to these questions:
Where did this data come from? Was the sample relevant to your industry? A B2B marketer probably shouldn't base decisions on CPG branding research, no matter how compelling the headlines.
What's the methodology? Credible research includes detailed methodology sections explaining how data was collected, what assumptions were made, and what limitations exist.
What's the spread of the data? Look for standard deviation or discussion of data distribution. If there's a wide spread, that "benchmark" might be meaningless for your situation.
Are there citations and discussion sections? Legitimate research acknowledges caveats and limitations. If a report only presents rosy conclusions without discussing what could go wrong, it's marketing material, not research.
The benchmarking trap
Benchmarking reports are particularly problematic because they rarely provide context about the underlying distribution. When a report says "average click-through rate is X%," you don't know if that's skewed by a few massive brands with high mental availability, or heavily influenced by bottom-of-funnel campaigns with naturally higher performance.
Consider two companies: one spends 80% of their budget on branded search (naturally high click-through rates), another spends 5% on branded search and focuses on display advertising. Their average click-through rates will be drastically different, but which one is performing better? You can't tell without understanding the media mix behind those numbers.
What you can actually take from marketing reports
This doesn't mean all marketing reports are worthless. Here's how to extract value:
Look for transparency. If a report includes sample details, methodology, and acknowledges limitations, it's worth considering—even if the headline numbers don't directly apply to your situation.
Seek patterns across multiple sources. One white paper means nothing. Multiple independent reports pointing in the same direction? That's evidence worth considering.
Demand supplemental information. Many vendors will provide additional methodology details if you ask. Companies willing to share this information are demonstrating good faith in their research.
Use reports as inspiration, not gospel. Even the best research should inform your testing strategy, not replace it.
Test everything for your own marketing program
Here's the bottom line: no benchmark or industry average can replace testing in your own environment. A startup's metrics will look completely different from an established brand's because they're playing different games—one is capturing market share, the other is defending it.
Instead of chasing benchmarks, focus on what actually moves the needle for your marketing program. Test as much as you can. Build your own understanding of what works in your specific situation.
The path forward
The solution isn't to abandon all marketing research, it's to get better at evaluating it. Stay skeptical. Ask "why" and "how" more often. Demand transparency from vendors and partners.
Most importantly, remember that the goal isn't to find data that confirms what you want to believe. It's to find reliable information that helps you make better decisions. Sometimes that means discarding reports that look compelling on the surface but fall apart under scrutiny.
Marketing has enough real challenges without basing decisions on bad data. Cut through the euphemistic crap, demand substance over spin, and build your strategies on solid ground.
Eric Sloan
